Categories

Archive for the ‘Mitt Romney’ Category

This morning’s biggest political headline is Ted Cruz’s announcement that he’s running for president. Right behind that headline, though, is this Washington Post article:

COLUMBIA, S.C. — When Jim Ulmer came to see Scott Walker here last week, he was transfixed. “He’s the little engine that could,” Ulmer said, describing the Wisconsin governor who successfully battled labor unions and has rocketed to the front of the Republican presidential race. “He has guts,” said Ulmer, 52, Republican Party chairman in rural Orangeburg County. “The people of America are looking for another Ronald Reagan, someone we can believe in, someone who will keep freedom safe. Walker could be it.”

That’s the basis for the article’s headline. Still, that isn’t what should give the Bush campaign pause. This should:

Those who turned out in droves to size up Walker during two days of events here said his top rival, Jeb Bush, a former Florida governor and heir to a political dynasty, gives them pause. None mentioned Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), a tea party favorite who will announce his candidacy Monday at Liberty University in Virginia.

This isn’t a prediction but it wouldn’t surprise me if Jeb Bush flopped. The media love Jeb Bush. They’re love that he isn’t willing to rule of raising taxes. They love the fact that he’s a fierce advocate for federal control of education, aka Common Core. Mostly, though, they love him for supporting the Democrats’ immigration bill.

That puts him out of step with Republicans.

It isn’t that Bush “gives them pause.” It’s that Republican activists don’t trust Jeb. They don’t trust Bush because he represents the loser wing of the Republican Party. There isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between Jeb Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney. They don’t fight for conservatism. Their chief attribute is that they’re supposedly electable.

Contrast that with Scott Walker:

As they see it, he’s a fighter, tenacious and decisive. He fought the unions again and again, and he won each time. They see the 47-year-old governor as a truth-teller, a pure conservative and an energetic, fresh face, as the future.

“He represents everything I want in a president,” Joan Boyce, 61, a school cafeteria worker, said after seeing him speak at a barbecue dinner in Greenville. “He’s refreshing for a change. He feels honest to me; he really does. He doesn’t talk like a politician. He talks like a regular guy.”

Scott Walker has a substantial list of conservative accomplishments. People appreciate that. They don’t appreciate Gov. Bush’s attempt to sell conservatives down the river on important things like immigration and Common Core.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

This morning, Mitt Romney officially announced that he isn’t running for president:

Mitt Romney announced Friday he will not run for president in 2016, after briefly flirting with a third White House run — a decision that only slightly narrows the crowded field of potential Republican candidates.

“After putting considerable thought into making another run for president, I’ve decided it is best to give other leaders in the Party the opportunity to become our next nominee,” Romney said in a written statement. He also was announcing his plans on a conference call with donors Friday morning.

Though this is a bit of a surprise, it might be as simple as Mitt being unable to put together a national organization rather than him not wanting to run. It might also be that he’s finally accepted the fact that he’s history in the eyes of GOP activists.

Lots of people, myself included, think he would’ve been vastly superior to President Obama. Obama’s national security policies are a disaster. President Obama’s economic policies have revived terminology like new normal. President Obama’s economic policies haven’t revived talk about a booming economy.

Mitt won the nomination in 2012 against a weaker field than this year’s field of candidates. Adding to Mitt’s worries is the fact that he started talking like a liberal. That isn’t how to win the GOP nomination. Mitt was a compromised candidate in 2012, too. He couldn’t take the fight to President Obama on President Obama’s biggest failure, aka Obamacare. This time around, Mitt would’ve had to fight against the economic accomplishments and conservative reforms of people like Scott Walker and Rick Perry.

The simple fact is that Mitt couldn’t win.

Jim Geraghty’s evaluation of the GOP presidential candidates is fascinating. Rather than starting with the top tier candidates, let’s start by hearing what he said about the MSM’s top tier:

Jeb Bush: Sure, he’ll have the money, and he’ll have the name. But let’s not even get into the immigration, Common Core, business ties or family dynasty issues yet. Republican primary voters, particularly conservative ones, think that the Obama presidency is the worst calamity to hit America in their lifetimes, and fear it is doing permanent damage to the national values, identity, and standing in the world. GOP primary voters are going to want a fighter, and do they think Jeb Bush has been leading the fight against Obama?

