the whitestick papers

looking at politics from a different perspective


with 3 comments

It’s election season in the Oregon Republican Party. At the end of February, the state Central Committee will elect new officers, as they do every other year shortly after the General Election. In this case, there are two dominant slates, one of which proposed and endorsed by current party Chair, Dr. Art Robinson.

Last Monday, Dr. Ames Curtright, self-styled “Fundraising” and “Ethics” Committees Chair (despite having been rejected for the former by the Executive Committee after he tried to bribe them with a $20,000 donation if his political opponent, National Committeeman Solomon Yue, would resign and having been thrown under the bus by Chair Robinson regarding the latter) sent out a slick email flyer supporting Chair Robinson’s endorsees. As is common with such screeds, all the problems of the past are implied to be the fault of the other team while “new leadership” can save the day.

What’s ironic in this case is who’s been doing what over the past couple of years….

Ames flyer

“Party Infighting” is a fact of life within the Republican Party. Until recently, however, any differences we may have over policy or procedure were “one and done” situations; we’d present our best efforts at the county, state or even national level, let the votes determine the outcome and, if it didn’t go our way, wait for the next opportunity to do it again. In the meantime, we’d stand shoulder to shoulder with those we’d just debated against to accomplish a common goal or support Republican candidates – even if we didn’t agree with them on all points. In recent years, however, a few “Occupy GOP” activists have joined with long-term malcontents to ostracize and eliminate anyone who disagrees with them – or is just in a position of authority within the Party. In other words, Dr. Curtright and others who have sought to undercut or overthrow those they consider political adversaries.

Yes, there is a certain degree of “In-group Maneuvering”, but it’s interesting that those who fostered the “false flag” campaign in 2014 are making the charge. You remember that; several Ron Paul supporters ran as Delegates for other Republican candidates for positions at the Republican National Convention in 2014. It became obvious both before and during the Convention the intent was to have the Convention nominate Dr. Paul rather than the person selected on a state-by-state basis. They were out-maneuvered in their efforts to subvert the will of the people and the process and have never forgiven the ORP or RNC for doing so.

The irony goes even deeper.   In mid-December, Chair Robinson announced the dissolution of the Rules and Bylaws Committee. Although within his authority as Chair, it was an unusual move for a retiring Chair to make just 2½ months before his replacement would be elected. Then, last Tuesday – the day after Dr. Curtright’s email – he announced the leadership and membership of these re-formed committees (made up primarily of Occupy GOP folks and those with a grudge against Solomon Yue). He told the Central Committee they’d approved the Rules for the upcoming election, even though the Chairs had not been reviewed by the Executive Committee as required by ORP Bylaws. On Thursday, he announced the Bylaws Committee had reviewed proposed Bylaws amendments, and ruled that – despite the Central Committee having overruled a similar interpretation advanced by an Occupy GOP delegate in 2014 – Executive Committee members would be disenfranchised during the election of State Party officers. These were just the latest in a series of unilateral actions by the Chair and his allies in party leadership, all in conflict with ORP Bylaws; who’s doing the “in-group maneuvering” again?

It’s difficult to determine what Dr. Curtright has in mind when he says “Wasteful Spending”; under Chair Robinson, the ORP has been strapped to meet operating obligations, much less have any funds to waste. This ties in with the next bullet point, “Lost Financial Support”. When embattled Allen Alley left the stage in 2014, the ORP was in the best financial health it had been in at least a decade. He’d paid off outstanding debts, built relationships with donors and had the party on track to be a force to reckon with in upcoming contests. Even after the departure of Suzanne Gallagher under a cloud, the party was in the black. Eighteen months later, Chair Robinson is the party’s greatest creditor, the Executive Director hasn’t been paid in months and the party can barely meet rent and utility bills. The chief reason – Chair Robinson’s insistence on using a single source of fundraising, direct mail, for which he paid out of pocket. Gone are the relationships with donors; exhausted are the reserves built by the former administration. Add to this Dr. Curtright’s insistence that he is the ORP’s “Fundraising” Chair; how credible are his claims regarding the ability of this new leadership to be better?

