Category Archives: Mitt Romney

Man Behind “47 Percent” Video Opens His Own Research Firm

BuzzFeed

Jimmy Carter’s grandson turns his big scoop into a career. He’s already taken down another Republican with a hidden-camera video.

The freelance researcher who became a minor campaign celebrity after unearthing the now-infamous video of Mitt Romney railing against 47 percent of Americans at a private fundraiser has used his political fame to start his own opposition research firm.

When the researcher, James Carter IV, first saw the secretly recorded footage of Romney in August, he immediately identified it as a bombshell, and sent it to David Corn, a Mother Jones reporter with whom he had worked in the past. When the magazine published the scoop — headline: SECRET VIDEO: Romney Tells Millionaire Donors What He REALLY Thinks of Obama Voters” — Corn received a solo byline, with Carter getting a modest mention at the foot of the post: “Research assistance: James Carter.”

Corn would later turn what his magazine called “the scoop of the decade” into a HarperCollins e-book, which he titled, 47 Percent: Uncovering the Romney Video That Rocked the 2012 Election. Carter is thanked in the acknowledgements for “his diligent pursuit of the source for the Romney fundraising video and for introducing the two of us,” writes Corn. “It was a consequential hook-up.”

It was, in fact, Carter who found the video, researched Romney fundraisers, identified the likely location and date of the one featured in the video, and convinced the source of the footage through a series of Twitter direct messages to hand it over to Corn.

“[Corn] got a lot of the credit for it, and that’s fine — that’s the way it had always worked,” Carter told BuzzFeed, adding, “I was perfectly fine with it. I’m the research guy, and he was the reporter and publicist.”

Continue reading…

Comments Off

Filed under Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney Pandering

3 reasons President Obama’s lunch with Mitt Romney is a good idea

Formal rivals Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are meeting for lunch: Might they chow down on these cookies depicting their faces?

Closing words from President Obama’s Victory Speech, November 7, 2012:

I believe we can seize this future together because we are not as divided as our politics suggests. We’re not as cynical as the pundits believe. We are greater than the sum of our individual ambitions, and we remain more than a collection of red states and blue states. We are and forever will be the United States of America.

The Week

The former campaign-trail rivals are meeting in the White House’s private dining room. And, arguably, it’s a win-win situation for them — and America

Mitt Romney will join President Obama for a private lunch on Thursday, White House press secretary Jay Carney announced Wednesday. While Obama aides didn’t release any details on the luncheon’s agenda, the president offered some hints in the first news conference he gave after defeating Romney and winning re-election three weeks ago. At the time, Obama suggested that he would welcome Romney’s input on how to address some of the nation’s most pressing problems: “There are certain aspects of Gov. Romney’s record and his ideas that I think could be very helpful….” Many in Washington have dismissed the upcoming lunch as a feel-good PR move, but others say the event can benefit both politicians, and even the nation. Here, three reasons this bipartisan lunch is a good idea:

1. Romney could help ease Washington gridlock
It’s easy to make jokes about what’s likely to be an awkward meal, says Michael Tomasky at The Daily Beast, but this lunch “could conceivably be a good thing.” Despite his loss, Romney remains “one of the country’s best-known Republicans,” and has “more juice with the broader public than Mitch McConnell or John Boehner.” The former Massachusetts governor and two-time failed presidential candidate no longer has to play to the conservative base, so he can “play a moderating role” in the GOP, if he chooses. He could start by making nice with Obama and “telling Republicans, hey, gang, let’s drop the unceasing obstinacy.” Whether they’ll listen is another matter.

2. Obama can show he really wants to work with Republicans
“It behooves Obama to be gracious” after his big election win, says Peter Grier at The Christian Science Monitor. “With large margins of Americans telling pollsters they want Democrats and Republicans to work together, the lunch offer is a big flashing light of a signal that Obama intends to do just that.” Or at least look like he’s doing so. This is a golden opportunity for Obama to “set a tone of civil discourse” that could help him face the daunting challenges ahead, starting with negotiations on a deficit-reduction deal needed to avoid the “fiscal cliff” of painful tax hikes and spending cuts scheduled for Jan. 1. Romney can do the same thing for Republicans by publicly setting aside partisanship — polishing up their brand, and his own (especially after his remark that Obama beat him by buying votes with “gifts”).

