Showing posts with label No Apology by Mitt Romney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label No Apology by Mitt Romney. Show all posts

Monday, June 4, 2012

Romney vs. Obama: Is Good Judgment important when it comes to business or running a country?

If the answer is yes, then President Obama better stick to community organizing. It seems that 80% of the DOE's Green enegy loans went to Obama suporters and 19 of those companies went bust:

President Obama's Investments
For those who only hear about these failing companies one by one, the following is a list of all the clean energy companies supported by President Obama’s stimulus that are now failing or have filed for bankruptcy. The liberal media hopes you’ve forgotten about all of them except Solyndra, but we haven’t.

Evergreen Solar
Solyndra (received $535 million)
Beacon Power (received $43 million)
AES’ subsidiary Eastern Energy
Nevada Geothermal (received $98.5 million)
SunPower (received $1.5 billion)
First Solar (received $1.46 billion)
Babcock & Brown (an Australian company which received $178 million)
Ener1 (subsidiary EnerDel received $118.5 million)
Amonix (received 5.9 million)
The National Renewable Energy Lab
Fisker Automotive
Abound Solar (received $400 million)
Chevy Volt (taxpayers basically own GM)
Solar Trust of America
A123 Systems (received $279 million)
Willard & Kelsey Solar Group (received $6 million)
Johnson Controls (received $299 million)
Schneider Electric (received $86 million)
It's obvious that President Obamas lacks good judgment when it comes to picking winners. It seems that many of his choices were based on cronyism rather than whether the business would be successful.

Bain Capital's Investments
Of course, that's the total opposite of Mitt Romney. His business decisions were based on whether he felt his investers would get a fair return on the money they intrusted him with. So he chose wisely. In fact according to a recent Bain Capital report:

....during Bain Capital’s ownership, revenues grew in 80 percent of the more than 350 companies in which we have invested.

That's an 80% SUCCESS RATE!

I guess the difference was that Romney was looking out for his investers while Obama was only looking out for his pals rather than the taxpayers.

Now who would you rather minding the candy store?

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

Friday, April 6, 2012


Below is a schedule of the GOP candidates activities for today. More than likely, one or more of the feeds below will cover the event(s), although, that is not always the case.

So look at the schedule below and CHECK BACK at that time of the event you'd like to view. Then click the different feed button(s) under the schedule and HOPEFULLY you will be able to view the event(s)(subject to the news media covering it).

Thursday, April 5, 2012

Mitt Romney rally in Broomall, Pennsylvania (FULL VIDEO 04-04-12)

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

ABC/UNV Poll: Romney STOMPING GINGRICH with Latinos in Florida

Thus far, Gingrich’s shocking victory in Saturday’s South Carolina primary has not triggered a significant boost in his Latino support in Florida. In the final days of polling, Sunday and Monday, Gingrich’s Latino support in Florida only increased by 2 percentage points.
Republican Latinos:

Mitt Romney 49%
Newt Gingrich 23% 

All Florida Latinos:

Mitt Romney 35%
Newt Gingrich 20% 


Mitt Romney 49%
Newt Gingrich 17% 

Puerto Ricans:

Mitt Romney 22%
Newt Gingrich 12% 

Other Latinos:

Mitt Romney 29%
Newt Gingrich 21%
A survey of 517 registered Latino voters in Florida was conducted Jan 16-23. The MOE is +/-4.4%.
The full story is HERE.