Finally, we come to the perennial attack on current leadership, “Lost Elections”. The Republican waves of recent years have stopped east of the Cascades, and Oregon remains a Democrat stronghold. In the opinion of this author, however, blame for that failure falls not on the party but despite the party. Following counsel from “political experts”, candidates ignore the party, ignore its principles and values and run as if they were “Democrat Light”. The ORP repeatedly advises candidates to disregard the “common knowledge” counsel as it consistently results in a loss for Republicans; if people want Democrat policies, they’ll vote for the real thing. Instead, like Ronald Reagan, Republicans should point, without apology, to the conservative values that made our country great. That practice works in eastern Oregon and elsewhere in the country nearly every time it’s tried; not following that counsel results in resounding loss just as predictably.

More to the point, however, is to ask for the track record of these erstwhile candidates for leadership. What is their win-loss ratio? How many successful candidates have they run, or how well have they done in repeated elections? To be fair, there is some success there, but it’s no greater than what you’ll find on the other team.

The point of this article isn’t to denigrate these candidates; while a couple of them are largely unknown, particularly within the ORP, in this writer’s opinion the others make a credible case for their election. It’s more to expose the reality behind the implied problems of electing a slate made up largely of current leadership. The other team has been working under the guidance of a Chair who has been secretive, manipulative, even duplicitous and, rather than throw them out because of the Chair’s action, it may be more appropriate to give them a chance to do what they were prepared to do two years ago but have been blocked from accomplishing.



Written by Jeffrey S. Smith

31 January 2015 at 2:14 pm

Star Chamber, ORP style

leave a comment »

This blog should have been published two weeks ago. But, because the author didn’t want to exacerbate the distraction caused by certain Occupy GOP folks here in Oregon less than two weeks before a critical election, it was withheld. Until now.

On October 23, Dr. W. Ames Curtright, founder of the annual “Gathering of Eagles”, distributed a polemic entitled “Executive Action of the ORP Ethics Committee” which, among other things, demanded the immediate release of a contact list for all Republican Precinct Committee People (PCP) in Oregon. The purported reason for this demand was to provide transparency. According to the unanimously (but anonymously) supported document, the target of this “transparency” is ORP National Committeeman Solomon Yue, CD1 Vice Chair (and former Bylaws Chair) Jeff Grossman and the party’s Executive Committee, including some vague insinuations concerning Mr. Yue.

To give some context, it should be noted Solomon Yue is a favorite target of some within the ORP, and has been for several years. There’s no doubt he’s a canny political strategist, having been a guiding hand in undermining so-called ”moderate” control of the ORP in the late 1990;s and early years of this century, taking that skill on the road as a National Committeeman. Several past party leaders at the state and national level, RINO politicians and the like have found their efforts thwarted by his often subtle plans. Most of his attention, however, always has been aimed at defeating leftists in general and Democrats in particular, as evidenced by his current efforts to undermine Democrat efforts at disenfranchising voters overseas. This flows from his experience growing up in communist China and first-hand knowledge of the tactics of tyrants.

Mr. Curtright claims to chair the ad hoc “Ethics Committee”, supposedly organized by ORP Chair Art Robinson (although the latter has steadfastly refused to confirm that claim) . It has no existence under party Bylaws or authority under any Rules, but Mr. Curtright and this “Ethics Committee” presumes absolute authority to demand anything they see fit in the name of transparency. Ironically, this “Ethics Committee” has not seen fit to reveal its membership, although I suspect I know who many of them are. Mr. Curtright himself lost the approval of the Executive Committee when, during his introduction as Chair of the ORP Finance Committee, he offered to bribe the ORP with a $20,000 donation if Mr. Yue would resign. Not too surprisingly, the Executive Committee decided to withhold its support of a person with that level of antagonism towards an elected party leader. Like Mr. Curtright, former state Senator Marilyn Shannon is a consistent (and often outright deceitful) critic of Solomon Yue, former Michael Steele hatchet-man and ORP Chair Bob Tiernan has a personal grudge against Mr. Yue, and I wouldn’t be surprised if former ORP Vice Chair Al King, former CD Chair Gayna Flake and a number of others who have raised fantastic accusations against Mr. Yue weren’t to be to found amongst this home-grown Star Chamber.

