The Romney Revolution

The Romney Revolution

The year was 1980.  The President was Jimmy Carter.  Under Carter’s leadership, the United States was experiencing stagflation, high unemployment, an energy crisis was brewing, and the Iran hostage crisis was in full effect.  While he began his term with a 66% approval rating, it had dropped to 34% (with 55% disapproving).  It was also an election year… and Ronald Reagan was Carter’s opponent.  On November 4, 1980, Reagan took 44 states and won the election in a landslide.  Carter became the first elected president since 1932 to lose a reelection bid, and his presidency was largely considered to be a failure.  1980 was the beginning of the Reagan Revolution.

Fast forward to the present day.  Barack Obama is President.  Under Obama’s leadership, the United States continues to experience a recession he claims to have ended more than two years ago, unemployment remains high after pumping trillions of borrowed money the U.S. does not have into the economy, fuel costs are higher than at any time since before Obama was in office (The Los Angeles Times reports that gasoline prices are going to be at record highs in 2012), and Iran continues to be a threat against the U.S. and its allies.  Obama is Carter 2.0, no doubt about it.

[vsw id=”F33–Nn_Pms” source=”youtube” width=”425″ height=”344″ autoplay=”no”]

And as the last few years have unfolded, Republicans have been saying, “Obama is their Carter.  Who will be our Reagan?”  And many continue to search.

What Republicans have been looking for is right under our noses.  His name is Mitt Romney.  Get ready America, because you are about to experience the Romney Revolution.


I know. I know.  Many of my Republican friends are passionate about their particular candidates whether they are Rick Perry, Ron Paul or whoever is today’s flavor of the day.  First there was Pawlenty, after which there was Bachmann, Perry was on top, then Cain, then Gingrich, Ron Paul and now Santorum seems to be surging.  But the one constant is Mitt Romney.  He’s always near the top and he’s pretty unshakable.

But if Romney is so unshakable, why did he not win the primary in 2008?  It’s a fair question.  And the overarching answer will surprise you.  When we think back to 2008, we remember that we were coming to the end of a Bush’s last term, a President whom the Democrats and media dubbed a Neocon, the 2006 election was backlash against Republicans, and the “Maverick” McCain served as an independent or moderate Republican who could win… and he was nominated.  Unfortunately, McCain lost to an inexperienced far left ideologue, Barack Obama.

If we remember back to just a few short years ago, Mitt Romney was “too conservative.”  Today, his opponents want you to believe he’s “too liberal.”  The truth is… he’s just right.  Hence, the Romney Revolution.

As Romney’s political opponents in the primaries want voters to believe he’s a flip-flopper or that he’s just too Left Wing, his endorsements from the Right Wing, establishment and non-establishment, continue to pour in.

Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey, former Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, approximately ten times as many current and former Governors, Senators, Congressmen, and state legislators as all the other candidates combined.  “Tea Party versus Establishment” Senatorial candidate from Delaware, Christine O’Donnell, has endorsed Romney. The Right Wing Washington Examiner, the definitive “conservative” alternative to the Washington Post as well as the Des Moines Register Editorial Board both issued Romney endorsements.  And the list is getting longer each day.  In fact, Right Wing author Ann Coulter aptly states, “…of the available candidates, Romney is by far the most conservative — tied with Michele Bachmann — and he has the proven ability to win in a state like Massachusetts.”  Yes, Coulter has endorsed Romney too.

[vsw id=”-MCqc1Dfk04″ source=”youtube” width=”425″ height=”344″ autoplay=”no”]

Romney is by far the most presentable, acceptable and the strongest Republican candidate.  And he’s the best candidate to beat Obama in 2012.  ABC News/Washington Post has Romney tied with Obama 47% to 47% (12/15-12/18).  The Democrat Party-affiliated polling firm Public Policy Polling shows in a recent poll that Romney beats Obama 47% to 45%. (12/16-12/18).  More importantly, the most accurate Presidential pollster, Rasmussen Reports, shows in the most recent poll that Romney destroys Obama 45% to 39% (12/27-12/28).  No other Republican candidate polls as well as Romney.  Not even close.  Hence, the Romney Revolution.

It’s been a long time since a Presidential candidate has boasted such a well rounded resume.  His executive experience in business, the 2002 Winter Olympics and as Governor of Massachusetts is unsurpassed.