3. This helps Romney stay relevant
Romney might be leery — Richard Nixon was hesitant to accept an invitation from John F. Kennedy after losing the 1960 election to his Democratic rival, says Tom McCarthy at Britain’sGuardian. Former president Herbert Hoover contacted Nixon at the request of Joseph Kennedy, the president’s father. According to Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy, authors of The Presidents Club: Inside the World’s Most Exclusive Fraternity, Nixon resisted taking part in what he dismissed as “a cheap publicity stunt,” but Hoover reminded him that Kennedy, who had just been elected president, wasn’t the one who needed help drumming up publicity. “This is a generous gesture on his part,” Hoover reportedly told Nixon, “and you ought to meet it.” The same holds true for Romney. Who knows, says David A. Graham at The Atlantic, Romney might even come out of this with a job. Obama “could make a bipartisan gesture by appointing Romney to be commerce secretary, treasury secretary, or the first to fill a ‘business secretary’ [slot] that Obama offhandedly suggested late in the campaign.”

2 Comments

Filed under Mitt Romney, President Obama

It Gets Worse for Mitt Romney as He is Named the Least Influential Person of 2012

Oh well, if one acts despicable their entire adult life, this is what might happen…

PoliticusUSA

Apparently, Mitt Romney hasn’t hit rock bottom yet. Romney has gone from being one of only two men vying to be president to being named the least influential person of 2012 by GQ.

Mitt Romney beat out such luminaries as Amanda Bynes, Jerry Sandusky’s lawyer, Lance Armstrong, Madonna, and George Zimmerman to win the title of GQ’s Least Influential Person of 2012.

Here is how GQ described Romney, “Was anyone inspired by Mitt Romney? Did anyone vote enthusiastically for Mitt Romney? Of course not. Voting for Romney is like hooking up with the last single person at the bar at 4 a.m. The only successful thing he did this year was embody every black stand-up comedian’s impression of a white person. Thank God the election’s over. No more endless photos of Mitt staring winsomely off-camera with that attempted smile on his face. No more glaring campaign mishaps week after week after week. No more labored media efforts to make him look like anything other than Sheldon Adelson’s pampered money Dumpster.”

At first, I wasn’t sure if I agreed with this reasoning. I mean Romney did manage to become one of the two finalists to be the next President of the United States of America. That has to make him more influential than Amanda Bynes, right?

Not really. Mitt Romney spent six years of his life running for president. In those six years can you name one original idea or policy proposal that he came up with? Just one. You can’t, because Mitt Romney spent nearly a decade planning and running for president without adding a single new idea to our national discourse. Some people called Romney an empty suit, but his problem was an empty mind.

Then, there were the gaffes. Mitt Romney’s self inflicted wounds were so severe that he made Sarah Palin look like Stephen Hawking.

Romney spent the entire 2012 campaign being the least popular nominee in modern American political history. Not only was Romney completely devoid of ideas, but people felt historic levels of dislike for him. One of the great oddities of Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign was that the more voters saw of Romney, the less they liked him. (At this point Republicans will point to the October public opinion polls as proof that Romney was liked, but as we found out on Election Day, the national polls were overestimating the Republican makeup of the electorate.) The writing was on the wall in state polls of places like Ohio and Pennsylvania, where Romney remained more disliked than liked.

Mitt Romney was such a turn off to voters that his political convention actually gave his opponent a bounce in the polls.

Continue reading here…

5 Comments

Filed under Mitt Romney

Why Mitt Romney will regret blaming his loss on Obama’s ‘gifts’ to minorities

Mitt Romney is coming off as a bit of a sore loser by arguing that the real reason President Obama won was because he showered liberal constituencies with "gifts."

Mitt Romney is coming off as a bit of a sore loser by arguing that the real reason President Obama won was because he showered liberal constituencies with “gifts.”

This is my question to the obvious sore loser, Mitt Romney:

You intended to lower the current tax rate for the top one-percent, isn’t that a “gift” as well?