Mitt Romney: When people tell Mitt Romney, “Governor, I really wish you had won in 2012,” they’re not saying, “Governor, I think you would have been one of the greatest presidents in our lifetimes.” They’re saying, “Governor, Obama is really, really, really terrible, and electing you would have spared the country a lot of pain.” He’s a good man, but a lot of Republicans are ready to move on to new options. Plus, you know… Gruber.

Chris Christie: If Bush and Romney are both in, you have to wonder how many big donors stick by him. He did better in his Iowa appearance than some might have expected, and he’s undoubtedly going to be a dominant figure in the debates. But he’s positioned himself in opposition to the rest of the party way too often, and you can’t win the GOP nomination from the Jon Huntsman slot, as the Republican nominee most acceptable to the Acela class that can’t stand Republicans.

Rand Paul: He’ll have his dad’s network, and he’s way more compelling than his father was. But there’s a ceiling to Libertarian-minded candidates in the modern Republican Party, and it’s going to be tougher to sell quasi-isolationist non-interventionism as the world blows up and grows even more dangerous in Obama’s final two years in office.

This isn’t 2008 or 2012, when the GOP didn’t field a bunch of top tier candidates like they’re fielding this year. In 2012, Paul Ryan would’ve swamped the field, including Mitt. This year, Paul Ryan would have a respectable following but he wouldn’t be seen as the prohibitive favorite.

Jeb Bush has irritated conservatives far too often to win the nomination. Sen. McCain got away with that in 2008 because he ran against a field of weaklings. Jeb won’t get away with that this time because he’s running against a virtual team of Olympic weightlifters. Mitt’s time came and went. Whether he officially runs is almost irrelevant at this point. That’s because he’s overmatched.

First Tier:

Scott Walker: He’s serious and accomplished enough for the “Establishment,” and indisputably conservative enough for the grassroots. The Left threw everything it had at this guy and he’s still going strong. Despite the questions about his charisma, he’s getting rave reviews for his passion in his appearance this weekend.

Marco Rubio: He’s arguably the best communicator in the Republican Party, and the Republican Party desperately needs a good communicator as its nominee.

With rave reviews from Charles Krauthammer and James Pethokoukis, he could end up being the conservative pundits’ favorite choice. Yes, there’s still irritation about the gang of “Gang of Eight” and anti-Senator skepticism to overcome, but he’s speaking about the broad, unifying national theme of American exceptionalism since 2010. Obviously, he offers a fantastic contrast with Hillary.

Rick Perry: The former governor of Texas is likely to be the only re-running candidate who improves upon his past performance. He still has a sterling economic record to point to, he’s been going toe-to-toe with the Obama administration consistently, he’s got enough charm to work on Jimmy Kimmel. This time, he won’t be coming off back surgery, he won’t start late and we’ll see just how much the hipster glasses help.

Bobby Jindal: Yes, he needs to speak slower. Yes, it’s not clear that a style that works in Louisiana will work on the national stage. But he’s a bit like Walker in that he’s amassed an indisputably conservative record while getting things done in two terms. There’s probably not another contender who knows more detail about more policies, and he’s guided his state through some severe challenges – post-Katrina rebuilding, a pair of serious hurricanes, the Deepwater Horizon and the drilling moratorium. What’s more, he’s been fighting the administration on issues like school choice for years and he moves fast when an opportunity opens like the House GOP botching a late-term abortion bill.

After Gov. Walker’s performance at Saturday’s Freedom Summit, he’ll be one of the most formidable candidates on either side of the aisle. While Hillary has her supporters, she doesn’t have supporters that’d run through brick walls to help her win. Gov. Walker’s supporters are passionate and they’re willing to do anything to help him win. (You don’t win 3 elections in 4 years by having supporters who are indifferent.)

As for Marco Rubio, there’s no question that his participation in the Gang of Eight immigration bill will hurt him with primary voters. Still, there’s no denying that he’s a powerful communicator with a compelling personal story that shouts ‘I’m living the American dream.’

Rick Perry is being written off by the MSM. That’s a mistake. They’ve focused too much on Perry’s oops moment during the 2012 and not enough on what he’s done on securing Texas’ border during the flood of unattended children. He’s a much more serious candidate this time.