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

Saturday, January 21, 2012

Mr. Romney still leads, but that lead has started to slip over the past few days

Mr. Romney still cracks the 35% mark nationally, but that is down almost a point since earlier in the week despite Mr. Huntsman’s endorsement. Mr. Gingrich jumps up over 4 point nationally to be just shy of 21%. Still a way back, but he is on the increase. Until the last few days, it appeared that Mr. Santorum was going to over-take Mr. Gingrich, but the first debate of the week settled the issue of second place in favor of Mr. Gingrich. Mr. Santorum stays stable at 16.3%. Dr. Paul gains almost a point to sit at 15.4%. And ironically, like Mr. Huntsman, Mr. Perry has a mini-surge and gains almost a point to close his bid at 7.4% nationally. In short the dynamics of the race has shifted. Mr. Romney’s poor debate performance combined with Mr. Gingrich’ historic great debate performances has stalled Mr. Romney’s momentum and allowed Mr. Gingrich to challenge him. While Mr. Romney still has a commanding lead, the idea of Mr. Romney getting a quick coronation was putting the cart before the horse to say the least. While Mr. Santorum did well in the debates, his lack of charisma has effectively taken him out of the game.
Mr. Romney loses over 100 delegates since the debate to sit at 1159. Mr. Gingrich jumps to 448. Mr. Santorum this week to sit at 1051; Mr. Gingrich loses over 350 to sit at 550. Dr. Paul rises enough to take third place in the delegate count to sit at 232. Mr. Santorum is stable at 213 and Mr. Perry would have had 68 delegates would been able to stay in the race and maintain his level of support. As things stood a few days ago, Mr. Romney stood to win 45 states. He is now down to 39 or 40. It is not a good week for him as he kind of lost Iowa and will most likely lose South Carolina by at least 5 or 6 point in a few hours. Mr. Gingrich will likely continue to close the gap with today’s up coming win, but since Mr. Romney was more prepared for Thursday’s debate and was able to defend Conservatism without looking like a total fool, he’ll probably rebound into a significant lead eventually. Overall, it is a good thing for all that things are getting slightly more interesting. More people will get involved in the process and both major candidates will have a chance to pull up their socks and get their acts together.

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Rasmussen Poll: Gingrich losing to Obama by 10


Barack Obama 47%
Newt Gingrich 37% (-10)

A survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted December 26, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.
The full story is HERE. 

How is Mitt Romney doing you ask? A lot better than Newt! The following are Rasmussen results from just Friday:

Results from December 23: 

Barack Obama 44%
Mitt Romney 41% (-3)

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Mitt Romney's Florida Surprise

Mitt Romney will pick up the ultimate Cuban-American endorsement trifecta Tuesday in South Florida: The support of U.S. Reps. Ileana Ros Lehtinen and Mario Diaz-Balart, and his brother, former Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart.

The endorsements of the Miami Cuban-American leaders is a leading indicator that Romney is making a big push in Florida for one of its most crucial voting blocs in the state's Republican primary, scheduled for Jan. 31.

“It’s a major boost for any candidate when the three of them get together and move in one direction,” said Carlos Curbelo, a Miami-Dade School Board member who has worked for the Diaz-Balart brothers.

“They represent this community,” he said. “In Miami-Dade, their support is crucial.”
The full story is HERE.

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

Mitt Romney To Give Major Speech About Spending On November 3rd

 Mitt Romney has revealed that he will be giving a major speech on government spending on November 3rd:
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination, will be in Exeter on Thursday, Nov. 3, to “deliver a major policy speech on spending,” according to an e-mail sent out Sunday night by Doug and Stella Scamman.
Romney announced his candidacy for president in June at the Scammans’ Bittersweet Farm in Stratham. Both Doug and Stella Scamman are former state representatives. Doug served two terms as House speaker.
According to the Scammans, the event will be held at 5:30 p.m. at Exeter Town Hall, 10 Front St., Romney was last in Exeter in August, when he appeared at a small forum at the Exeter Historical Society.
In his 2008 presidential bid, Romney led the early polling in New Hampshire, but was beaten by the party’s eventual nominee, Sen. John McCain. Romney enjoys a sizeable lead in the 2012 New Hampshire polling but is fighting tough battles with Herman Cain in Iowa and South Carolina and is facing intense attacks from former Gov. Rick Perry, who is trying to claw his way back into the race after some early missteps.
Mitt Romney has given lots of policy speeches on this issue. Yet, from the way I understand this, this is going to be something much more bigger and more significant than the speeches he's given in the past. Team Romney hasn't revealed the details of his speech yet but the fact that they have only stated that it was about spending has me excited and curious about what more he could say on this subject since he has written extensviely on the subject of spending government spending in his book, No Apology: Believe in America and provided voters with 160 page economic plan which includes ways he will rein in excessive government spending.  
However, Mitt Romney has revealed his underlying guiding principle that is foundation of each of his economic proposals: 
Each proposal is rooted in the conservative premise that government itself cannot create jobs. At best, government can provide a framework in which economic growth can occur. All too often, however, government gets in the way. The past three years of unparalleled government expansion have retaught that lesson all too well.
As a result, we can be confident in what Mitt will say on November 3rd. Like most Americans, I look forward to hearing Mitt Romney's speech on Thursday.  
This article has been cross posted from Conservative Samizdat.

