Livonia Rep. Thaddeus McCotter told The Detroit News this afternoon that he is leaving the race for the Republican presidential nomination.
McCotter says he will give his support to former Massachussetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and will likely run again for the 11th District congressional seat he’s held since 2003.
McCotter began his long-shot bid for the White House in July, billing himself as the voice for a new generation of conservatives. He campaigned on a dramatic reform of Social Security, and a tougher approach to dealings with China.
However, in June McCotter called Romney Obama’s de facto running mate and in fact, the news of the endorsement sits right above the most recent news item about McCotter on FoxNews.com which was this very criticism leveled against the candidate he now champions.
Quotas are not conservative. They are an inept or intellectually lazy means of assessment. If people are not committing crimes, we shouldn’t arrest folks just to meet a quota. And when everyone has a job, we don’t need to prioritize job creation or criticize the leader for “failing to create jobs.”
At the end of Mitt Romney’s term as Governor, MA had a healthy unemployment rate of 4.7 (below 4 becomes unhealthy). There was no job problem, and no need for an artificial “fix.” When Romney took office, the state faced a massive budget problem, which Romney successfully solved.
So why does Rick Perry point out that Romney didn’t create many jobs? Because many people are confused. We are now in a jobs crisis, nationally, and people are thinking in terms of the need to create jobs.
The only way MA could have created more jobs under Romney is if the population in MA had increased. But MA is the third most densely populated state, right behind RI and NJ. Texas has 26 times the area of MA. That means, unlike MA, Texas has room for sprawl (which it has seen in excess) – meaning cheap land for people as well as businesses building stores and factories, equaling jobs.
Logistically, TX is a frontier. And because of its central placement, temperate climate and sophisticated urban variety, it is a hub. Combine this with its conservative laws (pre-dating Rick Perry) and built-in natural resources, and Texas is an obvious place for people to move.
Still, as Mitt Romney pointed out, a much higher percentage of jobs were created in TX under both Richards and Bush than under Perry. This may indicate that suburban TX is finally beginning to see some saturation after the massive population increase of the last 20 years.
The bottom line is that Texas has had room for bringing in new people. MA population has seen little change in 20 years, while TX has had a 40% increase in population over that same period. While Perry would like to take credit for job growth, especially since the recession, recent growth has been demonstrably chaotic rather than ordered. Just as Babe Ruth hit more home runs than anyone else but also struck out more than anyone else, when people have taken their savings and moved to Texas in the last 3 years, they have naturally generated some jobs but also been left with a lot of unemployment.
To illustrate the chaos which Perry takes credit for, consider that a year ago MA and TX had the same unemployment rate, 8.2% (Sept. ’10). Now, MA is down to 7.6 and TX is up to 8.4. Is this the result of Perry’s careful planning and micromanagement? If so, he has failed. If not, he should stop pretending to assume credit for the jobs situation in Texas.
A simple misunderstanding and lack of communication could be standing between Mitt Romney and a host of conservatives, including Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and a large majority of tea party supporters.
These conservatives want Romney to say that his health care plan in MA was a mistake. By this, they mean that the mandate is a problem. But let’s look at what exactly constitutes the mandate: If someone does not acquire health insurance, they are required to pay a penalty. That is the mandate.
Now here’s the game changer. Romney has said that if he could go back and do it over again, he would do some things differently. Several months ago, Romney specifically said that if he could do it over again he would not have the penalty but would instead give a tax credit to those who acquire insurance. The distinction here is critical, because this approach does not require action on anyone’s part. It is not a mandate, but a reward. Moreover, it is a justifiable reward because the state was footing the bill for uninsured hospital patients, and therefore when someone acquires health insurance they are removing a costly liability from the state.
The bottom line is that Romney is not standing by the mandate. He would take out the mandate and replace it, if he could. This is what his critics have demanded. He has met their demand, and no one even realized it.
Additionally, Romney has stated that he would make other changes if he could. Romneycare has not been as cost effective as he wanted, due to clauses which passed by veto override and additional changes which MA liberals have imposed since Romney left office.
There are two great risks to a Ryan candidacy. One: He’ll succeed in turning the focus of the primaries from economic growth to entitlement reform. We can argue about whether that’s a good thing — although Americans care much more about the former than the latter, it may be that this conversation simply can’t wait another moment — but if the party ends up with Ryan’s agenda, it had sure better have Ryan as its nominee too. The worst outcome would be if he shifts the discussion but then ends up losing the nomination, leaving the nominee stuck having to champion Ryan’s goals albeit less effectively than Ryan himself would/could do. And two: A run risks destroying Ryan’s brand. If he jumps in and gets Pawlenty’d in Iowa and New Hampshire, he goes back to D.C. knowing that his reform agenda was rejected even by ardent Republican voters. That would cripple him on the Hill; even if the GOP cleaned up on election day, a new Republican Congress would suddenly be reluctant to pass his budget. He’s taking a big risk on a very long longshot and it could end up setting back not just his political career but his cause.