Based apparently on a photograph of him with Chairman Robinson, Mr. Curtright and this “Ethics Committee” claims they’re operating under authority granted by the party Chairman. The problem is the party Chairman doesn’t have that kind of authority. He’s elected by the State Central Committee which can, as was demonstrated by the recall last year of Suzanne Gallagher, overrule or even remove him. He doesn’t have authority to demand the counties relinquish their PCP lists, nor does he have authority to instruct party Secretary Chris Barreto to hand that list over to the “Ethics Committee”.   The state party doesn’t “own” those lists; they are the sole property and responsibility of the county organizations. Since the Chair doesn’t have that authority, he can’t delegate it to someone else, much less to a secretive group lacking any documented authority or even formal existence.

As intense as the animosity driving this “Ethics Committee” and the assumption of absolute power may be, lost in the attempt to discredit Mr. Yue and other elected leaders of the ORP is the question of the list itself. This is the third time one of the Occupy GOP folks have demanded that list. First, Wendy Frome, CD5 Chair and Chair of the Credentials Committee, demanded (and was refused) it. Then, Becky Lemler, self-styled leader of the “Oregon PCP” website and newsletter, demanded it. It begs the question as to why is this list – and it’s control at the local level – of such interest to folks working from a top+-down and often secretive mentality.

Whatever else may be true about this Star Chamber “Ethics Committee” and the other activities of folks like Curtright, Lemler and Frome, it’s clear the goal isn’t to get Republicans elected. Not when they make it clear Republicans are the target.

Written by Jeffrey S. Smith

5 November 2014 at 3:39 pm

Posted in Musings

Tagged with , ,

Occupy GOP

leave a comment »

During most even-numbered years, the summer Central Committee meeting of the Oregon Republican Party is dedicated to plans and preparations for the coming General Election. Usually, they’ve been working together since the reorganization meetings 18 months earlier and come together to share ideas and insights, coordinate strategies, discuss and often vote to support or oppose ballot measures and just generally unify for the final push coming in a few short months.

But, for the August 2014 edition, certain folks believe something else is more important than working together to win elections.

Just after the official call for the meeting was sent out, a flurry of proposed changes to the state Party Rules and Bylaws were sprung on the Central Committee members through a clearly orchestrated series of emails.   Per standard operating procedure, all of these would normally have been presented to their respective review committees for consistency with the current documents, RNC Rules, Roberts Rules of Order and plain old grammar and word usage well before the Official Call was issued so, in accordance with the Bylaws, they could be issued with that Call. Instead, due to a loophole in precedence previously used by one of those dropping these amendments, these will go directly to the Central Committee as they are, warts and all.

The purpose of this article is not to discuss the merits of the plethora of proposed amendments and deletions, but to point out the poor timing. When the State Central Committee reorganizes early next year – interestingly, the next regular meeting – the Bylaws are automatically under review. It and the election of Officers are the only business at that meeting.

So, rather than waiting for the meeting dedicated to the process of considering amendments, these folks decided a better use of time that could have gone into plans and preparation for getting Republicans elected this year would be to occupy ORP leadership with minutia surrounding altering Rules and Bylaws most members of the state Central Committee never considered problematic.

