From Special Report with Bret Baier | Friday, July 13, 2012
On how Mitt Romney should answer the Obama’s campaign’s charge that he led Bain Capital longer than he’s previously maintained:
Well, look, these attacks are utterly shameless. It began with the outsourcing charge, which, …was shown by neutral observers to be false. If there was any [outsourcing] it happened after Romney left, which is why we now start with the second charge, that he never left in 1999. There is not a shred of evidence that Romney participated in any decision, any investment, any phone call, any meeting of any kind after 1999. So that is the second shamelessly false charge. And the Obama administration knows that.
I think what Romney has to do — it’s OK to try to rebut them, but I think he needs to be tougher on that. I think they ought to stress the fact that these are lies and repeat that, demand the apology for the felony charge, which they are never going to get, but you want to stress that.
And also continue to attack Obama on the same grounds and say that the stimulus money he gave was spread all over the world, created jobs in England, Finland, China, and elsewhere. If you want to speak about outsourcing, Obama did worse. He took your money that you pay in taxes and spread it around [the world] to create jobs.
And change the subject. Obama right now is… gutting one of the great achievements of the late 1990s, the agreement between the Republicans and Clinton to reform welfare. And they are now gutting it lawlessly, unilaterally… [Republicans] ought to be attacking on this. Change the subject. It is out. There is no way the administration will be able to defend itself on that. So start on another front…..
And it undermines Obama right at… the fairness argument: If you play by the rules, if you work hard, et cetera, it completely undermined the argument — his argument that he’s the man who stands up for the hardworking American family.
On the administration’s legal challenge to Texas’ voter-ID law:
Well, in 2008, the Supreme Court decided on the similar law, an Indiana law, on the voter I.D. issue. And it decided it was not discriminatory and constitutional. The majority opinion, six to three, was written by John Paul Stevens, the liberal lion on the court. The prosecution rests.