The Week

The defeated GOP candidate faces a backlash after he points the finger at young and minority voters in the wake of his landslide defeat

Mitt Romney is taking fire from both the left and the right after telling donors on Wednesday that he lost last week’s election because President Obama had showered young voters, minorities, and other key liberal constituencies with “big gifts.” “With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest, was a big gift,” Romney said on a conference call with his national finance committee. “Free contraceptives were very big with young college-aged women.” He also said that Obama’s health care reform was a “huge” gift for Latinos and blacks. Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, among other GOP leaders hoping to reach out to Latinos and other groups that spurned Romney, quickly denounced Romney’s comments. “We have got to stop dividing American voters,” Jindal said. “We’re fighting for 100 percent of the vote.” Here, four reasons why critics say Romney was wrong to place the blame where he did:

1. First, he’s simply incorrect
Romney’s analysis is somewhere on the spectrum from “incomplete to inaccurate,” says Mike Allen at Politico. “Obama didn’t win Janesville, Iowa or New Hampshire because of gifts to minorities.” Those places are overwhelmingly white. Indeed, says Doug Mataconis at Outside the Beltway, Obama didn’t somehow buy votes by showering Americans with “free stuff.” He convinced people “he actually cared about the problems they were dealing with,” which “is something that Romney never seemed to be able to do.” Still, it’s silly to deny that Obama made several major gestures to his liberal base — from imposing a safe harbor for young illegal immigrants to “evolving” on gay marriage — during the campaign, says Allahpundit at Hot Air. So the question “isn’t whether O is guilty of ‘clientelism’” — “it’s whether clientelism was decisive.”

2. Romney is hurting the GOP effort to broaden its appeal
It’s hardly a surprise that Romney’s fellow Republicans, including Jindal and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, are upset, says Aaron Blake at The Washington Post. They’re obviously “ready for the Romney chapter to be over.” Romney’s White House dreams might have vanished, but theirs haven’t. And Romney’s sour grapes “won’t help the GOP’s efforts to win over minority voters,” especially given his earlier  remark about how the “47 percent” of Americans who pay no federal income taxes were destined to vote for Obama because they’re dependent on the government. “What Jindal says is not political rocket science,” says Joe Gandelman at The Moderate Voice. If the GOP “wants to thrive and even survive nationally, it must expand its tent and compete to get more voters inside its tent,” not by offering better “gifts,” but by offering “policies relevant to their dreams and lives.”

3. Republican constituencies get plenty of loot, too
“On the off-chance this nonsense still needs rebutting, let’s be very clear: There are plenty of reliable Republicans who get heaping piles of government goodies,” says Noam Scheiber at The New Republic. Seniors get Medicare, veterans get VA benefits, and corporations “gorge on lavish subsidies” — all with a thumbs-up from Romney. “Believe it or not, there are even wealthy financiers out there who don’t pay income taxes on their loot and who deduct the mortgage interest on their vacation homes. (Not that I have anyone specific in mind.)” And don’t forget, “Romney himself promised an exceedingly large ‘gift’ to elderly Republican voters: restoring $718 billion worth of savings from Medicare that Obama had achieved through the Affordable Care Act.”

4. This just shines a light on Romney’s other failures
“Romney, a famously data-driven decider, has completely missed the boat when it comes to explaining his loss,” says Peter Cohan at Forbes. The real cause was “a self-inflicted wound — the failure of Romney’s online voter turnout system — ORCA.” The Romney campaign touted ORCA as an “unrivaled high-tech means of communicating with more than 30,000 field workers who were stationed at polling places on Election Day.” It failed miserably, and it was that “lack of tactical execution excellence” that sank the campaign. Plus, “Romney’s favorable ratings were among the lowest recorded for a presidential candidate in the modern era,” says Andrew Kohut at The Wall Street Journal. It’s true that Obama benefited from a big turnout among Latinos, blacks, young people, and other members of his base. But anyone chalking up the GOP’s defeat to supposed gifts to these voters is “paying too little attention to how weak a candidate Mitt Romney was, and how much that hurt Republican prospects.”

5 Comments

Filed under Mitt Romney

ROMNEY GOES 47% AGAIN!

Can we say…sore loser?