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Mitt Romney announces his Florida Staff

Press Release from Romney's Website:
“This is the team that will beat President Obama in Florida,” said Romney for President Deputy Campaign Manager Katie Packer Gage. “This team will be critical as Mitt Romney campaigns across Florida spreading his pro-growth message and working to bring jobs back to the state.”

Friday, September 9, 2011


The last debate and , probably the next debate, will feature a continuing dialog between Mitt Romney and Rick Perry on Social Security, framed upon statements they both have made in published books and recent comments. It is instructive to look at these published comments and compare them, before the " spinmeister's " begin excising clips from the two candidate's published comments , to seek advantage. Therefore, I will attempt to focus on this issue using only actual published comments from both no older than 12 months.

Rick Perry wrote a book that was published last November ( 2010 ) entitled
" Fed Up ! Our Fight to Save America from Washington". Here are Perry's published comments about Social Security:
** " Social Security is something we have been forced to accept for more than 70 years now."
** Social Security is a " crumbling monument to the failure of the new deal."
** Social Security is a ".. monstrous lie."
** Social Security is " ..a Ponzi scheme " and " Ponzi schemes, like the one that sent Bernie
Madoff to prison, are illegal in this country for a reason. They are fraudulent systems
designed to take a lot of money at the front end and pay out none at the end. This
unsustainable insanity is the true legacy of Social Security and the New Deal. Deceptive
accounting has hoodwinked the American public into thinking that Social Security is a
retirement system and financially sound, when clearly it is not."

These are Perry's words verbatim. Readers should note that the implication is that Social Security is a CRIME of INTENT. A Ponzi scheme is ILLEGAL. "Hoodwinked" implies an intent to defraud. Who exactly is doing this and exactly who should go to jail is something Governor Perry needs to be specific on.

In contrast, Governor Romney wrote a book which was published this past spring, entitled
"No Apology, the Case for American Greatness". In that book , Romney had several specific comments on Social Security. More importantly, Romney also suggested several ways to begin fixing a program that many senior Americans rely on. Let's see what he said:

** pp 46......" In one of our Republican primary debates, for example, we were asked
" Specifically, what would you do to fix Social Security ?" Most responded by restating
the problem that Social Security is bankrupt rather than by addressing a solution;
politicians have learned from experience that it is unwise to " touch the third rail of
American politics." But, why is that ? Why is it that the media don't hold accountable those
who duck this critical issue? Why isn't it instead that FAILURE to address entitlement and
Social Security REFORM ids the third rail?"

** pp 157-158....To put it in a nutshell, the American people have been effectively defrauded
out of their Social Security. In 1982, the government raised Social Security taxes with the
intention of creating a surplus that could be set aside in some fashion for the baby
" But for the last thirty years, the surplus has been spent, not on retirement security, but
on regular items."

** " It is important to conduct the entitlement discussion without scaring our senior citizens,
which is why the reforms that are necessary must be made concurrent with guarantees to
our elderly that their benefits will not be slashed and the promises they relied upon will
not be broken..." , that " will not be crafted with them ( seniors ) as targets."