Beyond that, where’s he getting the money to compete with Bachmann in Iowa, Romney in New Hampshire, and Perry in South Carolina? Having lots of prominent Republican pols behind him will help but more big donors are spoken for with each passing day. His best chance to mount a major campaign, I think, would be if both Daniels and Haley Barbour backed him, which would open up Bush contacts to him on Daniels’s side and RGA donors on Barbour’s end. That could swing parts of the larger GOP establishment from Romney to Ryan, but since the establishment prizes electability as a bottom line, I’m not sure even that would do it. Who’s more electable: Sixtysomething former governor Mitt Romney and his message of jobs and economic growth or fortysomething-going-on-25 congressman Paul Ryan and his message of overhauling grandma’s benefits (which of course isn’t actually his message)? I can kind of see how Ryan would beat Romney in New Hampshire if he rounded up well-heeled donors quickly. Where else does he win, though? How does he beat Perry and Texas’s sterling job numbers? Explain, please. I’d genuinely love to see a path to victory.
Mitt Romney looking cool in Iowa. dude just walks up like “sup dawg. you got a little live shot goin on? lemme get in on summa this” He came off as relaxed and cool and Carl did as well, jumping right back into his exchange with Shepherd Smith back in studio.
The family of Jon Huntsman, recently announced GOP presidential contender, donated $25,000 to Democrat Harry Reid’s campaign in the last election cycle, bringing context to why Reid is so fond of Huntsman.
[M]any members of the newly minted presidential candidate’s family, including his parents, chose Reid in the most important U.S. Senate race in the country last cycle. Indeed, the Huntsmans have long been Reid supporters, although the former governor, who is scheduled to be be in Nevada on Friday, has never given directly to Reid’s Senate campaigns.
But his parents and a couple of his brothers (Peter, James) and some in-laws have. And his Dad even helped the Nevada Democratic Party ($5,000) in 2008. I’m told Reid has known the senior Huntsman since the 1990s and is friendly with the son, too. …
Huntsman responded on [T]witter to this report: “I’ve never donated a dime to @HarryReid and wouldn’t. My record in Utah balancing budgets very different from his.”
Presidential primaries have a purpose. They test the candidates’ ability to face the opposition in the general election. Whatever is thrown at you by your own team usually pales in comparison to the abuse you receive from your opponents. Unfortunately, what some Republicans are throwing at Mitt Romney, last Monday’s Republican debate notwithstanding, is way off base.
Romney is receiving criticism principally on his efforts to reform the health insurance system in Massachusetts while he was Governor. By now, Romney has refined his response without pointing fingers at his successor, liberal Democrat Deval Patrick, who enacted changes that made the program far more costly and less effective. All of this reproof is pointless because Romney has no intention of replicating it on a federal level, nor would he have to appease a legislature overwhelmingly comprised of left-wing Democrats.
Mr. Romney has clearly stated that he will order his Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue exemptions from ObamaCare to all fifty states; meaning that the only individuals subject to this horribly misguided legislation and its crushing regulations will be the residents of Washington D.C. Frankly, that’s quite fitting. He’s also confirmed that he fully intends to work toward repeal of ObamaCare. What more can you ask of the man?
Romney is also accused with being short on charisma. Are we electing a President or head television huckster? We’ve already elected a hollow orator, but he’s a little short on the more vital Presidential qualities — starting with leadership. Romney has been proven to be an effective leader in both private industry and the public arena. For example,he averted a major national embarrassment by stepping in to professionally manage the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics. He not only administered operations of the Olympics, but tactfully and sensitively worked with both the international community and the IOC. America needs an experienced leader who can get things done — not just smile and hope.
Some critics dismiss him because of his unsuccessful candidacy in 2008. It brings to memory Ronald Reagan, who spent the years 1976 to 1979 gathering support for his 1980 Presidential run. Like Reagan, Romney has spent the past three years building relationships, supporting other Republican candidates, and raising money – all in preparation for his formal announcement. This is the tried and true path to the White House. When we select inexperienced newcomers, we often end up with failures such as Carter and …
Republicans yearn for another Reagan. Alas, there will never be another Reagan any more than there will be another John Wayne, Babe Ruth or Marilyn Monroe. But Romney provides something that no other Republican candidate can deliver. He can dismantle Obama without offending voters. He reeks of nice. When Reagan destroyed Carter, he reeked of nice. There was no nasty side to Reagan and there’s no nasty side to Romney. Swing voters like that — a lot[...]
Last year, when President Obama was pushing for ratification of his New START nuclear-arms treaty with Russia, I was reminded of a simple maxim: When you give something, you’re supposed to get something. But New START, as I wrote in the Washington Post, handed the Russians deep reductions in our nuclear capabilities in return for essentially nothing.
The Obama administration claimed at the time that the treaty was an excellent deal. This claim has been proven false. A new official accounting performed by the State Department acknowledges that the number of launchers and warheads in Russia’s nuclear arsenal was already below New START’s limitations when the treaty took effect, while the U.S. arsenal was well above them. In short: We’re the ones who now have to give, while Russia gets.
In agreeing to START, President Obama squandered an opportunity to extract a number of concessions from the Russians that would have advanced U.S. interests. He could have pressed for meaningful reductions not only in Russia’s strategic nuclear arsenal, but also in its tactical nuclear force, which outnumbers ours by an overwhelming margin. He could have tried to elicit Russian help in dealing with North Korea and Iran’s nuclear ambitions. But instead he frittered away American bargaining chips and got nothing in return.
Unfortunately, that’s become a bit of a pattern. Before signing New START, he abruptly abandoned our Europe-based missile-defense program as part of his “reset” policy with Russia, leaving Poland and the Czech Republic in the lurch. In return? Nothing. He’s been pressing Israel for concessions to the Palestinians on settlements and borders even before negotiations between them begin. In return? Nothing.
There’s a price to be paid for inexperience in the White house. We are paying it.
Be the First to Comment 