The NY Times

A week after losing the election to President Obama, Mitt Romney blamed his overwhelming electoral loss on what he said were big “gifts” that the president had bestowed on loyal Democratic constituencies, including young voters, African-Americans and Hispanics.

In a conference call on Wednesday afternoon with his national finance committee, Mr. Romney said that the president had followed the “old playbook” of wooing specific interest groups — “especially the African-American community, the Hispanic community and young people,” Mr. Romney explained — with targeted gifts and initiatives.

“In each case they were very generous in what they gave to those groups,” Mr. Romney said.

“With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest, was a big gift,” he said. “Free contraceptives were very big with young college-aged women. And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents’ plan, and that was a big gift to young people. They turned out in large numbers, a larger share in this election even than in 2008.”

The president’s health care plan, he added, was also a useful tool in mobilizing African-American and Hispanic voters. Though Mr. Romney won the white vote with 59 percent, according to exit polls, minorities coalesced around the president in overwhelming numbers — 93 percent of blacks and 71 percent of Hispanics voted to re-elect Mr. Obama.

“You can imagine for somebody making $25,000 or $30,000 or $35,000 a year, being told you’re now going to get free health care, particularly if you don’t have it, getting free health care worth, what, $10,000 per family, in perpetuity, I mean, this is huge,” he said. “Likewise with Hispanic voters, free health care was a big plus. But in addition with regards to Hispanic voters, the amnesty for children of illegals, the so-called Dream Act kids, was a huge plus for that voting group.”

In the 20-minute call —which also featured an appearance by Neil Newhouse, the campaign’s pollster, Spencer Zwick, the national finance chairman, and Mason Fink, the finance director — Mr. Romney was by turns disappointed and pragmatic, expressing his frustration that he’d failed to defeat Mr. Obama on Election Day.

“I’m very sorry that we didn’t win,” he said on the call. “I know that you expected to win, we expected to win, we were disappointed with the result, we hadn’t anticipated it, and it was very close but close doesn’t count in this business.”

He continued: “And so now we’re looking and saying, ‘O.K., what can we do going forward?’ But frankly we’re still so troubled by the past, it’s hard to put together our plans from the future.”

He added half-jokingly that the close-knit group, which excelled in fund-raising but was ultimately unable to propel Mr. Romney into the Oval Office, could even help with “perhaps the selection of a future nominee — which, by the way, will not be me.”

Continue reading here…

 

4 Comments

Filed under Mitt Romney

The 100th Day of the Romney Presidency…

Compelling…

Comments Off

Filed under Mitt Romney

Surprise!! Romney ‘Relief Rally’ STAGED!! Pre-Purchased $5,000 in Walmart Goods for Bogus Photo Op!

This is reminiscent of that Paul Ryan staged event at the soup kitchen a few weeks ago.

It appears to me that these guys are actually showing their disdain and callousness toward unfortunate Americans and I think it’s abhorrent…

Democratic Underground via Think Progress

As the East Coast and parts of Ohio struggled to regroup in the devastating wake of “Superstorm” Sandy, the Romney campaign hastily transformed a scheduled victory rally in Dayton, Ohio into a non-political “storm relief event” on Tuesday. According to BuzzFeed, the campaign encouraged supporters to bring hurricane relief supplies and “deliver the bags of canned goods, packages of diapers, and cases of water bottles to the candidate, who would be perched behind a table along with a slew of volunteers and his Ohio right-hand man, Senator Rob Portman.”

Just to be safe, campaign aides reportedly spent $5,000 at a local Wal-Mart on supplies that could be put on display. When supporters arrived at the rally-turned-relief event, they were treated to the 10-minute video about Romney’s life, which was first unveiled at the RNC. The event ended with supporters lined up to hand over supplies and meet Romney. But according to BuzzFeed, this donation process was also staged:

Empty-handed supporters pled for entrance, with one woman asking, “What if we dropped off our donations up front?”

The volunteer gestured toward a pile of groceries conveniently stacked near the candidate. “Just grab something,” he said.

Two teenage boys retrieved a jar of peanut butter each, and got in line. When it was their turn, they handed their “donations” to Romney. He took them, smiled, and offered an earnest “Thank you.”