Then Romney begins to address specific solutions for fixing Social Security:

** pp 158-159 : " From a mathematical perspective , there are at least four ways one could
repair Social Security. "

1. " Congress and the president could raise the Social Security tax rate or apply it to a
greater share of an individual's earnings, or some combination of both" ......" but, we
would saddle the next generation with the very tax burden we are seeking to avoid."

2. " We could gradually increase the retirement age "

3. " We could change the way high income individual's initial Social Security benefits are
calculated. At present, the initial benefit for all recipients is keyed to the total amount of
their lifetime employment income and the Social Security taxes paid on it, adjusted for
inflation before retirement. But the inflator that is used in the calculation isn't the
consumer price index ( CPI ), as you might suspect, but rather the wage index.Because
wages have gone up a good deal faster than consumer prices, the wage index raises the
starting point for S.S. benefits faster than if the CPI had been used." An alternative
would be to "......use the wage index as the inflator for low and middle-income citizens"
who rely on Social Security, but " apply the CPI index to compute the initial benefits for
higher income individuals who are not living predominantly on Social Security benefits."

4. " Individual retirement accounts offer a fourth option, one that would allow today's
wage earners to direct a portion of their Social Security tax to a private account rather
than go entirely to pay the benefits of current retirees."
" also like the fact that the individual retirement accounts would encourage more
Americans to invest in the private sector that powers our economy."
" But given the volatility of investment values...I would prefer that individual accounts
were added to Social Security, not diverted from it, and that they were voluntary."

So, here we have the controversy in " a nutshell." Perry says Social Security is an illegal scheme foisted upon the American public. He says nothing about fixing the problem, nothing about sustainability. The implication is that someone is benefiting from the " scheme" and should be punished , but says nothing about how seniors can be protected, as the guilty are hauled away and the " monstrous lie " is , presumably terminated and replaced with.....what ?

Romney says the program must be fixed so we can sustain the pledge we made to seniors, in good faith, 70 years ago. He offers specific, well crafted ideas to help redress the problems with the Social Security system and provide confidence to the seniors of today and tomorrow that their retirement program is solvent and ready for them at retirement.

You decide. Who has the rational approach to the problem? All we know is what we read.


Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

Friday, August 26, 2011

Rick Perry: Romneycare is a Problem for me

Rick Perry had this to say on the Laura Ingraham Show:
Perry told Ingraham the law was a "total debacle" and would be a "huge problem" for Romney.
"I think Mitt is finally recognizing that the Massachusetts health care plan he passed is a huge problem for him," Perry said. "It was not almost perfect."
HaHaHaHa! You have to admit that considering the following data, Perry is either delusional or has a warped sense humor:

State with share of residents with health insurance:

Massachusetts 1st
Texas 50th

State with share of children with health insurance:

Massachusetts 1st
Texas 50th

So you see Rick. Romneycare isn't a problem, YOU ARE!

Can you imagine him bringing this up at a debate and Romney smiling and rattling off the data above? PRICELESS!

Oh, and BTW, you want a see a mandate with a problem. look HERE.

I'm a little disappointed with Laura on this. What I find so upsetting about the interview is that Ingraham didn't call him on the related data on his state under his watch. She certainly had to know. Instead, she gives him a FREE PASS! What a missed opportunity for another moment like this one on abstinence:

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

Sunday, May 15, 2011

Newt Gingrich: No to Free Riders when it comes to Health Insurance

Like Mitt Romney, it sounds as if Newt Gingrich Isn't crazy about Free riders when it comes to Health Insurance. Way to go Newt! Here is Gingrich on "Meet The Press" today:

Saturday, April 30, 2011

Monday, April 11, 2011

No Apology: Mitt's Greatest Quality

Note the following passages from Romney's chapter on education and see if you can pick out Romney's best quality.
"Following my election as governor of Massachusetts, and knowing that I now shared responsibility for the education of hundreds of thousands of young people, I studied the education literature to gain perspective. What I found was a virtual quicksand of differing opinion in which it would be easy to sink, but what was missing was an examination of data."
"Anecdotes are illustrative but data is compelling -- particularly if it is comprehensive and presented by an unbiased source."
"At the outset of my term as governor, my perspectives were shaped by the writings and studies by education experts, by discussions with teachers, principals, and students, and by my study of statewide data on student achievement that was mined, collected, and carefully analyzed. What I learned was in large measure confirmed by data collected at the national and international levels, but even so, I did my best not to close the door entirely on alternative views."
I will spare you other quotes, because the entire chapter is filled with Romney's careful attention to the "education literature." There are also two giant graphs in the middle of the chapter. And it's not just the education chapter. Romney cites study, after study, after study in making his arguments throughout the book.

I point this out because I think that it is vitally important. Romney is not a "gut" decision maker. His decision making is greatly informed by pouring over empirical evidence and data and exploring all possibilities.

Let me contrast that style with another Republican star. I am sorry to bring up Sarah Palin but I think that she perfectly illustrates what I am talking about here. Back in 2008, Palin was asked which Supreme Court cases she had a problem with. Of course, we all know that she was unable to think of a Supreme Court case that she didn't like, other than Roe v. Wade. What that illustrated to me at the time was that Palin knew the right language that she was supposed to employ -- "those liberal activist judges" -- but when tasked with an assignment to explain that language, she was unable to think of a single instance of overreach on the part of the Supreme Court. It is likely that Palin had never thought about reading "the literature" regarding the judicial system. She didn't think it was important, so long as she could recite some red meat, one-liners to her intended audience.

I am sincerely not trying to slam Palin, but that example is illustrative of what I am talking about. We need to make sure that our leaders are reading the "literature" and that they are able to argue effectively for the best policy option.

Cross posted at The Cross Culturalist.

Saturday, April 9, 2011

No Apology: Solving the Deficit

There are basically four tools to solving the deficit crisis in America.

1. Raise taxes
2. Reform (aka, cut) entitlement spending
3. Cut defense spending
4. Economic recovery

So which tools would Romney use?

Definitely not 1 or 3. Romney cites defense spending as a percentage of the GDP, which gives him an opportunity to claim that defense spending is actually lower than the defense spending of Russia and China. He is technically right (if you compare it like that).

Romney also makes it clear that "lower taxes and a simpler tax code will help families and create jobs." So he rules out number one, but in an effort to use number four. Romney devotes an entire chapter to how he would reform entitlement spending. I have been satisfied. I think we can safely say that Romney would use the second tool. I am also convinced that Romney does have the right formula to lead an economic recovery. However, all presidents want a healthy economy. It is not always that easy (see Obama, Barack).

So here are a couple of things to ponder:

1. There are always political restraints. The talk radio crazies who have demanded that John Boehner cut $61 billion from the 2011 budget sadly avoid the reality of there being an opposing political party in the mix. They would prefer to run off the cliff. How flexible can Romney be on the taxes and defense issues? I would rather see Mitt slightly raise some taxes and slightly decrease defense spending, in order to get concessions on the other side regarding entitlements. Our national debt is too big to remain slaves to the "no compromise" morons.

2. Can an economic recovery and entitlement reform alone cure the deficit problem? I am not sure. Again, we may need some flexibility.

No Apology: Fair Tax

Mitt Romney's book does not seek to settle the score with anyone. Neither is the book about Mitt Romney. I have been somewhat surprise by what an "adult" book it has been.

I couldn't help but think of this when I was reading Romney's section on tax policy. He devotes two pages to the fair tax. Yet, there is one person's name who never comes up -- Mike Huckabee. The Right Speak community may remember how Huckabee gave two pages in his recent book to lying about "Romneycare." And when I say lying, I mean lying. Huckabee misuses data in an attempt to blame historically rising premiums on "Romneycare." He, of course, refers to it as "socialized medicine." Huck cites two articles as his sources. When I read Huck's section about "Romneycare," I couldn't help but get the sense that the talk show host is doing everything he can to poke his finger in the eye of the man who hurt his feelings in 2008.