There’s one other element of this situation that bears reporting. Although not among those submitting amendments for consideration, one of the cabal behind the bombardment and, like them, a freshmen member of the Central Committee, took it upon himself to tell the state GOP Chairman how the agenda should be set up. As you might imagine, the Chair didn’t take it too well. Art Robinson, himself a practiced campaigner and seasoned political veteran, responded by telling the Central Committee, in effect, he and not this newbie is in charge. That bodes well for the resolution of this issue.

It’s just sad the Central Committee will have to waste time on this during a key stage in this year’s election cycle. But some folks seem determined to make sure Republicans lose.

Written by Jeffrey S. Smith

6 August 2014 at 4:56 pm

Hidden Agenda

with one comment

There always have been, and always will be, sub-groups within the Republican Party. Some are based on demographic similarities; Young Republicans, College Republicans, the Federation of Republican Women and the like. Most of these have links to the official party structure of one sort or another while maintaining an identity distinct from the party structure itself.

Others are issue-oriented. Groups like Log Cabin Republicans, Mainstream Republicans, Republican Liberty Caucus and others all have issues – often, single issues – they seek to promote within the official party structure. Like the demographic-based groups, they tend to have both a national and state-level organization and structure but, unlike the demographic groups, the issue groups don’t usually have a seat at the party table.

In both cases, there’s a clear leadership structure; people are appointed (sometime, by themselves) or elected to be the chief representative. Membership is usually known and leaders speak on behalf of the group. There’s nothing secret or secretive about them; they tend to be up front and open about who they are and what they want.

For the past several years, however, a new phenomenon has developed within the Republican Party. There is a nationwide network of folks who not only tend to stay under the radar, they seem determined to deliberately operate in stealth mode. Here in Oregon, there have been a number of examples of this, most notably the “false flag” delegate attempt during the 2012 election cycle.

The latest instance is a plot to bypass and undercut the ORP organizational structure. Don’t get me wrong; there’s no problem with people organizing to better communicate or promote an agenda. That’s pretty much standard fare within political organizations. But you can’t help but wonder what’s going on when those people keep not only their identity a secret but make no attempt to explain their agenda or why they’re not operating within the long-established system described in the ORP Bylaws and Rules.

What I’m referring to is the Oregon PCP News website – apparently created and maintained by those behind the 80-page nuisance lawsuit mentioned in Making sure Republicans lose – which purports to be an way for Oregon Republican PCPs to communicate with each other between regular meetings. On the surface, that appears innocent enough and there’s an Oregon PCP Facebook page, a email distribution list used by the state Central Committee and most county GOP organizations provide similar internal communications networks to accomplish just that. In fact, there’s so much interactive communication going on within the ORP it begs the question why this one is even needed.

There are a couple of troubling wrinkles to this forum. First, ORP Chair Art Robinson has said he knows nothing about it. Back in the late 1990s, I was Interim Chair of the Oregon Republican Assembly, an ardently conservative state group affiliated with the National Federation of Republican Assemblies. Our goal was to build upon the existing conservative nature of the GOP, taking on leadership roles and pushing a more consistent conservative agenda. As we were getting organized, I met with Deanna Smith, then ORP Chair, to discuss the nature and goals of the group. There were several things upon which we agreed and a number of them where we disagreed, but the point is it was done in the open and, while not with the consent of the ORP leadership, with their knowledge. That’s the way it should be done. If Chair Robinson doesn’t know about this group or this website, there’s been no such interaction. Despite the implication by one of the known leaders that it’s done under the authority of the ORP, it could actually be hostile to him and to the ORP leadership. As it happens, there’s evidence that’s exactly the case.

Along the same lines, this group is shrouded in secrecy. The website states its policy is to not divulge the names of its members. It’s understandable why it wouldn’t be willing to do so to media or those outside the group; that’s just basic security procedure. It is, however, of concern that they won’t reveal who is administering the website. They also don’t allow forwarding addresses, using as an example “,” saying this could lead to non-members inadvertently becoming part of the group. Why is this a concern? All county officers are elected by (and usually elected out of) the PCP; don’t they automatically meet the criteria?   What does the group need to keep hidden from the ORP leadership that they don’t want membership to slide easily and automatically if there’s a change?

