By: Chairman Matt Pinnell
Last week, President Obama undermined the entire rationale for his candidacy.
"The most important lesson I've learned is that you can't change Washington from the inside. You can only change it from the outside," he said during his appearance at a Univision forum.
It's a shocking statement from the candidate who ran on "change" four years ago, who was elected in 2008 for the precise reason that he promised to change Washington from the inside.
President Obama has gone from "Yes, we can" to "No, I can't."
It's a lesson of a failed leader. A President who can't work with opposing sides to come to workable solutions. Yet, he still wants another term. But why? If he can't deliver change, then why should anyone vote for him?
He was unable to break partisan gridlock, be a post-partisan leader, and he admits it. The press will continue to give him a free pass, but the American people shouldn't if we want a president who can deliver change.
Enter Mitt Romney. In Massachusetts, Governor Romney worked with an 85 percent Democratic legislature (yes, 85 percent!) to balance budgets, cut taxes, improve education, create jobs, and reduce the unemployment rate. Most people don't realize that Romney did something even Reagan could not do: balance a state budget without raising taxes.
Mitt Romney delivered change when he faced a legislature heavily populated by those of the other party. Contrast that with President Obama who said he couldn't deliver change even though his presidency included two full years of his own party in control of Congress.
One led as a statesman, the other as a Chicago politician. That's a stark contrast, and one we must highlight.