Bill Clinton Will Reportedly Play Major Role At Democratic National Convention

WASHINGTON — Former President Bill Clinton will have a marquee role in this summer's Democratic National Convention, where he will make a forceful case for President Barack Obama's re-election and his economic vision for the country, several Obama campaign and Democratic party officials said Sunday.

The move gives the Obama campaign an opportunity to take advantage of the former president's immense popularity and remind voters that a Democrat was in the White House the last time the American economy was thriving.

Obama personally asked Clinton to speak at the convention and place Obama's name in nomination, and Clinton enthusiastically accepted, officials said. Clinton speaks regularly to Obama and to campaign officials about strategy.

Clinton's prominent role at the convention will also allow Democrats to embrace party unity in a way that is impossible for Republican rival Mitt Romney.

George W. Bush, the last Republican to hold the White House, remains politically toxic in some circles. While Bush has endorsed Romney, he is not involved in his campaign and has said he does not plan to attend the GOP convention.

Clinton will speak in prime-time at the Democratic convention in Charlotte, N.C., on Sept. 5, the night before Obama formally accepts the party nomination. While the number two on the ticket often speaks that night, the Obama campaign has instead decided that Obama and Vice President Joe Biden will speak on the same night.

Biden will speak before Obama on Sept. 6, in front of tens of thousands of people expected to fill an outdoor stadium in Charlotte, and millions more on television.

The vice president's speech will focus on outlining many of the challenges the White House has faced over the past four years and the decisions Obama made to address them, officials said.

"To us it's about deploying our assets in the most effective way," Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod said. "To have President Clinton on Wednesday night laying out the choice facing voters, and then having Vice President Biden speak right before the president in prime time on Thursday, giving a testimony to the decisions the president has made, the character of his leadership and the battle to rebuild the middle class that's so central to our message."

Clinton's role at the convention was to be formally announced Monday. It was first reported by The New York Times.

Clinton spoke at the 2008 convention, part of a healing process for the Democratic party following the heated primary battle between Obama and the former president's wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Since then, the ties between Obama and Bill Clinton have strengthened significantly. Obama has called on the former president for advice several times during his term and the two have appeared together this year at campaign fundraisers for Obama's re-election bid.

___

Associated Press writer Beth Fouhy in New York contributed to this report.

Mitt Romney Walks Back London Olympics Criticism (UPDATE)

Mitt Romney, in his first trip abroad as the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, is trying to walk back comments he made questioning London's Olympics preparation -- comments that have drawn a sharp response from Prime Minister David Cameron.

The dustup began Wednesday, as Romney, who ran the 2002 Salt Lake City games, said there were "disconcerting" signs in the days before this year's games.

"The stories about the private security firm not having enough people, the supposed strike of the immigration and customs officials -- that obviously is not something which is encouraging," he told NBC News.

"Do they come together and celebrate the Olympic moment? And that's something which we only find out once the games actually begin," he said.

Cameron soon rebuked Romney. "We are holding an Olympic Games in one of the busiest, most active, bustling cities anywhere in the world. Of course, it's easier if you hold an Olympic Games in the middle of nowhere," he said.

"I think we will show the whole world not just that we come together as a United Kingdom, but also we're extremely good at welcoming people from across the world," Cameron added. "I will obviously make those points to Mitt Romney. I look forward to meeting him."

In comments before meeting with Labour Party leader Ed Miliband, Romney was more measured. "My experience with regards to the Olympics is it is impossible for absolutely no mistakes to occur," he said. "Of course, there will be errors from time to time, but those are all overshadowed by the extraordinary demonstrations of courage, character and determination by the athletes."

UPDATE: 3:35 p.m. -- Mitt Romney's disastrous British trip continued Thursday when, according to The Huffington Post UK, he "caused amusement" by saying he had spent a great day in the "backside" of Downing Street, rather than the back garden.

In another faux pas, Romney announced his meeting with MI6, the U.K. Secret Intelligence Service whose existence was only acknowledged by the British government in 1994.

"I appreciated the insights and perspectives of the leaders of the government here and opposition here as well as the head of MI6," he told reporters.

MI6 was mum about the meeting, according to the Wall Street Journal. "[MI6 Chief] Sir John Sawers meets with lots of people," said an aide in the British foreign press office, "but we don’t give a running commentary of any of these meetings."