In 1984, Mitt Romney and two partners founded Bain & Company (now known as Bain Capital).  It was started with $37 million, raised entirely from private individuals.  Their objective was consulting with companies and offering an intensive, analytical approach in an effort to maximize their potential.  Bain Capital today manages approximately $65 billion in assets, and its strategies include private equity, venture capital, public equity, high-yield assets and mezzanine capital funds.


Romney’s success in business is unmatched, but his success is criticized by the Left.

Democrats characterizes Bain Capital as buying floundering corporations at low cost, stripping away any projects that aren’t profiting or that lack potential, and laying off any excess workers for a profit.  They really like to emphasize the laying off of workers part.  Republicans characterize Bain Capital as a firm that takes sick companies, finds the cancer and removes it so that they can be healthy and strong again.  An example of this? One of the Bain Capital’s first start-up investments was Staples, Inc., the $15 billion office supply retailer. The funding enabled Staples to expand from one store in 1986 to over 2,000 stores in 2011.  Today, Staples employs approximately 90,000 people.  That’s positive job growth.

Another example is Dade International. It’s a favorite used by the Left because 1,700 people were laid off and the New York Times ran the personal stories of a handful of those affected. What the article or the Left does not do is tell you the whole story…after Romney’s company went in, Dade International, a company on the verge of bankruptcy, more than doubled. They acquired two of its rivals. And they ended up growing the company’s workforce to 7,400 workers. 1,700 fired, and 7,400 workers kept their jobs and/or were hired. I think Mr. Obama calls that a save or gain of 5,700 jobs.


The Winter Olympics was running $379 million shortfall in 1999.  After Romney became the president and CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee, the 2002 Winter Olympics cleared a profit of $100 million.  How somebody can make money from curling and the luge is beyond me, but Romney did it.  Furthermore, Romney and his wife contributed $1 million to the Olympics, and he donated to charity the $1.4 million in salary and severance payments he received for his three years as president and CEO.

When elected as Governor of Massachusetts in 2003, Romney faced an immediate $650 million shortfall and a projected $3 billion deficit for the next year.  By 2006, the state had a $600–700 million surplus.


Sure, there was that Romneycare thing during his time, but he’s explained that more times than Ron Paul has had to explain his Newsletters and Gingrich has had to explain his affairs.  The bottom line is that Romney is a state’s rights guy and the last I checked, Republicans were state’s rights folks who believe that local governing, so long as it does not interfere with our civil liberties and rights, is the best governing.

[vsw id=”xmC4MJ8qU1Y” source=”youtube” width=”425″ height=”344″ autoplay=”no”]

The United States of America, under Obama, has seen more debt in 3 years than what Bush did in 8 years.  We’ve seen our credit rating slip.  We’re seeing a recession that doesn’t seem to want to go away.  Unemployment is high.  And our whole economic outlook is poor.

Yet, right in front of our face is a candidate who turned $37 million into $65 billion in the private sector, who turned an Olympic $379 million shortfall in 1999 into a $100 million profit in 2002, who turned a state’s $650 million shortfall (projected $3 billion deficit) into a $600–$700 million surplus in three short years.  Like I said, what Republicans have been looking for is right under our noses.


The Reagan Presidency was termed the Reagan Revolution because he reinvigorated American morale and reduced the people’s reliance upon government.  The time of saying, “Obama is their Carter.  Who will be our Reagan?” is over.

Romney is the right candidate at the right time.  Hence, the Romney Revolution.

Share This Post

6 Responses to "The Romney Revolution"

  1. I just have to focus on this one mind-boggling sentence.

    >>When we think back to 2008, we remember that we were coming to the end of a Bush’s last term, a President whom the Democrats and media dubbed a Neocon, the 2006 election was backlash against Republicans, and the “Maverick” McCain served as an independent or moderate Republican who could win… and he was nominated. Unfortunately, McCain lost to an inexperienced far left ideologue, Barack Obama.

    Just astonishing. How can one sentence contain so much idiocy?

    1. The media and Democrats didn’t “dub” Bush a Neocon. He completely embraced neoconservatism in the course of his term and thus BECAME a neocon.