In contrast to Huckabee, Romney conducts actual research (again, it's an adult book; this will be the subject of a future post). He doesn't prefer the fair tax. But for intelligent people, public policy often leads to nuance. Which is why Romney ends his long discussion with this (145):
It would be instructive if we could give the fair tax a fair test, but that would be difficult. In concept, the idea of a consumption tax is very appealing because of its potential to propel economic growth, but there are a number of potential drawbacks that will have to be worked out. At a minimum, the fair tax would have to be structured to avoid the windfall for the very rich and the extra burden which would fall on the middle class. 
There is a lot of thoughtful nuance in No Apology.

Monday, April 4, 2011

Mitt Romney: Speech at the Republican Jewish Coalition Meeting (complete VIDEO)

Mitt Romney spoke Saturday in Las Vegas at the Republican Jewish Coalition Winter meeting. Romney talked about Foreign Policy, America's relationship with Israel, Health Care, and Obama's failures as President:

In a related story:
Expected Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney used his Twitter account this morning to respond to the announcement of President Obama's re-election campaign.

"@barackobama I look forward to hearing details on your jobs plan, as are 14m unemployed Americans," @MittRomney

Romney's retort followed Obama's decision to use YouTube to release a video announcing his re-election campaign.

Sunday, April 3, 2011

No Apology: Chapter Two

As I mentioned in the previous post, Chapter One of Mitt Romney's No Apology seems to be a little more thought out than Chapter Two. Nevertheless, I think he makes several good points.

Romney spends about half the chapter discussing past hegemons that have declined: Ottoman Empire, Portugal, Spain, Great Britain, and China. Since I am not a historian, I won't critique this part.

Romney then attempts to explain the common causes for why these great powers declined.
There are similarities between the different countries' paths of decline. Many turned toward isolation; most important, isolation from knowledge: the Ottomans, Spanish, Portuguese, and Chinese purposefully shut out foreign invention and learning. And they adopted economic isolation as well: China, Spain, Britain, and the Ottomans expressly or effectively retreated behind barriers to foreign trade, each convinced that competition had made them weaker. Their retreat from the marketplace of ideas and their retreat from the marketplace of goods inevitably led to their retreat from the pinnacle of leadership. 
So far so good. I am only on page 55 and Romney has already devoted a great deal of space arguing for free trade and innovation. Then he quotes historian David Landes who argues that culture is everything. Romney takes this to mean that the great powers turned inward and rejected foreign influence. This idea somehow turns into the need to stop excessive spending. All good points, but I am not sure how they go together.

Romney then talks about the lack of vision of some of the past great powers. He gives several causes why countries avoid their problems. First, there is human nature that tends to avoid concentrating on coming problems. Second, there is the human tendency to shy away from dramatic change, whether good or bad. Third, there is the self-interest of citizens and leaders who are focused on short-term gains. Fourthly, independent opinion leaders sometimes fail to "arouse public awareness." Interestingly, Romney asks why media figures did not hammer the 2008 candidates when they gave empty responses on what to do about entitlement spending. It's almost like Romney is surprised at the weak answers they got away with.

Romney ends the chapter giving four reasons why some great powers recovered themselves from their decline: catastrophic events, the presence of a great leader (no, he didn't mention himself), a national consensus that reform needs to take place, and deep, broad-based national strength (ex. the United States after Pearl Harbor).

My take: Romney rambles a little here. He also generalizes a great deal of history. Nevertheless, I think he presents some good examples of how the United States could avoid decline.

Two things that struck me though: First, Romney is not libertarian. In fact, without going into specifics (he does later in his book), he seems to imply that the United States needs to adapt and to innovate. He does not seek to bring the United States back to 1789, but rather into the 21st century. I get the impression that Romney is more interested in competing with China and Russia than in meeting 18th century principles of government.