London Mayor Boris Johnson hit back at Romney's comments about the Summer Games before a crowd of 60,000 in Hyde Park. "There is a guy called Mitt Romney who wants to know if we are ready. Yes, we are," he declared.

Romney also seemed to break the longstanding rule for U.S. politicians not to criticize the president overseas. At a fundraiser for American expats, he reportedly said, "I'm looking forward to the bust of Winston Churchill being in the Oval Office again," referring to the White House returning the artwork to the British Embassy in early 2009. President Barack Obama replaced it with a bust of Abraham Lincoln.

Middle-Class Tax Cuts Preserved For A Year In Bill Passed By Senate

WASHINGTON -- Senators blinked in the political standoff over how much of the Bush-era tax cuts to extend for another year and voted Wednesday to keep current rates for people with incomes of less than $250,000.

Tax rates would rise by 4 percent on incomes above $250,000 for couples and $200,000 for single filers. Popular breaks like the child tax credit would be preserved.

The extension, passed on a vote of 51 to 48, represents a short-term win, at least, for President Barack Obama, who has been pushing for a similar plan. But it appeared unlikely that the House would embrace a similar measure before the election, having proposed its own bill to extend all the Bush-era cuts. The House hasn't proposed extending Obama's breaks for millions of middle-class families.

Democrats estimated the GOP version would add an extra $155 billion to the deficit. They also argued that the GOP plan raises taxes on some 25 million Americans by not renewing the child tax credit, the earned income tax credit and a college tuition break.

The GOP version failed in the Senate, 45 to 54, with GOP Sens. Scott Brown (Mass.) and Susan Collins (Maine) against it, and Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor (Ark.) voting for it.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) slammed the votes, saying they represented an irresponsible attack on the weak economy.

"Here's the Democratic plan for the economy: We'll get this thing going again; we'll get it going again by raising taxes," McConnell said. "Let us create the jobs, instead of small businesses out in America."

He also picked up on Obama's recent "you didn't build that" argument, taken out of context, that successful business owners didn't build the nation's infrastructure that supports those businesses. "This is the legislative equivalent of 'you didn't build that,'" McConnell said. "You are not responsible for your success. Washington is. So give us your money and we'll handle for you. That's their tax plan."

But Democrats argued that the Bush-era tax rates coincided with an economy that collapsed at the end of George W. Bush's presidency, which showed some of the weakest job growth in modern history. And they said the GOP tax plan would be another giveaway to the wealthy, while taking away middle-class breaks.

"The wealthiest taxpayers in America would get back $160,000 a year from the Republican tax plan," said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chiding McConnell that his suggestion to "do no harm" for a year was not a sensible middle ground, considering the cost.

"It's not a compromise," Boxer said. "It's going right back to the problems that led us to this in the first place."

The House is expected to vote on its bill next week. Although revenue measures are supposed to start in the House, Democrats said they should take up the Senate plan, rather than raise a so-called "blue slip" procedural block.

The Senate vote was by a rare simple majority, which Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said McConnell allowed because it was the only way he would get a vote on the GOP plan, and his caucus didn't want to be stuck only voting "no" on the Democratic plan.

Schumer suggested the political reality of needing to back the middle class would prompt action by House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).

"I am sure that Speaker Boehner does not appreciate the uncomfortable position that Sen. McConnell has put him in," Schumer said. "The speaker knows that if he puts this bill on the floor, his members will have trouble voting against it."

Schumer argued that Congress has already passed two revenue bills that started in the Senate -- the recent highway and Federal Aviation Administration bills.

He also suggested the politics would be good for Democrats if the GOP balks.

"If House Republicans insist on blocking our middle class tax cuts ... that is a debate we are willing to have," Schumer said. "Democrats will be happy to bring this argument to the American people and ask them whether they think obscure procedural rules are reason enough to let over 100 million families face a tax hike of $1,600 next year," he said, referring to what happens if the cuts expire, as they are scheduled to in 2013.

UPDATE: 6:03 p.m. --

update:

Boehner signaled that he would not go along with Schumer's suggestions.