At this point, I’d argue that Republicans are likely to win the White House. People are sick of President Obama and they just aren’t excited about Hillary. She’s been on the national scene for a quarter century. It’s impossible to sell yourself as a fresh face with Hillary’s resume.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

After reading Daniel Halper’s article, it’s clear that there isn’t a clear Republican frontrunner. Still, the unscientific poll is helpful. Here’s the results of TWS’ unscientific poll:

Scott Walker–mentioned on 44% of the ballots as either first, second or third choice; first choice on 18%. Thus, 44/18.

Ted Cruz–35/16.
Ben Carson–26/10.
Mitt Romney–24/12.
Bobby Jindal–20/3.
Jeb Bush–18/8.
Marco Rubio–18/4.
Rand Paul–16/6.
John Kasich–15/4.
Rick Perry–15/3.
Mike Huckabee–12/3.
John Bolton–10/3.
Mike Pence–9/2.
Chris Christie–8/2.
Rick Santorum–7/2.

I don’t agree with Bill Kristol’s statement:

So the most important take-away from the poll is this, I think: not only isn’t there a clear front-runner, there’s not even a clear handful of front-runners.

I strongly disagree with that statement, though I agree that there isn’t “a clear front-runner.” I’d disagree that there isn’t a “handful of front-runners.” Clearly, there’s a handful of front-runners. That group is made up of Scott Walker, Ted Cruz, Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush, with Gov. Bush coming in with a lackluster finish.

At this point, it’s difficult to take Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, Chris Christie and Rick Santorum seriously. I’ll give Pence, Perry and Kasich a shot, though it’s clear they’re in a lower tier at this moment, because they can raise money and they have a compelling record to run on.

It’s impossible to picture a path to the nomination for Rand Paul, Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee, Chris Christie or Rick Santorum. Huckabee and Santorum won the 2008 and 2012 Iowa caucuses but their base of Christian conservatives isn’t their’s anymore. Scott Walker’s message will play well with Christian conservatives. Rand Paul’s libertarian message will appeal to voters in New Hampshire but it won’t play well in Iowa and Florida. Sen. Paul’s message definitely won’t play in South Carolina, with its military bases and its Bible Belt roots.

In 2012, Mitt Romney got trounced in South Carolina. It isn’t a stretch to think that he won’t do well this time.

It’s a million political lifetimes away but there’s already some voter sorting happening already. It’ll be interesting to see whether that stratification continues.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

After reading this part of this article, it’s clear that Mitt Romney shouldn’t be the GOP presidential nominee:

He said Mr. Obama and Clinton would have America “walk back from red lines…lead from behind…[carry] a small stick.” He ticked through the world’s hotspots: Libya, Iraq, Ukraine, Iran. “Terrorists are not on the run,” he said. In a “post-Obama era,” he argued, the next president will need to use economic and diplomatic strength to shape events around the world and “make the world safer for freedom.”

Mitt’s right that President Obama’s red lines are seen by President Putin as being more of a rose color than red. Mitt’s wrong that diplomacy is what’s needed to shape world events, especially with terrorists and Putin.

What’s needed with President Putin is a combination of supplying Ukraine with arms to defend themselves against President Putin’s expansionism and the US announcing plans that they’re building a natural gas pipeline to Ukraine. Couple those things with hitting reset on Hillary’s reset button. That isn’t done with a cheesy-looking red button. It’s done by putting US missiles in Poland, Romania and throughout the Baltic States. That doesn’t mean going to war with Russia. It simply means confronting Putin’s expansionist initiatives. Better yet, it means acting proactively to prevent Russia from attempting to expand its influence.

President Putin is acting like a superpower. The West’s mistake is in treating Putin’s Russia like they’re a superpower. They aren’t. They never will be. Their economy can’t produce the wealth they need to compete with an economic and military superpower.

This paragraph highlights what went wrong with Mitt’s 2012 campaign:

On the third principle, he said, “We’re an abundant nation. We have the resources” to lift people out of poverty. He didn’t say precisely how he would accomplish that without increasing the size of the government, but he argued that Mr. Obama’s policies have not worked. “They work for a campaign, but they don’t get the job done,” he said. Only conservative principles like a focus on family formation and education, he added, would “end the scourge of poverty in this great land.”