The Red Cross, meanwhile, said they were grateful for the supplies but encouraged people to donate money or blood as a more efficient way to help the relief effort.

5 Comments

Filed under Hurricaine Sandy 10/2012, Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney Campaign

3 ways Hurricane Sandy complicates Mitt Romney’s path to victory

The Week

Mitt Romney is rewriting his itinerary for the final days of the campaign thanks to the storm’s rampage. Will that hurt his chances?

Mitt Romney sits on his campaign bus on Oct. 29 en route to a rally in Avon Lake, Ohio: The Republican presidential nominee canceled his campaign events Monday and Tuesday due to Hurricane Sandy.

Mitt Romney canceled several campaign events Monday and Tuesday “out of sensitivity for the millions of Americans in the path of Hurricane Sandy,” his campaign said. The GOP presidential nominee was scheduled to attend a Tuesday event in Ohio dedicated to hurricane relief, but he has towalk a fine line, say experts, keeping his campaign going while avoiding any suggestion that he’s scoring points off the storm(which is no longer technically classified as a hurricane). “It’s a very difficult situation for the challenger to strike the right note to not look too political but to also [be] empathetic with the victims,” says Mary Kate Cary, a former speechwriter for President George H.W. Bush. How has the monster storm that hammered the Northeast made Romney’s final push toward next week’s election more difficult? Here, three obstacles it’s thrown in Romney’s path:

1. Romney has ceded the spotlight to Obama
Romney has been trying not to completely “cede the mantle of leadership to Obama,” say Jim Huhnhenn and Steve Peoples at The Associated Press. He has spoken by phone to officials at the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Homeland Security Department, and the National Weather Service, and publicly warned those in the storm’s path to expect extensive damage. “In the competition for attention, Obama held the edge, however,” going on cable TV, live, to call for people to heed evacuation warnings and pull together. “Such is the advantage of incumbency, provided things don’t go wrong.”

2. This undermines Romney’s final pitch in Virginia and New Hampshire
Romney is tied with Obama nationally, but he still needs to eke out gains in a few critical swing states, says James Joyner at Outside the Beltway, if he hopes to collect the 270 electoral votes he needs to win. It’s “next to impossible to say how or whether the storm is going to impact [his] ability to persuade a relative handful of undecided voters” in the battlegrounds, but it’s distinctly possible that he could “lose the race because he’s unable to campaign in Virginia and New Hampshire in the final days.” On the other hand, he’s left with “an extra couple of days in Ohio,” which could be “a blessing in disguise” if it improves his chances of winning there.

3. The storm derailed Romney’s bid for Wisconsin
With Obama still favored in Ohio — the swing state many expect to decide next Tuesday’s election — Team Romney was making a compensatory play for the long-reliably blue state of Wisconsin. Now-post-tropical storm Sandy “may be a safe distance from Wisconsin,” says Matt Taylor at The Daily Beast, “but the Frankenstorm has upended Mitt Romney’s late push to claim [its] 10 electoral votes.” The GOP nominee “was compelled to ax an event in suburban Milwaukee, a GOP stronghold, Monday evening,” and his team “apparently decided to stop politicking with flooding, power outages, and even deaths on the horizon,” leaving Obama in command in Wisconsin, according to the latest polls.

1 Comment

Filed under Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney Refuses To Talk About FEMA After Hurricane Sandy Event

Mitt Romney Fema

Here are my thoughts:  1) Mr. Romney refuses to show his tax returns beyond 2010, why?  2) Romney refuses to tell the American people about his economic plan, why?  3) He also refuses to talk about his Mormon faith.  4) He refuses to talk about his pervious statements on FEMA and how he would hand over FEMA’s duties to the states and the private sector…why?

My guess is that he doesn’t want to upset voters who would otherwise vote for him but would change their mind about voting for him if they knew the truths that he has been hiding since the GOP Debate days.

The Huffington Post

Mitt Romney refused to answer reporters’ questions about how he would handle the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), after a Tuesday “storm relief” event in Ohio for Hurricane Sandy.

From the Romney pool report:

TV pool asked Romney at least five times whether he would eliminate FEMA as president/what he would do with FEMA. He ignored the qs but they are audible on cam. The music stopped at points and the qs would have been audible to him.