Second, Romney ever so softly gives respect to 'experts.' In fact, there is a lack of populist anger towards elites that you might find in a Sarah Palin book. One of Romney's points is that educators and opinion leaders can stir attention to address certain issues. The following line flew off the page (62):
Scientists, concerned citizens and the world media have succeeded in convincing the public that global warming is a real and present danger. 
You definitely won't see that coming from Sarah Palin.

No Apology: Chapter One

I picked up Romney's book from Barnes and Noble yesterday and will be giving my thoughts about his plan for the future of America. First, let me say that I don't like reading campaign books, and Romney's book is a campaign book. Romney has a political agenda that he is seeking to meet with his book. His policy book is not going to be quite the same as a policy book by an academic. Nevertheless, I am committing to read his book because I do believe that I might learn something of the outside world.

I want to give an outline of Romney's argument first so that everybody can evaluate it. I will follow that outline with my own thoughts. By the way, you can skip the introduction. It is mostly campaign platitudes.

In chapter one, Romney argues that there are currently four competing strategies for world leadership: the United States and the West (he does recognize that there is a wide range of thought within the West), China, Russia, and Islamic extremism. The first strategy represented by the United States is built on political freedom and free enterprise. China's strategy is built on free enterprise, but not political freedom. Russia's strategy is built on dominance of energy and political authoritarianism. Lastly,  Islamic extremists seek to form a worldwide caliphate.

The theme of chapter one: if the United States declines, one of the other strategies will fill the void and our grandchildren will not be free (pg. 33).

He then goes on to excoriate the Obama administration for not sufficiently promoting the United States' strategy on the world stage. In fact, Romney spends about 13 pages portraying Obama as a leader who believes that the United States inevitably must decline. Romney says that Obama is the first President in modern history who views the United States as one nation among many, but not as the leader of the free world.

My take: Chapter one is much better than the introduction and Chapter Two (I will write about Chapter Two later). There are some flaws though.

First, Romney implies that if the United States does not continue to be the world's hegemon, that our grandchildren will not be free. Page 33:
These are the four strategies for world leadership that are in competition today. Only one if founded on freedom. Only one. Think of what that means. Only if America and the West succeed -- if our economic and military strength endure -- can we be confident that our children and grandchildren will be free. A strong America is good for peace, and it is essential for the spread of freedom. 
This sounds like hyperbole. In fact, during the undisputed hegemonic reign of the United States, there were various countries in the world that were unaffected by the freedom agenda of the United States. I have a hard time believing that if China surpasses the United States in economic strength (they are way behind in military strength) that our grandchildren will not be free. Nevertheless, this will be a powerful campaign slogan for Romney.

Second, Romney's portrayal of the President's foreign policy is fairly accurate, though he is also given to slight hyperbole. I do think that Romney is correct that Obama sees the United States in decline and that Obama might be okay with that. However, if Romney is going to spend the next two years trying to portray Obama as a weaker version of Jimmy Carter, then he is going to have a difficult time doing so. Barack Obama has in some ways been much more militaristic than George W. Bush. I think that Romney is going to have a hard time connecting a blow in the realm of foreign policy.

Getting specific, Romney is correct to blast Obama for neglecting to form a free trade agreement with Colombia. I also agree with Romney that Obama could do more to bolster America's relationship with its allies. However, Romney believes that Obama's policies are going to lead many Sunni Arab nations to move into Iran's sphere of influence. That doesn't seem likely with the Cold War that is currently being waged between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Romney is also a little too hard on the Obama administration's response to the coup in Honduras. In fact, judging by the cables of the American ambassador to Honduras, the Obama administration actually could have come out much stronger against the illegality of the coup. The crisis in Honduras, if anything, showed the incredible pragmatism of Barack Obama's foreign policy.

Having said all of that, I did enjoy the first chapter. I was actually a little surprised. I thought there would be much more politicking that there actually was. For the most part, chapter one was a coherent argument focusing on the outside world.

More to come...