That’s exceptionally timid. Just blast it out there. Capitalism is the only economic system that lifts families out of grinding poverty. Mitt’s biggest personal weakness is that he’s an apologetic capitalist. What he needs is a lesson like this from Milton Friedman:

Republicans need a candidate who a) isn’t bashful about being a capitalist, b) loves explaining the virtues of capitalism vs. the tyranny of collectivism and c) highlights the times where capitalism has improved people’s lives.

In 2015-16, that means highlighting how Obama’s EPA has hurt the coal, the natural gas and oil industries and how private citizens and local governments have made life significantly better for people. Highlight how North Dakota’s state policies have helped the Bakken lead a fossil fuel comeback that led to cheap gas prices. The GOP presidential nominee needs to remind people of the Democrats that said we “can’t drill our way to cheap gas prices.’

Mitt won’t make that case. That’s why he’s wrong.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

It was inevitable that the Democrats’ divide would deepen after their trouncing in this year’s midterms. This article highlights some of the infighting within the Democratic Party:

Tensions within the Democratic Party over policy and strategy have begun to surface after a midterm defeat that saw the party lose control of the Senate after eight years and cede more seats to Republicans in the House of Representatives.

The most glaring example came Tuesday, when Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-NY, criticized President Barack Obama over the 2010 health care overhaul. Schumer said the party should have focused on helping more of the middle class than the uninsured, whom he called “a small percentage of the electorate.” Schumer added that Obamacare was just one of a “cascade of issues” that the White House had bungled, a list that included the scandal over wait times at VA hospitals and responding to the threat of the Ebola virus.

Does this mean that the Democratic circular firing squad will report to the range ASAP? I’d argue that the signs indicate that they’re already at the range. I’d argue that they’re in the ‘target acquisition’ phase of the operation. This year’s exit polling showed rampant dissatisfaction with Democrats:

If Republicans win 35-40% of the Hispanic vote and win a majority of the Asian-American vote, Democrats will find 2016 to be difficult terrain. If that happens, the infighting that’s happening right now will only intensify.

This graphic shows another Democratic vulnerability:

This graphic is proof that demographics aren’t destiny. Actually, both graphics send the same message. What this exit polling shows is that candidate quality and issues matter. In 2016, especially with presidential candidates, Democrats have a virtually nonexistent bench.

While it’s undeniable that Hillary has 100% name recognition for people who haven’t spent the last 20 years living under a rock, that hardly proves she’s a quality. She’s famous because Bill Clinton is a popular ex-president. She’s famous for being one of the worst secretaries of state in the last century. She isn’t famous for being a competent secretary of state. Political junkies saw how untalented she is during her book tour. The number of deer-in-the-headlights moments easily outdistanced her ‘Hillary looks competent’ moments.

Hillary will lose if Republicans pick a talented governor who doesn’t come with a ton of baggage. That eliminates Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and Mitt Romney. If Republicans pick either Scott Walker, John Kasich, Mike Pence or Bobby Jindal, Republicans will defeat Hillary and send the Democratic Party into a tailspin.

If Harry Reid had said that he had sources who told him that Mitt Romney hadn’t paid taxes for 10 years while he was at a fundraiser, he would’ve gotten sued into bankruptcy by Mitt Romney. Sen. Reid essentially admitted that he didn’t have proof to verify his accusation when he said that he shouldn’t have to prove it, that the accusation was against Gov. Romney, not him.

That’s BS. The accusation against Sen. Reid is that he’s a liar who’s epeatedly gotten caught lying. Victor Davis Hanson’s article provides substantial ammunition against Sen. Reid:

During the 2012 presidential campaign, Reid libeled candidate Mitt Romney with the unsubstantiated and later-refuted charge that Romney was a tax cheat. “The word’s out that he [Romney] hasn’t paid any taxes for 10 years,” Reid said.

Later, when asked for proof, Reid offered a pathetic rejoinder: “I have had a number of people tell me that.” One wonders how many names were on Reid’s McCarthyite “tell” list — were there, as McCarthy used to bluster, 205 names, or perhaps just 57?