A follow-up report noted the specific questions Romney ignored, as he was collecting hurricane supplies following his event:

“Gov are you going to eliminate FEMA?” a print pooler shouted, receiving no response.Wires reporters asked more questions about FEMA that were ignored.

Romney kept coming over near pool to pick up more water. He ignored these questions:

“Gov are you going to see some storm damage?”

“Gov has [New Jersey Gov.] Chris Christie invited you to come survey storm damage?”

“Gov you’ve been asked 14 times, why are you refusing to answer the question?”

During a GOP primary debate last year, Romney had said he supported the idea of states and private sector groups taking over responsibility for disaster relief.

“Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction,” he said. “And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that’s even better. Instead of thinking, ‘In the federal budget, what we should cut?’ we should ask the opposite question: ‘What should we keep?’”

“We cannot — we cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids,” Romney continued, when asked specifically about disaster relief. “It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids, knowing full well that we’ll all be dead and gone before it’s paid off. It makes no sense at all.”

Those comments were highlighted in the wake of Hurricane Sandy as a sign of how Romney might respond to natural disasters. His campaign quickly clarified that Romney’s emergency management response would include FEMA.

“Governor Romney believes that states should be in charge of emergency management in responding to storms and other natural disasters in their jurisdictions,” said campaign spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg. “As the first responders, states are in the best position to aid affected individuals and communities and to direct resources and assistance to where they are needed most. This includes help from the federal government and FEMA.”

The Republican presidential nominee and his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan,suspended all campaign events on Monday evening and Tuesday “out of sensitivity” to the victims of Hurricane Sandy.

3 Comments

Filed under Mitt Romney

Follow The Money: Why Romney Wants A Bigger Navy

It’s all about the dastardly Military Industrial Complex  President Eisenhower warned Americans about fifty-one years ago…

Think Progress

The airwaves of three key battleground states — FloridaVirginia, and New Hampshire — were hit this morning with advertisements from the Romney campaign about the size of the American navy. “Our navy is smaller now than any time since 1917,” Romney warns in the radio spots. A narrator adds, “As commander in chief, Mitt Romney… will invest in our military.”

Expanding the Navy has become a theme of the campaign; during Monday’s debate Romney used the same line, and Obama responded with a now-famous zinger about “horses and bayonets.” But new information discovered by Wired casts a new light on Romney’s push to beef up ship building: One of his top military advisers is in the ship building business.

John Lehman was Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan, but is now an investment banker with stakes in several ship building companies:

Lehman is the founder and chairman of J.F. Lehman & Company, a private equity firm. He also sits on several corporate boards.

Lehman invested in a government-backed “Superferry” in Hawaii — a business that ultimately failed, but not before boosting the standing of Austal USA, an Alabama shipbuilder that constructed the ferry service’s ships. Austal USA’s rising fortunes in turn benefited international defense giant BAE Systems, which then bought up shipyards owned by Lehman in order to work more closely with Austal USA.

When all was said and done, the roundtrip deal helped net Lehman’s firm a reported $180 million. And besides that, Lehman continues to own shipyards that do lucrative maintenance work for the Navy. Even leaving aside the intricate ferry-and-shipyard series of deals, Lehman still stands a decent chance of profiting from the naval buildup he is helping to plan.

Lehman is one of Romney’s “special advisers” on his Foreign Policy and National Security Advisory Team, and his particular emphasis as an adviser is on the Defense work group. Lehman has spoken publicly on Romney’s behalf about the expansion of the Navy, pushing the Romney campaign’s line that the Navy needs to produce 15 new ships a year, to the tune of tens of billions of dollars. Romney believes the military must use at least 4 percent of the nation’s entire GDP, and plans to increase the military budget by an unpaid-for $2.1 trillion.

Navy ships are simply not a their smallest since 1917. But moreover, the argument that the United States should build out its ship resources is based on an outdated form of warfare. While ship production may well be declining, both the Air Force and Navy have a larger variety of specialized war vessels, such as submarines, that serve more effective and particular functions.

 

2 Comments

Filed under Military Spending, Mitt Romney