TAMPA, FL -- As Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney prepares to give the most important speech of his life Thursday night, U.S. Senate Johnny Isakson offered up a bit of advice to party's nominee: Focus on your strengths
Isakson, who is in Tampa for the Republican National Convention, told Patch that Romney has had numerous successes in his career — as a businessman, former governor of Massachusetts and head of the Salt Lake City Olympics. And he shouldn't be shy about letting people know about those achievements, Isakson said.
"He is a very accomplished man who has done very, very many things and has been successful," the senator said. "He’s been maligned a lot by many in the other party and many on the outside, but he’s the real deal. He’s a humble, dedicated person who wants to be a great public servant."
When Romney gives his acceptance speech Thursday night, "he needs to talk about what he’s good at — the economy, getting people back to work," Isakson said. "And I think that will resonate with delegates here and with the American people."
Isakson, like other GOP leaders in Tampa this week, said the campaigns of President Barack Obama and his supporters have been trying to shift the focus from the economy to other issues, like abortion or Romney's tax returns.
"They’ve talked about Bain Capital, they’ve talked about tax returns, they’ve talked about anything but the economy and jobs, where they have had a poor performance," he said. "I think when the campaign is focused and down to two candidates, which is it now...it’ll be a head-to-head battle, lke a championship boxing match between two very accomplished politicians, and I think those distractions will go out the window."
Isakson said he realizes Romney was not the first choice of many Georgia voters. by taking nearly twice as many votes as Romney.
But, the senator said, Republicans to put that behind them.
"It’s now time for Republicans to lock arms and go head to head with the opposition and be in full support of our nominee," said Isakson, who did not endorse any presidential candidate in the GOP primary. "It doesn’t matter whether you were on board two years ago or where you on board two months ago. The important thing is being on board now."
In 2008, Republican presidential candidate John McCain defeated Obama in Georgia by 5 percentage points, and Isakson predicted Romney will win by at least that margin in November.
But, he said, turnout will be critical.
"Anybody who says, 'Well, my guy didn’t win and I’m going to go home and not participate,' is making a big mistake," he said. "This is a critically important election and we need everybody on board."
With the financial crisis this country has gone through in the past due to the deregulation and investment fiasco that has resulted, it is VERY important to see how he might have benefited, because he isn't going to work very hard to change loopholes to screw his donor friends. And regard to the academic record being sealed - I have NO problem with that, to me that is no different than with doctors, lawyers or any other professional - a diploma is a diploma, and unless you have something to promote (ie first in class, etc.) there is no reason to let the vultures pick through - is a doctor that received A's and graduated any more qualified in the grand scheme of life than one who received C's? And regarding Obama - I seem to recall a certain republican (who I voted for ) that set the mess in motion long before Obama took office - I don't give the man a pass by any stretch, but OB wasn't exactly given a clean slate to work from, and I am not sure anyone would have been successful in one term.
"David Plouffe, a senior White House adviser who was President Obama’s 2008 campaign manager, accepted a $100,000 speaking fee in 2010 from an affiliate of a company doing business with Iran’s government. A subsidiary of MTN Group, a South Africa-based telecommunications company, paid Plouffe for two speeches he made in Nigeria in December 2010, about a month before he joined the White House staff. Since Plouffe’s speeches, MTN Group has come under intensified scrutiny from U.S. authorities because of its activities in Iran and Syria, which are under international sanctions intended to limit the countries’ access to sensitive technology. At the time of Plouffe’s speeches, MTN had been in a widely reported partnership for five years with a state-owned Iranian telecommunications firm."
"General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt admits General Electric is doing business with Iran. Iran has been sending platter charge improvisational explosive devices, also known as Explosively Formed Penetrators, into Iraq that have been maiming and killing American soldiers and marines since I was there in 2005. They have also made continuing and substantial fiscal contributions in support of anti-American and anti-Iraqi forces."
Wow, Frank imagine that a duplicitous Obama administration. Who need a shell when you have Obama and the media covering for him.
Managed Funds Association (MFA), a lobby group championing the protection of hedge funds, including Soros’ own Quantum Fund, from scrutiny. The hedge fund short sellers, who are members of the Managed Funds Association, are running our government today. They are the ones who authored the Dodd bill. Soros, naturally, is the leading member of the MFA, as well as its busiest and most influential member. The repeal of the uptick rule and other safeguards enable unregulated hedge funds to wreak market mayhem: The repeal of the safeguard regulations, such as the uptick rule, circuit breakers and trading curbs, and the introduction of the short ETFs (Exchange traded funds), which began under Christopher Cox at the Securities and Exchange Commission, has given the members of the MFA tremendous power and influence. He says these individuals include George Soros, John Paulson, Jim Chanos, James Simon, and other hedge fund short sellers, including those who operate Quant Funds and engage in computerized trading. The uptick rule essentially operated as a circuit breaker to prevent complete catastrophe driven by market exploitation. The removal of the uptick rules allows hedge fund short sellers to manipulate stock prices by triggering panic selling. "
Here are some facts for you people to digest. 1. President Obama (respect the office even if you don't respect the man) is a Natural Born U.S. citizen 2. The deficit has gone up because revenue is down, not because spending is up, Spending growth has grown at it's slowest pace since the 1950's. 3. Mitt Romney has not released his tax returns, even though his father believed that 10 years of returns should be released
1) Who here is claiming otherwise ? 2) ROFLMAO Are you freaking kidding? You and your comment are just too dumb for words. I'm not even going to bother linking to the hundreds of sites that unlike you, care about facts. The fact is that domestic spending has skyrocketed under Obama - anyway you count it. And no, you can't put all of Obama's first year of spending in the Bush column. It's a tactic that's already been debunked. 3) Distract, distort and divide. Knowing the kool aid drinkers and the lame stream media will carry the water ever time..
Here're some education for you "Truthseeker" http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22?pagenumber=2 Corporate profits have never been higher, but they're not hiring...you know why? Because they're in bed with Romney....what a shocker..... Can't wait to see Romney and corporate cronies crying in their lemonade on Nov 6th.
2. Your point on the deficit is priceless. So, just b/c spending isn't INCREASING AS FAST as it normally does, spending is not the problem. This is the same specious reasoning that says people are "cutting spending" when all they are doing is decreasing the percentage of an increase. Regardless of where revenue is at, SPENDING is the main culprit in the deficit. 3. It's funny that you bemoan others for asking that Obama provide REQUIRED proof, but you think Mitt Romney is obligated to produce MORE taxes than he already has even though it is NOT required. If Romney was a tax cheat, we'd have heard about it by now after 2 primaries & a governorship, & no IRS problems. Besides, even if all of your liberal wet dreams were true about Romney's taxes, Obama & the dems have already proven that being a tax cheat does not preclude you from serving in government.
http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzone/2012/05/24/obama-is-most-frugal-least-spending-of-presidents-hardly-wsj-rex-nuttings-nutty-dishonest-hilarious-claim-is-debunked-about-our-spending-binge-president/ http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/05/actually-the-obama-spending-binge-really-did-happen/ http://spectator.org/archives/2012/05/30/plenty-of-nutting http://yesbuthowever.com/ceis-hans-bader-dissects-rex-nuttings-fatally-flawed-analysis-of-obama-spending/
That means, for example, the $825 billion stimulus bill, proposed, lobbied for, signed and spent by Obama, goes in ... Bush's column. Nutting's "analysis" is so dishonest, even The New York Times has ignored it. He includes only the $140 billion of stimulus money spent after Oct. 1, 2009, as Obama's spending. And he's testy about that, grudgingly admitting that Obama "is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill." Nutting acts as if it's the height of magnanimity to "attribute that $140 billion in stimulus to Obama and not to Bush ..." Nutting's "and not to Bush" line is just a sleight of hand. He's hoping you won't notice that he said "$140 billion" and not "$825 billion," and will be fooled into thinking that he's counting the entire stimulus bill as Obama's spending. (He fooled Ed Schultz!) The theory is that a new president is stuck with the budget of his predecessor, so the entire 2009 fiscal year should be attributed to Bush. cont.
Obama also spent the second half of the Troubled Asset Relief Fund (TARP). These were discretionary funds meant to prevent a market meltdown after Lehman Brothers collapsed. By the end of 2008, it was clear the panic had passed, and Bush announced that he wouldn't need to spend the second half of the TARP money. But on Jan. 12, 2009, Obama asked Bush to release the remaining TARP funds for Obama to spend as soon as he took office. By Oct. 1, Obama had spent another $200 billion in TARP money. That, too, gets credited to Bush, according to the creative accounting of Rex Nutting. There are other spending bills that Obama signed in the first quarter of his presidency, bills that would be considered massive under any other president -- such as the $40 billion child health care bill, which extended coverage to immigrants as well as millions of additional Americans. These, too, are called Bush's spending. cont.
But all those errors pale in comparison to Nutting's counting Obama's nine-month spending binge as Bush's spending. If liberals will attribute Obama's trillion-dollar stimulus bill to Bush, what won't they do? Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ann-coulter/2012/05/24/coulter-column-figures-dont-lie-democrats-and-hack-journalists-do#ixzz259EJ4oQ1 BS PLEASE stop with with crap. Obama is a disaster and we all know it.
That means, for example, the $825 billion stimulus bill, proposed, lobbied for, signed and spent by Obama, goes in ... Bush's column. Nutting's "analysis" is so dishonest, even The New York Times has ignored it
BS you seem incapable of comprehending. NUTTING'S ANALYSIS SAYS ALL SPENDING FOR OBAMA'S FIRST YEAR BELONGS TO BUSH. Every penny Obama signed, lobbied, proposed, thought up, promoted for an entire year - Really??? Even you can't be that stupid. Just stop the insanity.
Did you know that Gov. Romney served his entire term as Governor of Massachusetts without taking a penny in salary! Did you know that Gov. Romney donated all of his father's wealth to charity? If you would like to see a movie that explains why a "smart" man like O would still not be able to see and correct his failed policies after 3 1/2 years in office, go to see 2016 Barack Obama.
Your argument that Romney didn't take a salary as Governor is meaningless. He's worth $250 million or more and the governor's salary is chump change. Assuming that the salary was $300K, that's less than .1% of his worth and <1% of his income. For Romney, $300K equates to $240-$400 for the rest of us...no big deal. As to the 5 points...energy exploration with continue with or without Romney. Obama will support additional research and develop of alternative energy. Romney has a history of sending jobs overseas. Balanced budget is a goal, however, history shows (if you review the deficits and debt charts), that Dems have done a better job. Further the Romney/Ryan tax plan shifts additional tax burden onto the middle class while further cutting the rates for the wealthy from their already historically low tax rates. Tax rates were significantly higher under Reagan than they are now AND there were fewer high income deductions! Romney/Ryan = Good if You're Already Rich Obama/Biden = Good if You're Trying to Get Rich (or just middle class).
The President does not have to know everything, but he has the position to surround himself with the experts. Not only has Obama not chosen his advisers wisely, report after report says he doesn't listen to solutions suggested by the knowledgeable ones. This is a fatal flaw for a leader, and, in this case for our Country. Welfare and making the whole world poor together is not the answer. We need a strong United States to bring the rest of the world to a higher level.
If our elected officials had been "awake and knowledgeable" this cld hv been stoppd. Instead banks are bailed out & we're in so deep it may take generations to correct. We need a President who is a leader with a business sense that works in the "real world", not just a bunch of political rhetoric. I am not the all knowing answer giver, but I have spent the last year+ surrounded by eco develprs from across the country- r.e. developers, corp heads, influential leaders in job develpmnt- NOT ONE has agreed with O's programs and decisions, but ALL have agreed that re-election of Obama would have catastrophic results for this country.
President Obama's biggest challenge in the debates is avoiding ridiculing Mr. Romney. It will be diffucult to take the GOP candidate with a sufficient degree of seriousness, given the lack of qualifying evidence on the part of Mr. Romney.