When asked again to document the slur, Reid echoed McCarthy perfectly: “The burden should be on him. He’s the one I’ve alleged has not paid any taxes.”

That’s just part of the proof of Sen. Reid’s McCarthyite accusations.

Reid has also brought back McCarthy’s custom of vicious and sometimes profane insults. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Reid announced: “I can’t stand John McCain.” Of then-President George W. Bush, Reid said: “President Bush is a liar.” Reid claimed that fellow Mormon Mitt Romney had “sullied” his religion.

When Gen. David Petraeus brought proof to Congress that the surge in Iraq was beginning to work by late 2007, Reid declared, “No, I don’t believe him, because it’s not happening.” He elaborated on that charge by labeling Petraeus, at the time the senior ground commander of U.S. forces fighting in Iraq, a veritable liar. Reid alleged that Petraeus “has made a number of statements over the years that have not proven to be factual.”

What’s stunning is that his Democratic colleagues in the Senate haven’t criticized him for his despicable, McCarthyite, unethical behavior. Neither has anyone in the supposedly MSM.

Jeanne Shaheen hasn’t criticized Sen. Reid for his McCarthyite rantings. Mary Landrieu, Mark Udall, Mark Begich, Kay Hagans, Al Franken and Mark Pryor haven’t criticized him for his McCarthyite antics, either.

In fact, Al Franken has virtually repeated Sen. Reid’s rants against the Koch brothers, the Democrats’ latest villains. I wrote this post to highlight the Koch brothers’ crimes against America:

Far from trying to rig the system, I have spent decades opposing cronyism and all political favors, including mandates, subsidies and protective tariffs—even when we benefit from them. I believe that cronyism is nothing more than welfare for the rich and powerful, and should be abolished.

Reid’s and Franken’s repeated rants against the Koch brothers are rants against people who want to get rid of corporate welfare. That isn’t something to vilify the Koch brothers for. That’s something that should be celebrated. Here’s something else that should be celebrated:

Koch employees have earned well over 700 awards for environmental, health and safety excellence since 2009, many of them from the [EPA and OSHA]. EPA officials have commended us for our “commitment to a cleaner environment” and called us “a model for other companies.”

Mark Pryor is so disgusting that he thinks Tom Cotton, who served 2 tours of duty in Iraq, is a spoiled brat who thinks he’s entitled to a seat in the US Senate.

To summarize, Sen. Reid’s malicious lies against the Democrats’ latest villain say that he’s willing to say anything despicable to help his candidates. Sen. Franken’s mindless rants against people who want to eliminate corporate welfare and whose employees have literally won hundreds of “environmental, health and safety excellence since 2009″ say that he’s content with vilifying good corporate citizes for political gain. Sen. Pryor’s hate-filled, anti-military rantings tell us that he’s a contemptible excuse for a human being.

It’s one thing to hit political opponents hard with verifiable facts. That’s called playing political hardball. When Sen. Franken lies about American industrialists who’ve contributed greatly to their employees’ lives, that’s called despicable behavior. When a U.S. senator criticizes a military veteran of being pampered and having an entitlement mentality, that’s proof that he’s a despicable human being who doesn’t have the requisite character to be a senator.

There’s only one conclusion to be drawn from this proof. The Democratic Party is an immoral political party. They haven’t hesitated in lying about the Koch brothers, Mitt Romney or Tom Cotton. Their senators have stayed silent while Sen. Reid maligned Gov. Romney, thereby giving their silent consent to Sen. Reid’s despicable actions.

The Democrats’ culture of corruption stinks to high heavens. It’s time to eliminate that stench from Washington, DC. It’s time to start fresh with people who’ll listen to the American people.

That’s the only way to restore trust in the institutions of government.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Over the past week, I’ve highlighted the fact that Julianne Ortman said she didn’t favor repealing Obamacare, aka the Affordable Care Act. Since one of the quotes was from the Star and Sickle, aka the Star Tribune, it’s fitting that conservatives question whether the Strib got the quote wrong. This video should dispel any worries that they misquoted Ms. Ortman:

If that doesn’t satisfy people that Julianne Ortman doesn’t favor repealing Obamacare, nothing will. Defeating Franken is one of Minnesotans’ top priorities this November. We won’t have a chance to fire Franken this November if our candidate sounds like Al Franken.