    2. And what difference does it make anyway? What does it have to do with anything? It’s a complete non-sequitur. You might as well have said “we were coming to the end of a Bush’s last term, a President who enjoyed a good football game…”

    3. No mention as to WHY “the 2006 election was backlash against Republicans.” Probably wise, but still hilarious.

    4. “and the “Maverick” McCain served as an independent or moderate Republican who could win… and he was nominated.” Okay, and this explains why Romney didn’t get the nomination…How, exactly? I mean, that’s basically what happened (minus pretty much every pertinent fact), but you’re aware that you didn’t explain ANYTHING, didn’t even attempt to answer the question you raised, right? It’s like saying “Why did the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor? We remember that Pearl Harbor was located in Hawaii, and Franklin Roosevelt was President at the time.” WTF? Do you really not even comprehend the basic 101 elementary rules of essay-writing?

    4. “Unfortunately, McCain lost to an inexperienced far left ideologue, Barack Obama.” Again, no mention of why he might’ve lost. Nothing about his shitty campaign or shitty choice of running mate or shitty debate performance or that America didn’t want to elect another Republican after the previous one had so seriously wrecked the country and gotten it into a pointless, endless war that killed thousands of innocents.

    And “far left ideologue”, I love it. Yeah, he’s far left, Tim. In terms of the major issues, has there been a more compromising, middle-of-the-road, moderate President in your lifetime? On what planet?

    Man, you crack me up.

    Happy new year!

    Reply
    1. What is it you want? Mitt Romney took his state from 50th in unemployment to 11th. He cut 341 social programs to balance a 3 billion dollar deficit in the budget. That is downsizing Government. He is against cap and trade, states there is no way to even measure man’s input to climate change. He is for drilling in the united states and building more refineries.

      He has always been against federal mandates and believes things should be dealt with on a state to state approach. He was the first to present the idea of waivers against Obama Care until it can be repealed. Immigration? He defunded sanctuary cities while Governor. He is against Amnesty. Take time to look at his 844 vetoes. They are all on the conservative side of every issue. He is pro life and he governed that way. Health Care? They had a 484 Million dollar Heath Care deficit that was greatly affecting the sustainability of the states hospitals. What do you do ignore it? The concept came from the Conservative Heritage Foundations think tank. Once it was presented the Democrats made many additions to it.

      Mitt Romney vetoed 8 things in it that he knew would be problematic. He was vetoed back by a veto proof legislature. There is nothing any Governor could do, if the legislature has the majority which it did.. In the state it was, when he had to sign it in. It added no new taxes. Was 1% of the state budget. It was created for the 8% of the people in the state that caused the debts. It did not try and do away with private health care. There are good things and bad. He vetoed the bad things. By due process of American Government, he was required to sign the Bill in that present form. Any Governor would have to.

      He is a fighter. 844 vetoes, was vetoed back 700 times. What more do you want?

      He has a 169 page plan for you to read on fixing the economy
      He has so far come up with cutting 500 Billion out of the existing Budget
      He wants to have a law where it is illegal for the Government to Deficit spend

      Downsized Government
      Balanced the Budget

      Reply
  2. Spare me the myths about what a fantastic job Romney did as governor. This took about two seconds to find, and I’m pretty sure there’s plenty more debunking where that came from:

    http://www.thenation.com/blog/164599/why-mitt-romney-had-such-bad-record-jobs-massachusetts

    “Massachusetts’ economy performed poorly during his tenure and his defense is misleading. Massachusetts’ unemployment generally follows that of the nation as a whole, but it went from slightly better than the national unemployment rate (5.6 percent in the state versus 5.8 percent in the country) when he took office to slightly worse when he left (4.7 percent in Massachusetts versus 4.4 percent nationally). And his record is even arguably worse than that: Massachusetts lost population for two years in a row during Romney’s term. That means the unemployment number went down because the denominator shrank, but that’s hardly a sign of a growing economy. Total jobs in Massachusetts were the same when he left office as when he started and many key industries actually lost jobs.”

    I’d debunk more, but so much of it is gibberish. I love this:

    “He has a 169 page plan for you to read on fixing the economy”

    Wow. Fantastic. How’s he gonna fix the economy? Who knows? The important thing is that it’s 169 pages! Oh my! It MUST be good! It’s too long NOT to be!

    Sheer hilarity.

    Reply
  3. This is a very well written article I have to say. Now that being said please tell me how can he win a debate with Obama when he’s voted for the same things like him? I see the positives in him I really do but also see the negative and have a feeling its really going to hurt him

    Reply
  4. I’ll be voting for Mitt for the next president 2012 because for the sake of the stinking economy. I believe he is the only one that can get us out of this mess!

    Reply

Post Comment