“Here in the House, where tax legislation originates under the Constitution, we're going to vote to stop the tax hike. That much is clear," Boehner said in a statement. "The only questions are these: How many House Democrats are going to side with [Minority] Leader [Nancy] Pelosi and President Obama and vote against stopping a small business tax hike that will cost 700,000 American jobs? Will any House Democrat offer the president's tax hike proposal as an amendment, so that it can be brought to a vote?"

UPDATE: 6:25 p.m. --

The Senate vote means "House Republicans are now the only people left in Washington holding hostage the middle-class tax cuts for 98 percent of Americans and nearly every small business owner," Obama said in a statement. He continued:

"The last thing a typical middle-class family can afford is a $2,200 tax hike at the beginning of next year. It’s time for House Republicans to drop their demand for another $1 trillion giveaway to the wealthiest Americans and give our families and small businesses the financial security and certainty that they need. Our economy isn’t built from the top-down, it’s built from a strong and growing middle class, and that’s who we should be fighting for."

Michael McAuliff covers Congress and politics for The Huffington Post. Talk to himon Facebook.

Westboro Baptist Church Protesters Blocked At Fallen Soldier's Funeral

A planned protest by the Westboro Baptist Church was overshadowed Saturday whenthousands of supporters gathered at the funeral of a fallen soldier to block the radical church's effort.

Thousands of people in red shirts formed a "human wall" around the Columbia, Mo. church where 21-year-old Army Specialist Sterling Wyatt's funeral was held. Wyatt was killed in Afghanistan earlier this month.

Westboro Baptist Church, an independent Kansas-based church known for its extreme ideology and widely condemned demonstrations, had indicated plans to picket the funeral. When Tori Smith, an acquaintance of Wyatt's, got wind of the protest plans, she decided to organize a small group of supporters to counteract the church's negative actions. Word of Smith's plans spread quickly, drawing thousands to the church on Saturday morning.

According to KBIA, the "red wall" was highly effective in fending off the small group from Westboro, who reportedly left the church area early in the afternoon.

The Columbia Daily Tribune relayed details on the outpouring of support:

Several times, Wyatt's parents, Randy and Sherry, and brother Chandler, came out of the church before the 1 p.m. service to greet and hug attendees.

"Thank you so much," Sherry Wyatt said on one occasion, holding a bouquet of red roses.

"The outpouring of love has been overwhelming," said Judy Baker, a close family friend. "It's so great to live in a community that is willing to honor the fallen. … This is what Americans are made of, and to see it on display is an experience I'll never forget."

Reprint of Huffington Post article 

Romney Dismisses call from his own party...

Mitt Romney dismissed calls from within his own party Tuesday to release additional years of tax returns, arguing that some of his fellow Republicans don't quite get the destructive capacity of Democratic opposition researchers.

"Oh, I think people in my party just say, ‘Look, this is a non-issue, just release the returns and it will all go away.’ My experience is that the Democratic Party these days has approached taxes in a very different way than in the past," Romney told WPXI, an NBC Affiliate in Pittsburgh. "Their opposition people look for anything they can find to distort, to twist, and to try and make negative, and I want to make this a campaign about the economy and creating jobs. And they want to make this campaign about attacking people and diverting attention from our job picture in this country."

The comment came in a taped interview, meaning that it was delivered before Texas Gov. Rick Perry joined the expanding chorus of Republicans urging Romney to release more returns and get the issue behind him.

The idea that Republicans don't appreciate how vicious Democrats will be with Romney's tax returns is an overstatement. Politicians are aware of the concept of opposition research. Romney's own oppo-research squad made quick work of Perry in the Republican primary.

The statement also appears to be an implicit acknowledgement that there is material in Romney's tax returns that is so complicated and exotic that it could be distorted, fairly or not. 

FOLLOW:

Elections 2012, Mitt Romney, Elections 2012, Video, Mitt Romney AND Bain Capital, Mitt Romney Bain, Mitt Romney Bain Capital, Politics News, Bain, Bain Capital, Bain Capital Romney, Mitt Romney 2012,Mitt Romney Bain Departure, Romney Bain, Romney Bain Capital, Politics News

WASHINGTON -- The question over when Mitt Romney officially left Bain Capital is obscuring a more substantive debate that relates to the presidential campaign.