The final wrinkle is that it’s creating a top-down shadow GOP. The entire structure of the ORP is the PCPs form the core, elected by registered Republicans and organizing at the county level. Most counties even break that up into House District or other areas so the PCP at the grassroots level are working most closely with each other. The counties then elect their representation at the state level, which forms the overall governing body, the state Central Committee. Out of that are elected the state Officers who, with District leaders elected directly by the PCP, comprise the Executive Committee. How is a self-appointed, largely unrevealed group of people operating at the state level an improvement on a bottom-up grassroots structure?

Again, there’s nothing wrong with PCP communicating with each other, and there’s a great benefit in cross-pollination around the state. There are mechanisms in place to do that. It’s just questionable when it’s done outside the party structure without being clear as to who’s involved and why.

Written by Jeffrey S. Smith

30 July 2014 at 11:14 am

Posted in Musings

Tagged with , , ,

Making sure Republicans lose

with 4 comments

Almost since its founding in the late 1850’s, the Republican Party has been plagued by internal strife. It’s a party of moral righteousness (and, often, self-righteousness) that takes founding principles very, very seriously. Clashes between firebrand ideologues and more restrained pragmatists have been fought over a myriad of issues, ideas, strategies and tactics.

Such contentiousness was a hallmark of the first Republican Presidential Administration, that of Abraham Lincoln and the tendency shows no signs of slackening. We fight over issues like abortion and gay marriage, over candidates, over leadership, calling them “RINO”, “Establishment” or other pejoratives that dehumanize, minimize and otherwise generalize about people with whom we, for the most part, agree much more than we disagree.

I can’t say for sure that it’s currently the worst it’s ever been as I haven’t been around the entire 150+ years, but I can tell you it’s currently the worst I’ve seen in the 30+ years I have been involved. Bear in mind that includes the “Religious Right” takeover of the party a couple of decades back and a number of internal squabbles since.

Oregon’s Republican Party is, like many other states, in the throes of a struggle for control. A shadow party has been and is currently being developed, comprised largely of sycophants of a personality cult who use deception, ballot-stuffing, lawsuits and intimidation as their primary tactics to undermine those who were elected by their peers to lead the organization.

Just to be clear, there’s nothing wrong with disagreement within the party; in fact, it’s a sign of a healthy organization. If we wanted uniformity, we’d join a cult; it’s easier, and someone else sets all the rules. But there’s no future in a party which won’t raise funds, which targets its own candidates and leaders for removal. How does it help elect Republicans to file an 80-page frivolous lawsuit? Even though it was thrown out, both the author and the targets wasted time focused on it rather than anything that might be construed as helping defeat the socialist left both parties want to at least forestall, if not defeat.

Meanwhile, I’m on the email lists of both the Obama propaganda/organizing network and the DPO. They’re working hard at getting money, at setting the tone, of launching programs intended to rally support and undermine or distract the Republican base. They realize we’re in a long-term, incremental war for the soul of America. Since it’s only viable opposition is aiming its collective guns inward, it can’t help but win – if not this year, then in 2016.

They’re willing to wait while we squabble ourselves into irrelevance. In fact, some would argue we’re already there.

Written by Jeffrey S. Smith

11 July 2014 at 11:39 am

Posted in Musings

Tagged with , , ,

Of lemonade stands and election 2012

leave a comment »

Even if you haven’t had the experience yourself, you’re aware of it by observation.  On a hot summer day, kids get the great idea to set up a table outside the house and sell lemonade.  Cooperative parents help with making the drink and providing the cups, and the child sits outside, dreaming of the cash they’ll soon have to buy, well, whatever they want.

Except it doesn’t quite work out that way, does it?

