The Patriot Post® · Memo to Mitt From Grassroots Americans
The upcoming presidential debates have the potential to move more independent voters into your column – but your campaign has yet to embrace messages that will draw moderate grassroots Americans to your side of the ledger.
This “Memo” was prepared and delivered to your communications director, but I have concerns that it will not get through the gauntlet of your campaign hacks, who are certain they already have the victory formula. At present, you most assuredly have not connected with enough moderate grassroots folks to defeat Obama – not because you don’t genuinely care about Americans from all walks of life, but because your staff is top-heavy with politicos who, themselves, have little or no grassroots grounding.
In order to close the biggest deal you have ever negotiated, I have a few suggestions to help you better understand what millions of grassroots Americans most want to hear from you.
Taxes and Debt:
On taxes, note that while Obama has sought to divide America with his race- and class-warfare rhetoric, the Romney-Ryan ticket will reunite America to restore Essential Liberty in this Land of Opportunity. As soon as Obama starts his classist rhetoric on taxing the rich, respond by highlighting the “Obama Tax”: Median household income has declined by $4,520 (8.2 percent) across the board since this president took office. That’s the Obama Tax, and you can paste it on his forehead! Hammer Obama when he asks, “Are we going to double-down on the top-down economic policies that helped to get us into this mess? Or do we embrace a new economic patriotism?” ECONOMIC PATRIOTISM?
For the record, when Obama became a Senator in 2005, he listed his net worth as $328,442. Now in his fourth year was POTUS, Obama’s net worth is $11.8 million. Apparently, “public service” does pay! He accuses you of being greedy, but the fact is class warfare is rooted in greed.
Regarding the National Debt, in 2006, then-Sen. Obama protested: “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.” On April 15, 2011 (Income Redistribution Day), when confronted with that comment, Obama said, “I think that it’s important to understand the vantage point of a senator versus the vantage point of a president. When you’re a senator, traditionally what’s happened is, this is always a lousy vote. Nobody likes to be tagged as having increased the debt limit – for the United States by a trillion dollars. As president, you start realizing, you know what, we, we can’t play around with this stuff. This is the full faith and credit of the United States. And so that was just an example of a new senator making what is a political vote as opposed to doing what was important for the country. And I’m the first one to acknowledge it.”
On taxes and debt, Obama can’t be trusted.
QUOTE: “The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.” –Thomas Jefferson
(Read up on that here: Socialism v Free Enterprise)
Obama’s ‘Blame Bush’ routine:
Obama’s re-election prospects depend entirely on his ability to deceive a majority of Americans with the same old blame-shifting blather that he used to dupe them in 2008: “It’s Bush’s fault.” Obama can’t effectively focus his campaign on the textbook pillars of socialist propaganda – race and economic disparity – if he has to spend airtime defending his ruinous economic policies. To that end, in the first debate Obama repeatedly invoked his now-familiar refrain about the financial crisis he “inherited”: “When I walked into the Oval Office, I had more than a trillion-dollar deficit greeting me. And we know where it came from…”
Well, yes we do. It’s true that the economy Obama inherited wasn’t the solid recovery that began some months after 9/11 under President George W. Bush and his Republican Congress. Instead, it was the gravely weakened economy of Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Harry Reid (D-NV) and their Democrat congressional majorities in both houses. On January 3, 2007, the date that the Democrat-controlled 110th Congress took office after a record 52 months of job growth accelerated by Bush administration tax cuts, unemployment was at 4.6 percent, and the economy was growing at three times the current rate.
Tell Obama, “On my first day in office, I will accept full responsibility for the condition of our nation’s economy. I will not make excuses about the "mess I inherited,” and I will set about restoring the foundation of economic growth – free enterprise, lower taxes and lower regulations.
Obama can’t be trusted to take responsibility.
QUOTE: “[The President] is the dignified, but accountable magistrate of a free and great people.” –James Wilson
(Read up on that here: Who Inherited What from Whom?)
Obama talks a lot about how “we created jobs” but government does not create jobs, government impedes job growth. He will insist that the latest jobs numbers support his economic plan – “We found out the unemployment rate fell to its lowest rate since I took office. It’s a reminder this country has come too far to turn back now.” Respond as follows: “Yes, the Obama administration’s Department of Labor did report that, according to a survey, the unemployment rate dropped from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent. The problem with this report, a survey of only 0.6 percent of U.S. households, is that the anomalous drop starkly contradicted much more reliable economic data, including a payroll survey of 30 percent of employers (indicating no change), and the economic growth measure of GDP (revised downward). If jobs numbers are really improving, it’s because of underemployment and the fact that millions of Americans have simply stopped looking for work. Any improvement in our economy is a testament to the vitality of free enterprise, despite Obama’s so-called "economic plan.”
If Obama attempts to back up the Labor report by citing another Labor report that the Leftmedia proclaims is evidence that the 7.8 percent figure is accurate – a DoL report noting that weekly jobless claims dropped by 30,000 to a mere 364,000 new unemployment claims, lower than it was when Obama was elected – remind Obama about some fine print in the DoL data: “One large state didn’t report some quarterly figures.” That “one large state” would happen to be the nation’s largest state, California, and a DoL analyst concluded that the “missing figures” account for most of the decline. In other words, there was little or no decline in new jobless claims. But who reads the fine print anyway?
On the economy, Obama can’t be trusted.
QUOTE: “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” –John Adams
(Read up on that here: Obfuscation and Diversion)
The ‘47 percent’:
Many commentators wondered why, during the first debate, Obama didn’t hammer you on your surreptitiously recorded remark about the “47 percent who pay no taxes” being dependent upon government. Biden mentioned this with Ryan, and Ryan responded, “I think the vice president very well knows that sometimes the words don’t come out of your mouth the right way.”
Clearly, just because someone pays no taxes does not mean they are dependent on government, and I know that is not what you meant to imply. Thus, you must reframe your comment and put this monkey on Obama’s back by noting first that while your citation of the percentage of Americans who pay no federal income taxes was in fact correct, it also coincides with Obama’s current support in the polls – and that was the basis for your misstatement on government dependence.
Restate your case: The fact is that 30-35 percent of Obama’s most fervent constituent support is composed of those who are now culturally, if not irrevocably, dependent upon a plethora of government subsidies. (Be sure to note, too, that you’re not talking about “earned entitlements” like Social Security.) Those subsidies are graft for buying votes.
Quote avowed socialist George Bernard Shaw, who smugly declared at the turn of the 20th century that redistributed wealth can buy elections: “A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.”
Then clearly make this point: “I suspect that the real reason you objected to my remark is that you believe 100 percent of Americans are dependent on government, as you made plain in your now-infamous assertion, ‘You didn’t build that. Somebody else [read: "government”] made that happen.’ The Democrat plan envisions that all Americans would be enslaved on the government plantation.“
Obama can’t be trusted with "spreading the wealth around.”
QUOTE: “Repeal that [welfare] law, and … industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them.” –Benjamin Franklin
(Read up on that here: ObamaNation Plantation)
Don’t rehash this whole issue – your response to those ridiculous Obama ads worked: “The president spent the last week talking about saving Big Bird. I actually think we need to have a president who talks about saving the American people and saving good jobs.” But don’t leave it there. Insist that you believe it’s more important to fund our men and women in uniform who stand ready to defend our country – funding that’s actually authorized by our Constitution. Obama is prepared to gut our military. Remind the American people that Congress is authorized to collect taxes for very specific expenses, not the out-of-control welfare state that Obama seeks.
On preventing wasteful expenditures from the national treasury, Obama can’t be trusted.
QUOTE: “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.” –James Madison
National Security and Foreign Policy:
In your first debate with Obama on October 3, there was no mention of Benghazi, al-Qa'ida or terrorism, though you did note, “What’s happening in the Middle East, there are developments around the world that are of real concern.”
Some of the 24-hour news recyclers are asking question about the Benghazi, Libya attack, but have yet to ask the right questions. You must make the case that the reason Obama is obfuscating the facts on who attacked and killed our Ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi, is to maintain his campaign theme charade that “al-Qa'ida is on the run.” Obama obviously can’t run on his domestic policy failures, so he has centered his campaign on “victory” in Iraq and defeat of al-Qa'ida – both of which are lies. Obama and Hillary Clinton fabricated and propagated the false narrative about the Benghazi attack being the result of protests over a web video, knowing full well that it was actually a well-executed al-Qa'ida terrorist assault. This obfuscation clearly was, and remains, a political calculation in advance of his reelection, to sustain the facade that Obama is a “statesman” and wise Commander in Chief.
The reality is, al-Qa'ida cells around the world are alive and well, and their ultimate objective remains to disable the U.S. economy (as they temporarily did on 9/11), in order to undermine our political, military and cultural support for Liberty around the world. Al-Qa'ida’s ultimate goal is to obtain several low-tech nuke devices from one of their terrorist state sponsors (Iran), and fulfill OBL’s “American Hiroshima” directive by detonating those devices, most likely in the harbors of East Coast urban centers. And Obama’s order that we retreat from Iraq without leaving a residual force there, so he could keep his campaign promise, “I ended the war in Iraq,” will create mayhem in the region.
Don’t get mired in the minutiae of who knew what and when in Libya. The real issue regarding our foreign policy in the Middle East and elsewhere is Obama’s appeasement of our enemies – from the “apology tour” after his election, to his smirking snubs of our most significant ally in the Middle East, Israel. Focus on the grievous failure of Obama’s foreign policy overall and the fact that al-Qa'ida is a clear and present danger.
Additionally, Obama’s politically timed announcement of Osama’s death in Operation Neptune Spear greatly undermined our ability to act on all the intelligence gathered in that raid. The flood of administration intelligence “leaks” since is the subject of a bold new video from Special Forces operators, condemning Obama for endangering American military personnel. (An Obama operative called the SEALs’ criticism “gutless.”)
Oh, and Obama snuck in a reference to the “47 percent” video in his closing remarks after the second debate. Highlight Obama’s remarks, caught on tape, to then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev about watering down our national security: “After my election I will have more flexibility.” Medvedev responded, “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.” That would be current Russian President Vladimir Putin. Whose side is Obama on?
Make the case that Obama can’t be trusted to do what is necessary to protect our national interests. Then shift the conversation back to the economy by noting that al-Qa'ida is not the greatest threat to our national security; Obama, Senate Democrats, and the crushing burden of our national debt the have dumped on our nation is the greatest threat. It’s time for a president who will work with Congress to solve the debt crisis, not grow it.
QUOTE: “National defense is one of the cardinal duties of a statesman.” –John Adams
(Foreign Affairs Footnote: There are still three weeks for a diversionary “October Surprise” to bolster Obama’s stature as a “foreign policy president.” Expect a “rice-paper” (easily dissolvable) agreement from Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, puppet of Ali Khamenei, promising new negotiations on their uranium enrichment plans. Additionally, expect BO to drop a few 500 pounders on some peasant villages in Libya and claim direct hits against those who attacked our embassy – since the diversionary 500 pounder they dropped on that anti-Islamic web video did not suffice.)
Obama claims, “We’re a nation that believes in the Second Amendment, and I believe in the Second Amendment. We’ve got a long tradition of hunting and sportsmen and people who want to make sure they can protect themselves.” For the record, the Second Amendment is NOT about “a long tradition of hunting,” unless you’re talking about hunting down those who offend Liberty, and it’s about much more than “making sure people can protect themselves.”
The Second Amendment is about the ability of the people to throw off a government that becomes antithetical to Liberty. And make no mistake, implicit in the assurance of “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed” is the right to keep and bear arms that will serve that purpose, including those so-called “assault rifles” which are responsible a very tiny fraction of murders in the U.S., and most of those, gang-bangers who, yes, don’t obey gun laws.
Obama most certainly can’t be trusted when it comes to abiding by his oath to “support and defend” our Constitution.
QUOTE: “The Second Amendment is the Palladium of all others…” –Justice Joseph Story
Note that our current vice president’s demeanor in the debate was a disgraceful display of condescending arrogance, a trademark of Obama’s deeply divisive administration. After almost 40 years of living in Washington’s lap of luxury at taxpayer expense, Biden’s class warfare, statist obfuscations and “man of the people” malarkey doesn’t fly, and he should stop shoveling that “stuff.” Joe made it clear that he’s been a Washington insider for a long, long, long, long time. Note that he’s part of the problem, not the solution. While your running mate, Paul Ryan, discussed serious topics like job creation, health care and Iranian nukes, Biden laughed and sneered. Note that he was the only one laughing.
On appointing solid leadership for his administration, Obama can’t be trusted.
QUOTE: “If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet.” –Proverbs 29:9
The issue of illegal foreign and fraudulent online campaign donations is important, but don’t get stuck in the minutiae. Just lay it out there as yet another reason not to trust Obama.
Obama can’t be trusted to abide by the law.
QUOTE: “If an election … can be procured by a party through artifice or corruption, the Government may be the choice of a party for its own ends, not of the nation for the national good.” –John Adams
Your Closing Remarks:
Take the American people back to that moment just prior to the 2008 election, when Barack Obama said his objective was “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” Inform the people that this transformation has indeed begun, that it has been catastrophic, and that it will only get worse.
Here’s the bottom line: Drive home the fact that Obama’s policies have failed – there are 23 million, unemployed or underemployed, and those who have simply given up looking for work – and tens of millions more who are working, but have not received pay increases to keep up with inflation. On Obama’s watch, we have “record spending on welfare” – households considered impoverished have grown to one in six and there are 47 million food stamp recipients – up 50 percent since Obama’s election. Obama has also amassed $5 trillion in new debt, and our national debt now totals $16 trillion, which for the first time in history now exceeds U.S. annual economic output. Finally, he should keep reminding the American people that median household income has declined by $4,520 (8.2 percent) since Obama took office. This is the real “Obama tax.” Also, energy prices have doubled because of Obama restrictions, and economic growth has slowed to an anemic 1.3 percent.
Obama’s road “Forward” is a dead end. He can’t be trusted with the future of America. He has been elected once so he believes the American people are irrevocably ignorant. Make your case that you think our countrymen are smart enough not to be fooled twice.
I ask you, Governor Romney, to recall the words of George Washington at a turning point during the American Revolution: “A few short weeks will determine the political fate of America for the present generation, and probably produce no small influence on the happiness of society through a long succession of ages to come.” Let the American people know that our nation is at such a turning point again.
This election, we must restore our Declaration’s assertion that Liberty is “endowed by our creator,” which Obama frequently omits because he believes Liberty is endowed by government. According to our Constitution, it is “We the People” who enshrined that Liberty, not the government.
Finally, you should end every speech at every stop between now and November 6th, with this bottom line: “Obama can’t be trusted.” He can’t be trusted with our national security. He can’t be trusted with our national debt and he can’t be trusted to restore the health of our economy. And he most certainly can’t be trusted with the future of American Liberty.
I suggest, Governor Romney, that you close this coming debate with these words to the American people: “In two weeks, you will be voting for the future of Liberty. In doing so, please consider carefully the words of Founder Noah Webster: ‘In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate – look to his character.’ I ask nothing more from you this evening and on November 6. God bless you, and God bless our great nation.”
If the selection of moderators is an indication, the “bipartisan” Commission on Presidential Debates is something less than advertised. The fact is, moderators shape debates.
The first debate will be moderated by PBS’s Jim Lehrer, a noted liberal. The only VP debate will be moderated by ABC Lefty Martha Raddatz, who will do little to reign in the unmitigated arrogance of Joe Biden. As you recall, Raddatz’s ex-husband, Julius Genachowski, with whom she maintains close contact, is Obama’s Federal Communications Commission Chairman.
CNN’s Candy Crowley is scheduled to moderated the second presidential “town hall” debate. Regarding her role Crowley has asserted, “Once the table is kind of set by the town-hall questioner, there is then time for me to say, ‘Hey, wait a second, what about X, Y, Z?’” As you may recall, Crowley recently labeled Romney’s selection of Ryan “some sort of ticket death wish.” In case you missed the fine print, Crowley will choose the audience questions for the town hall debate. So not only is Crowley a partisan referee, but she will select questions that will deliver Romney up for Obama sucker punches.
The final October 22 debate at Lynn University will be moderated by CBS’s Bob Schieffer, who may be more balanced in his moderation.
Oh, I should note that the Commission on Presidential Debates, shot down my “equally bipartisan” list of recommended moderators: Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Rush Limbaugh.
Obviously Romney fell flat in the second and third debates, and his team ignored our advice about challenging Obama’s “al-Qa'ida on the run” and “victory in Iraq” campaign themes. But then Romney never got any grassroots traction because he surrounded himself with folks who has no grassroots connection or bearing.
Regarding my insistence that Romney challenge Obama’s Benghazi charade, in the [second debate](http://debates.org/index.php?page=october-1-2012-the-second-obama-romney-presidential-debate) on October 16, Obama was pitched a softball question about security at Benghazi. He replied that he ordered his staff to “investigate exactly what happened, regardless of where the facts lead us, to make sure folks are held accountable and it doesn’t happen again.” He reiterated his campaign theme: “I said that we’d go after al-Qaeda and bin Laden, we have. … I said that I’d end the war in Iraq, and I did. I said we’d refocus attention on those who actually attacked us on 9/11, and we have gone after Al Qaeda’s leadership like never before and Osama bin Laden is dead.”
Obama then criticized Romney for “trying to make political points” regarding how he and Clinton handled the Benghazi affair, asserting, “You don’t turn national security into a political issue. Certainly not right when it’s happening.”
Of course, that’s precisely what Obama and Clinton did.
Romney rebutted, “There was no demonstration involved. It was a terrorist attack and it took a long time for that to be told to the American people. … It took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.” Romney then began to note the cover-up narrative, but the liberal moderator, CNN’s Candy Crowley, gave Obama some much-needed air cover, cutting Romney off when Obama insisted his time was up. There was no further discussion on the subject.
In the [third debate](http://debates.org/index.php?page=october-22-2012-the-third-obama-romney-presidential-debate] on October 22, Romney alluded to Benghazi as “an attack apparently by, I think we know now, by terrorists of some kind against,” but did not raise the issue of the Obama/Clinton cover-up narrative. Obama rebutted, saying, “Despite this tragedy, you had tens of thousands of Libyans after the events in Benghazi marching and saying America is our friend.” Obama went on to repeat his campaign mantra: “We ended the war in Iraq, refocused our attention on those who actually killed us on 9/11. And as a consequence, al-Qa'ida’s core leadership has been decimated. … The truth, though, is that Al Qaeda is much weaker than it was when I came into office.”
Romney failed to challenge in any substantive way, the two key themes of Obama’s campaign – al-Qa'ida and the retreat from Iraq.