The presumptive Republican nominee insists he never signed off on the business decisions related to outsourcing that turned the private equity firm into a political lightning rod. But neither he nor his campaign have said whether he agrees with those decisions, even if he was powerless over them when they were made. The Huffington Post asked top Romney adviser Kevin Madden this very question Monday morning during an appearance on MSNBC and received the following response:

Those decisions were made by folks that were running the company differently. So I don't have the details of what decision-making went into it. Oftentimes what happens with those type of decisions is that you have software companies, you have different types of companies that have to go out and have manufacturing needs, and when they go to look for companies that have manufacturing needs that they don't have, oftentimes those are manufacturing outposts around the globe. But the most important thing that we can answer is what we're going to do to create more jobs here in the country, and that's where Governor Romney has a much superior plan than President Obama.

The answer mirrors a more evasive response to a similar question that senior adviser Ed Gillespie gave Sunday on "Meet the Press." Combined, their answers illustrate a desire to obscure details of how closely Romney was associated with some of the firm's more controversial practices between 1999 and 2002.

An extensive review of public filings by The Huffington Post reveals several instances of Romney being tied to Bain deals that could be or have proven politically problematic.

In April 1999 and March 2000, for example, SEC filings by the American Pad & Paper Company noted that Bain Venture Capital, an arm of the private equity firm, "may be deemed to be the beneficial owner" of entities that held millions of shares of company stock. Among the "general partners of BVC" listed in that filing was "W. Mitt Romney."

In January 2000, AMPAD defaulted on the debt it had accumulated under Bain's control and filed for bankruptcy. By December of that year, it had ceased to be a publicly traded company.

The Romney campaign has said he did not have "any active role with any Bain Capital entity and has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way" since Feb. 11, 1999, when he left to head the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. The SEC filing says nothing about the extent of Romney's involvement with AMPAD in late 1999 and early 2000, but it does show that he held a title at Bain Venture Capital during that period.

A closer relationship existed between Romney and another politically toxic company, printed circuit board maker DDi Corp. Romney and Bain invested more than $45 million into the company in the late 1990s, taking over controlling interest. Profitable years ensued. When the economy turned sour, so too did the company's fortunes -- but not without Bain taking its cut of the pie.

According to the Orange County Register -- the California-based company's hometown paper –- Bain raised $39 million in October 2000 by selling DDi shares. In February 2001, Bain raised $54 million by selling more shares. Bain also received $10 million in management fees. Romney, who as part of common industry practice had bought personal stock in the company, sold his DDi shares for $4.1 million in May 2000.

According to an August 2003 Boston Globe article, Romney "remained well in 2001 as a general partner in three of the four Bain funds involved in the DDi transactions."

A Huffington Post review of SEC files unearthed six separate occasions in which Romney was listed as a member of "the Management Committee" of both Bain Capital Investment Partners and BCIP Trust, "deemed to share voting and dispositive power with respect to" shares held of DDi. In one of those filings, Romney is listed asPresident and Managing Director of Bain Capital, Inc.

The dates of those filings range from April 14, 2000 to May 10, 2001, all after Romney had left for Salt Lake City. In one March 2001 filing, Romney signed the document as the "reporting person."

DDi would prove to be a problem for Romney shortly thereafter. Early in his tenure as governor of Massachusetts, a federal securities investigation alleged that the company had pressured Lehman Brothers to inflate the value of its stock.

No evidence was uncovered to suggest that Romney or Bain had violated laws. His then and current spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom told the Globe it would be "far-fetched to take an internal Lehman Brothers e-mail regarding alleged conversations among unknown people and somehow connect it to Mitt Romney, who was off running the Olympics at the time." Bain, meanwhile, said it had "complied with all securities laws." Bain and Romney, in fact, sold their shares after the Lehman-related stock price bump had dissipated.

But while they both got out with a profit, others weren't so lucky. The Massachusetts state pension fund, which had bought stock in the company, lost just under $350,000. DDi would go on to file for bankruptcy, restructure its debt and eventually rebuild its operations.

Business professors and venture capital experts have questioned what operational or managerial control, if any, Romney would have had over DDi.

"Once he left active management of the company, whatever happens after that, he's an investor, or at most a silent partner," Howard Anderson, a professor at MIT's Sloan School of Management, told FactCheck.org back in January 2012.