Sure, Mom buys a glass, and so does Dad.  Maybe a neighbor or two will help empty the first pitcher, but it doesn’t take very long before it’s obvious all those cars going by aren’t going to stop.  You have a great product (after all, it was made by Mom), an excellent location (see all those cars????) and yet no one’s buying what you’re selling.

The experience, of course, isn’t limited to the elementary school set.  A lot of adults have had great ideas for a wonderful new product or service, or maybe even a new twist on an old idea, only to see the crowds beat a path away from their door.  In many cases, the product is a good one, and the location even excellent; people just aren’t buying what you’re selling.

So, what does this have to do with the 2012 election?  Well, in the two months or so since November, we’ve all seen the political “experts” ruminate on what went wrong.  “The GOP didn’t do a good enough job at _______ (pick your favorite shortcoming)”, or “Mitt wasn’t in it to win it”, or any of a number of blame-pinning faults and failings.  But, stepping back from the finger-pointing and comparing this cycle to the exceptionally successful tidal wave of 2010, it becomes clear there wasn’t a great deal of difference between what the Republican Party and GOP candidates did then and what they did last year.  In fact, in many ways we did better and yet we got taken to the woodshed at nearly every level and in nearly every state.

So, if we can’t really blame our team, who can we blame?

For a clue, check out what US voters are saying since the election was held.  President Obama consistently comes in with an approval rating above 50% – a rate he’s had since about a month before the election and has held on to since.  Most Americans believe the “fiscal cliff” tax hike isn’t enough and the “rich” should pay more and lose deductions.  Most believe that the US economy is unfair to the middle class and – here’s the kicker – see those fighting to keep their taxes from going up as the bad guys in the fiscal debate.

In other words, they’re not buying what we’re selling.

Oh, sure, we could have done a better job doing the basic work of campaigning, and maybe Mitt could have done a better job running.  As a practical matter, it’s always possible and desirable to do more.  Truth be told, however, it’s hard to see how it could have been planned or executed better.  Mitt knocked that first debate out of the park and was spot on in his message.  Okay, so Oregon wasn’t a battleground state and received short shrift from national money and media, but what we did we did as well as we could, and reports from the battleground states indicate they were superlative efforts.

The reality is the voters determine what they want and, by extension, who they think will give it to them.  Oh, sure; there are those who see a conspiracy behind the election process; they can be lumped in with the “truthers” and tin-hat ET sort; evidence against their beliefs are ignored while the slimmest speculation in support is taken as gospel.  The reality is voters pick the nominees and the final victor; it’s as true in US politics as it is in American Idol and, despite clear evidence of election fraud, the end result is based on what the people want.

So why did the majority of voters support those whose policies will bankrupt the city, state and nation, particularly since just two years earlier – and even as late as six months earlier – the wind was in our direction?  First off, voters are incredibly fickle – just ask George HW Bush, who had a 70%+ approval rating a year before he lost handily to an “ah, shucks” country bumpkin.   As a group, they tend to respond emotionally rather than logically, voting for someone because he played saxophone on late-night TV or had an African father.  Appeals to rational arguments, even things as close as family income and buying power, doesn’t result in voter support near as much as a vague feeling that the candidate “gets me” or, better yet, “is like me.”  Try as we might, Republicans can’t seem to create that charisma.

There’s an element of this that also explains why Republicans and conservative ideas did better in 2010 than they did in 2012; the TEA Party put a human face on those ideals and, in a manner unseen since the American Revolution, made liberty popular and populist.  Expressing real emotions (rather than cynically manipulating them, as the left tends to do), they touched the hearts of voters and the latter responded.  Since then, however, the TEA Party has largely disappeared from the national stage (except as cannon fodder for leftist candidates and media hacks) and, without the emotional support, the movement stalled.

This isn’t a call for the TEA Party to get back into the streets, although it would be nice to see them supplant the current crop of Occupiers who have moved the discussion the other direction.  Emotions like that can’t really be manufactured; if the movement is going to revive it will have to be done the same way it happened before; spontaneously.