We know this because Mitt Romney couldn’t carry the attack to President Obama on Obamacare, aka the Affordable Care Act, because Obama would hit him on Romneycare each time Romney brought up the ACA. Does anyone think that Franken and his allies won’t highlight these statements if she’s the candidate? Of course they will.

If we want to deal with this from a position of strength, we can’t have a compromised candidate. It’s that simple.

Technorati: , , , , , , ,

Just when President Obama, Vice President Biden, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton thought it couldn’t get worse, it did. This article provides the salt for these clowns’ open wounds:

First, Sarah Palin. In 2008, the Alaskan conservative warned that Putin was on the prowl. Quote: “After the Russian army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of moral indecision and equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next.”

Wow. Mrs Palin not only got the country that Putin would threaten right, she also predicted the reason behind it. Obama’s “indecision and equivalence” over Iran, Egypt and, most importantly, Syria, has probably encouraged Putin to believe that there would be next-to-no Western response to an attack on Ukraine.

This was highly predictable. It’s only surprising to the children at Foggy Bottom and in the West Wing. They either didn’t see this coming or they didn’t care. History won’t award a gold star to any of these fools for their decisions prior to Russia’s invading Crimea. (A dunce’s cap for each is the better fit.)

Unfortunately for the Feckless Foursome, the humiliation doesn’t (and shouldn’t) stop there:

Second, Mitt Romney. Romney’s foreign policy approach was broadly mocked in 2012. The country was keen to withdraw from overseas conflict in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan and Mitt’s vague neo-conservatism seemed out of step with the public mood. Sometimes, said the critics, it came off as something that his advisers were coaching him to say; a nod and a hint to AIPAC rather than a strongly held belief. Rachel Maddow concluded, “It’s not just that Romney is uninformed; it’s that he hasn’t figured out how to fake it.”

Romney confirmed the sceptics’ worst fears when he described Russia as America’s “number one geopolitical foe.” Barack Obama lashed out with some adolescent sass: “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because. The Cold War’s been over for 20 years.”

Actually, people who lived through the 80’s are praying that we’d that type of leadership back. That was when Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Margaret Thatcher and Pope John-Paul II brought down the Soviet Empire. That was when Jeane Kirkpatrick and Lech Walesa contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The Feckless Foursome didn’t notice or didn’t care that Putin still thinks that the collapse of the Soviet Union was “the collapse of the century“:

Mr Putin therefore went out of his way to extol the virtues of democracy and talk up Russia’s potential for foreign investment. He lamented, however, the collapse of the USSR in 1991, calling it “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe”.

That’s quite the contrast in sobriety. The Feckless Foursome insisted that Russia was a friend that didn’t have expansionist goals, despite Putin’s expansionist rhetoric. While Rachel Maddow was making herself look stupid, Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin said unpopular things that turned out to be 100% right.

Finally, I’d love asking Mrs. Clinton how that reset button thingy is working out lately.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Melissa Harris-Perry has given conservatives lots of reasons to criticize her. Chief among them was the segment about Mitt Romney’s African-American grandchild. To her credit, Ms. Harris-Perry’s apology is heartfelt:

Here’s Ms. Harris-Perry’s most impressive statement:

I am reminded that our fiercest critics can sometimes be our best teachers.

Tomorrow morning, Mitt Romney will be on FNS. It’s pretty much a given that Chris Wallace will bring up this subject in addition to talking about providing security for the Winter Olympics and other topics. I’ll be shocked if Mitt Romney doesn’t accept Ms. Harris-Perry’s apology with a forgiving attitude because that’s who he is.

Finally, it’s important to understand why Ms. Harris-Perry’s apology is being accepted. She admitted that she’d acted like a jerk. She didn’t try rationalizing what she and her guests did. She said that she’s stepped across a line that she holds near and dear. She didn’t use weasel phrases like “If I’ve offended anyone.” Right at the start, she stated that she’d offended the Romneys and that her words likely caused pain for families “who’ve formed trans-racial adoptions.”

I appreciate the fact that Ms. Harris-Perry apologized “without qualification” and that she said she’d intended to say uplifting things about this adoption. Ms. Harris-Perry deserves our gratitude for not dodging the issue and for being sincere.