Asked about DDi specifically, a Romney campaign aide emailed the following response:

Mitt left for the Olympics quickly because the games were in serious trouble; he took a leave of absence and never returned. He continued to be on filings because he had not yet transferred ownership to the other partners at Bain. When ownership was transferred, the official retirement agreement was effective in 1999 because Romney had no involvement in investment decisions or management since that point; had he been active at Bain beyond 1999, he would have insisted that the retirement agreement be dated later to reflect contributions during the period when he was running the Olympics. The fact is that Mitt Romney was not involved in investment decisions or management decisions during that period.

Running Out the Clock

Romney and running out the clock… Dems begin to press the panic button… Greenberg’s and Carville’s advice… Dems win AZ-8 special election… After primaries in ME, NV, ND, and VA, Senate races finally take shape… Eric Holder, political punching bag… Jamie Dimon testifies on Capitol Hill… And Romney addresses Business Roundtable meeting at 11:45 am ET.

By NBC's Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Brooke Brower, and Natalie Cucchiara

*** Running out the clock: With less than five months until Election Day, Mitt Romney and his team are running a campaign that would make Dean Smith (and his Four Corners offense) or Jim Tressel (and his grind-it-out gameplan) proud. If you're ahead -- or within striking distance -- against a talented opponent, you start running out the clock. Take, for instance, Romney's reply yesterday to a reporter’s ropeline question about whether he thought Democrats were taking his recent remark firefighter and police jobs out of context. "I'm not going to talk about that," he said. (Romney also has ducked reporters’ ropeline questions on Syria, JP Morgan, and even Wisconsin.) Or consider all the interviews he does with FOX (especially its cherry-picked programs vs. its newsier anchors) compared with other news outlets. Or think about the fact that the Romney camp isn't planning (for now) on delivering any new policy speeches. The message Team Romney is essentially giving: “We're going to talk about what we want to talk about -- and to whom we want -- and not talk about the rest.”

Advertise | AdChoices
Advertise | AdChoices

*** But does a president get to control what he talks about? It’s impressive message discipline. And as Smith and Tressel proved, you can win tons of games -- and the ultimate prize every once in a while (especially if your opponent makes mistakes) -- by running out the clock. But here’s something about sitting in the White House: A president often doesn’t get to pick and choose the issues he has to deal with. Think of many of the events in the past five years: the financial industry’s collapse, the European debt crisis, the BP oil spill, the Arab Spring, the violence in Libya and Syria, and the list goes on. While a president gets to pick his domestic priorities (tax cuts, education, and Social Security for George W. Bush; health care and financial reform for Barack Obama), so much of the job is reacting to unplanned events. Ironically, the very issue Romney wants to talk about -- the state of the U.S. economy -- is something that presidents have little control over, especially compared with foreign policy (which they have A LOT of control over). And yet how long can Romney go without going into more detail about how he would handle the various unplanned issues that he would have to deal with if he wins. Take Syria. We know he doesn’t like how the president has handled this situation but how would a President Romney deal with Putin and Assad? He’s provided no clues and his campaign appears to be making sure there’s little opportunity (for now) to find out.

NBC's Mark Murray discusses whether President Barack Obama's message on the economy is working.

*** Dems press the panic button: While Team Romney appears to be running out the clock and displaying an impressive ability at message discipline, the Obama White House and campaign are dealing with Democratic Party that’s beginning to panic after a rough last two weeks. “Is it time for Democrats to panic?” the Washington Post’s Tumulty asks. “That’s what a growing number of party loyalists are wondering, amid a rough couple of weeks in which President Obama and his political operation have been buffeted by bad economic news, their own gaffes and signs that the presumed Republican nominee is gaining strength.” One criticism from the Democrats cited in the piece is how insular Team Obama is, a criticism that has dogged the Obama political team beginning Feb. 10, 2007 (the day Obama announced). This story illustrates two of the Democratic Party’s and Obama White House’s worst traits -- pressing the panic button (especially when nothing fundamental about the race has changed in the past two weeks) and ignoring outside voices (which is a criticism we continually hear about the Obama team). Former Bush strategist Mark McKinnon puts it well in the piece: “[The Obama campaign folks] are not any more or less smart than they were four years ago. The dynamics are just different. This time, the wind is in their face instead of at their back.”

We Will Settle for the Next four years

Editor's note: Julian Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. He is the author of "Jimmy Carter" (Times Books) and of the new book "Governing America" (Princeton University Press).

Princeton, New Jersey (CNN) -- This presidential election tells us something unexpected about American politics. For all the talk about polarization and discord in Washington, it appears that both parties will have pragmatic problem-solvers at the top of their tickets.

Democrats have accepted four more years with a pragmatist. President Barack Obama has consistently been willing to anger members of his own party by reaching out to Republicans and often embracing their issues, such as deficit reduction. Rather than a fighting for an ideological agenda, he has instead focused on one problem at a time and accepted the constraints that he faces.

Republicans are settling on former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who has spent much of his career avoiding ideological purity. By all accounts, one of his virtues as a leader has been his eagerness to delve into difficult problems and his willingness to experiment when trying to find solutions.

Julian Zelizer

As everyone knows, he has shifted his positions on matters such as stem cell research and as governor he was willing to put forward an ambitious health care plan that expanded government by using a conservative idea, the individual mandate.

Some pundits will read the decision to support these candidates as continued evidence of party loyalty. In the case of Obama, there were no Democrats who decided that they would challenge him in the primary because they wanted to avoid the kind of turmoil that occurred when Sen. Ted Kennedy ran against President Jimmy Carter from the left in 1980.

In the case of Romney, the Republican hatred of Obama is so great that the party is willing to compromise on a candidate whose politics are hard to pin down but who stands a better chance of winning in November.

Yet another way to read these decisions is that, at some level, voters are genuinely angry about the polarized status quo in Washington. They are willing to support pragmatic problem-solvers because, at some level, they find it appealing to elect politicians who could overcome the deeply dysfunctional government we have.

There is some evidence to support this claim. In "Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America," Morris Fiorina argued that polarization was much stronger among political elites that it was in the broader electorate. His examination of poll data revealed that on many controversial issues such as abortion or gay rights, most Americans tended to be in the middle of the political landscape.

Second, the approval ratings of Congress also suggest that citizens are unhappy with polarization. Approval ratings for Congress are at about 12.5%, a historic low. When such a large number of Americans indicate that they don't approve of the institution, they are registering their complaints about the gridlock in Congress. Even though most Americans continue to vote for incumbents in their districts, they don't like the institution as a whole.

Finally, for all the talk about polarization, when it comes to electing presidents, voters have tended to go for the people who promise to reach out across the aisle. In 2008, Obama ran as the candidate who appealed to both sides of the political spectrum and who contrasted himself with the fierce partisanship of the Republican side.

In 2000, George W. Bush ran as the compassionate conservative who was willing to use government on behalf of some causes, and in 2004 he avoided some of the more divisive issues by emphasizing national security as his unifying issue.

In 1992, voters went for Bill Clinton, a proud pragmatist who wanted to move beyond the orthodoxies of the 1960s. Clinton was part of the Democratic Leadership Council, a group that sought to move his party toward the center. Clinton doubled down on this theme in 1996 as he leaned to the right following the Republican takeover of Congress, and he defeated Sen. Robert Dole by landslide.

The emerging contest between Romney and Obama thus provides more evidence that there is still room to move beyond Washington's bitter partisan stalemates.

When politicians yell and fight, they capture the attention of the television cameras but the public is not always with them. As this upcoming contest reveals, there is still a yearning in the electorate for a different kind of politics in Washington.

Follow us on Twitter: @CNNOpinion

Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion

Romney Accuses Obama of hiding Agenda

WASHINGTON—Mitt Romney, fresh off of three momentum-building wins in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, accused President Barack Obama on Wednesday of "rhetorical excess" and of muddling his second-term agenda in order to win re-election.

"He wants us to reelect him so we can find out what he will actually do," Mr. Romney told a gathering of newspaper reporters and editors at a Washington hotel. "With all the challenges the nation faces, this is not the time for President Obama's hide-and-seek campaign."

The former Massachusetts governor leveled his latest charges at the president from the stage where Mr. Obama slammed the GOP front-runner a day earlier for supporting a Republican budget blueprint that he called a "radical vision" and "thinly veiled social Darwinism."

Election 2012

• Romney Rolls Up Three Wins
• Santorum Prepares for Last Stand
• Obama Blasts 'Trojan Horse' GOP Plan

The back-and-forth comes as the president and Mr. Romney engage more directly ahead of an expected match-up in the general election, and amid signs that Mr. Romney has opened a nearly insurmountable lead in the GOP contest. Mr. Romney was addressing the Newspaper Association of America the day after his sweep of Maryland, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia.

Mr. Romney draw new battle lines with the president by expanding on earlier criticism of Mr. Obama that came after the president was heard on a live microphone asking his Russian counterpart for more time and flexibility to negotiate a nuclear-arms treaty between the two countries.

"He is intent on hiding," Mr. Romney, seeking to extend the significance of the president's remark to areas beyond foreign policy. "You and I will have to do the seeking."

While Mr. Obama remains personally popular, Mr. Romney is seeking to raising doubts about the president's character. Such doubts have been less prominent in the primary campaign, with candidates instead unleashing repeated broadsides against unpopular policy measures, including the economic recovery package and the new health-care law.

Mr. Romney accused the president of shifting positions to curry favor with voters ahead of the election, saying that "Candidate Obama" has "experienced a series of election-year conversions." As evidence, he cited Mr. Obama's recent calls to lower corporate tax rates, reduce regulations and develop more domestic oil, coal and natural gas.

The Obama campaign quickly turned the obfuscation charge back on Mr. Romney.

"From completely rewriting his record of more debt, more spending, fewer jobs and bigger government in Massachusetts to misleading on the President's record of promoting economic security for the middle class, there was very little in Mitt Romney's speech today that bore any resemblance to reality," said Lis Smith, an Obama campaign spokeswoman.

Mr. Romney also blasted the president for, in his words, mischaracterizing the House-passed Republican budget, which seeks deep cuts in agency spending and proposes a revamp of Medicare for future retirees.

"President Obama came here yesterday and railed against arguments no one is making, and criticized policies no one is proposing," he said. "It's one of his favorite strategies—setting up straw men to distract from his record."

The president and Mr. Romney are both painting the race as a contest between two starkly different visions for the country. Mr. Obama criticizes Republicans for offering what are, in his view, draconian cuts to social safety nets while protecting tax cuts for the wealthy. Republicans, in turn, criticize the president for failing to bolster employment while piling debt on an already fragile economy.

"The November election will have particular consequence," Mr. Romney said Wednesday. "It will be a defining event."

He used the rest of his speech to deliver familiar criticism of the president's stimulus plan, the new health-care law and his attacks on over-regulation.

Mr. Romney largely steered clear of his remaining rivals for the Republican presidential nomination. His only mention of the primary came in response to a question from the moderator of the event about whether he had asked any of his GOP opponents to exit the race.

"I hope that we're able to resolve our nomination process as soon as possible, of course, because I'd like to focus our time and attention on those key battleground states and raising the funds to be somewhat competitive with the president and his billion-dollar quest," Mr. Romney said. "We have a real challenging road ahead of us, but I believe we will rise to the occasion."

Mr. Romney also offered a pointed critique of the news business for trading speed and frivolity for substance and responsibility.

"In 2008, the coverage was about what I said in my speech," Mr. Romney said, referring to his initial White House bid. "These days, it's about what brand of jeans I am wearing and what I ate for lunch."

He added, "I find myself missing the presence of editors to exercise quality control. I miss the days of two or more sources for a story."

Write to Patrick O'Connor at patrick.oconnor@wsj.com

The Tea Party Making All The Right Moves?

Well, it didn’t take long for the Tea Party to wilt under the Special Interest Political pressure. All the promises of “fixing a broken Washington” has not become a “moot” point to 12 freshman congressional members who, during their first campaigns said there needed to be a “new” spirit in Washington, one that wouldn’t buckle to special interest groups and would keep their political interest with the needs of the people who elected them.


"Book your Key Largo getaway now," reads the invitation, obtained by CBS News. The hosts are veteran congressmen Spencer Bachus, of Alabama, Pete Sessions, of Texas, "and 12 of your favorite Republican freshmen!"


The 12: Sandy Adams (Fla.), Quico Canseco (Texas), Rick Crawford (Ark.), Bob Dold (Ill.), Sean Duffy (Wis.), Stephen Fincher (Tenn.), Mike Fitzpatrick (Penn.), Daniel Webster (Fla.), Mike Grimm (N.Y.), Nan Hayworth (N.Y.), Jim Renacci (Ohio) and Cory Gardner (Col).


I have several pairs of shoes that are older than the time they have “served” the constituents of their respective communities and still have given in to the status quo.


The sad part is that they succumbed to veteran senators who seem hell bent on turning these “idealist” to the dark side and certainly would make Darth Vader proud. Especially when you consider that these freshman are still two years away from their re-election campaigns.


There is a bright side to this story and that is, we the people really can’t say that the Republican congress is not hard at work. Unfortunately, it’s not the type of work we elected them to do. But don’t worry too much, the freshman will still get paid their $170,000 per annum from those that elected them.

Palin Heart Newt

Editor's note: S.E. Cupp is the author of "Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media's Attack on Christianity" and co-author of "Why You're Wrong About the Right." She is a columnist at the New York Daily News and a political commentator for Glenn Beck's GBTV.

(CNN) -- Far be it for me to offer unsolicited advice to Sarah Palin. She's built a very successful career out of going rogue and certainly doesn't need any tips from me.

And, as an occasional pundit, a political influencer and a private citizen, she's free to throw her weight behind anyone she wants.

But I just have to say it: Newt Gingrich? Really?

Now, I'm not in the camp of conservative elites who think she's seen her best days and should politely retire to obscurity. If anything, the premiere of "Game Change" on HBO on Saturday is proof that she's still relevant; she's got considerable influence over a certain wing of the party.

S.E. Cupp

And so with great power comes great responsibility. Is Newton Leroy Gingrich the most responsible pick?

Of all the remaining candidates, in fact, the one that makes the least sense is Newt. Mitt Romney I could see, if she wanted to bring the party together. Rick Santorum I could see for his social conservatism, strong Christian faith and similar family stories. I could even see Ron Paul for his "throw the bums out" and "end the Fed" rogue-isms. But Newt?

When rumors first started swirling that Palin might back the former House speaker and self-appointed "cheerful" candidate, Gingrich was surging then. She said she'd vote for him in South Carolina if she could. She wanted to keep the primary alive, she said. And, playing to Newt's strength at the time, she urged "more debates" and "more vetting of candidates."

Julianne Moore's Palin '100% sourced'

Analysis: Gingrich not connecting

Palin leaves door open for 2012 run

Gingrich: 'I'm the tortoise'

But now, with Newt's ham-fisted campaign out of mojo, and no debates on the horizon, it would seem like a good time to jump off that train and get behind Romney or Santorum.

Instead, she doubled down Tuesday, telling Fox Business Network that she voted for Gingrich in the Alaska caucuses, where he finished dead last. And why? "I have appreciated what he has stood for," she said. "He has been the underdog in many of these primary races and these caucuses."

Again, Palin's free to like any candidate she wants, and those would be valid arguments, if they were true.

What Newt has stood for, both during his political career and during this campaign, sits in total contradiction to what Palin has stood for since becoming a public figure. She's for small government; he's shown a disturbing penchant for big government solutions. She champions Washington outsiders and rails against the establishment; he's the epitome of establishment, and has been firmly encamped inside the Beltway for decades. The very people who appreciate Palin should be the same people who despise Gingrich.

And he's hardly been an "underdog." With the backing of billionaire financier Sheldon Adelson and the benefit of serious name recognition, he's enjoyed the money, media attention and opportunity that other GOP candidates didn't. If Newt's been an underdog, I'm sure Jon Huntsman and Michele Bachmann would have been happy to switch places.

The truth is, Newt isn't the "little guy" in any sense of the word. And if that were truly Palin's criteria, there are actual little guys, such as Buddy Roemer and Gary Johnson to champion.

Or even better, she doesn't have to support any of them.

Maybe Palin's got a master plan in which she makes a late run at the presidency and puts Newt on her ticket. Still, it seems like an incongruous pick and waste of her considerable influence among far-right conservatives.

But I'm sure she knows what she's doing.