And then, in 2014 and 2016 we may have a majority of those cars stop for a glass of lemonade.

Written by Jeffrey S. Smith

2 January 2013 at 6:39 am

47 Percent

with one comment

There was a time in this country when people were embarrassed to admit they needed help. They wouldn’t accept charity because they believed it was their personal responsibility to provide for themselves and their family and that to accept help from others was to admit failure.

But today, things are different.  If someone points out that a certain political party gets a lot of its support because it promises not only to keep current “entitlements” flowing that certain party cries foul.  Since Mitt Romney has recently done that, the Democrats have decided to use the statements as a way to rally their supporters, as in this recent email direct from the Obama campaign:

From: Stephanie Cutter, []
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 8:35 PM
Subject: “Personal responsibility”

 If you’d like to receive more emails like this, join the Truth Team.

Yesterday, a leaked video from a closed-door fundraiser showed Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney telling a room full of big-money donors that Americans who don’t support him think they’re “victims” who don’t “take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

So rarely over the course of this campaign have we gotten to hear Mitt Romney say what he believes in such a revealing, unfiltered manner. This is one of those moments. It’s important that we make sure that the people in our lives who are just tuning into this election know what disdain and contempt Romney has for half of the citizens of this nation he wants to lead. Take a look at the items in this tipsheet, and then share them with others.

#1 What Americans think of Romney’s comments
The secret video shows that Romney believes nearly half of all Americans won’t take responsibility for their own lives and don’t pay taxes. Watch this video of Americans listening and reacting to Romney’s shocking comments, and make sure others do too:

#2 Who Romney is writing off?
It’s worth taking a second to look at some of the people who make up the nearly half of the country that Romney has so much disdain for. Who exactly are these people that Romney rips for not paying income taxes? The overwhelming majority are seniors, students, people with disabilities, or working families. They pay payroll taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and more. Those working families include U.S. soldiers in combat, receptionists, firefighters, and clergy, just to name a few. Certainly, those folks aren’t short on personal responsibility. Read this blog post highlighting some of the Americans that Romney has written off, and share it with others:

#3 Romney’s responsibility map
Romney has said that “my job is not to worry about” the people who don’t support him. But America needs a president who will stand up for all Americans, not just the half of the country who agrees with him. Take a look at this graphic about Romney’s idea of “responsibility” and post it to your Facebook wall.



Stephanie Cutter
Deputy Campaign Manager
Obama for America

P.S. — Another way to fight back against Romney and his divisive politics is to chip in and help fund our grassroots campaign. Romney has big-money donors at closed-door fundraisers, President Obama has you. Chip in $25 or more today.

Paid for by Obama for America

Contributions or gifts to Obama for America are not tax deductible.


You should also note Mitt Romney owned up to the statement.  He could have, like President Obama with the murder of the US Ambassador to Libya, try to deflect attention away from the main issue by pointing out the clip ,ay have been obtained  illegally.  Or, again like President Obama with the “you didn’t build that” quote, try to weasel out of the statement and claim it was taken out of context, even though the clip on Mother Jones is clearly edited.  Instead, he stood up, admitted it could have been said better but the statement itself is fundamentally true.  That shows strength of character not seen in many political leaders, and most certainly not from the present Administration.

Founding Father James Madison said, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents…”.  We’ve wandered from from the principles of the Constitution, and have gotten to the point where many Americans – and 47 percent is not an unreasonable percentage – not only accept the slavery that comes with government benevolence, but crave and demand it.  Many politicians on both sides of the aisle seem content to not rock the boat and, in fact, work to make it ever larger.

Maybe, just maybe, we’ve found one who will not only rock it, but sink the boat.

Written by Jeffrey S. Smith

20 September 2012 at 6:20 am

%d bloggers like this: