Fire Hydrant of Freedom
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities => Politics & Religion => Topic started by: Crafty_Dog on November 23, 2010, 10:43:25 AM
-
With the 2010 elections over, its time to give the 2012 Presidential its own thread. We kick it off with some reflections from Peggy Noonan:
All eyes have been on Capitol Hill, but let's take a look at the early stages of the race for the Republican presidential nomination.
This week the papers have been full of sightings—Newt and Huckabee are in Iowa, Pawlenty's in New Hampshire. But maybe the more interesting story is that a lot of potential candidates will decide if they are definitely going to run between now and New Year's—and some of them will be deciding over Thanksgiving weekend. It's all happening now, they're deciding in long walks, at the dinner table, and while watching the football game on the couch. They'll be talking it through, sometimes for the first time and sometimes the tenth. "Can we do this?" "Are we in this together?" "How do you feel?"
In some cases those will be hard conversations. A largely unremarked fact of modern presidential politics is the increased and wholly understandable reluctance of candidates' families to agree to a run. Looking at it through a purely personal prism, and that's where most people start, they see it not as a sacrifice, which it is, but a burden, a life-distorter, and it is those things too. But they have to agree to enter Big History, or a candidate can't go. And a lot of them don't want the job, if victory follows candidacy, of "the president's family." The stakes are too high, the era too dramatic, the life too intense. They don't want the intrusion, the end of all privacy, the fact that you're always on, always representing.
A president's spouse gets mass adulation one week and mass derision the next. But if you're a normal person you probably never wanted mass adulation or mass derision.
So what's happening now in the homes of some political figures is big and in some cases will be decisive. Potential candidates already have been approached by and met with campaign consultants, gurus looking for a gig telling them "Don't worry about all the travel, you can have a Facebook campaign, we'll make you the first I-pad candidate! You can keep your day job. You can even work your day job!" And then there are the potential contributors, the hedge fund libertarian in Greenwich, and the conservative millionaire in a Dallas suburb, who are raring to go. Candidates have to decide by at least New Year's in order to be able to tell them to stay close and keep their powder dry, and in order to plan an announcement in the spring, in time for the first big GOP debate, at the Reagan Library.
Some candidates and their families are not wrestling with the idea of running, of course. Mitt Romney, for instance, surely knows he's running. But not every potential candidate is serious about it. Some look like they're letting the possibility they'll run dangle out there because it keeps them relevant, keeps the cameras nearby, keeps their speech fees and book advances up. The one thing political journalists know and have learned the past few decades is that anyone can become president. So if you say you may run you are immediately going to get richer and more well known and treated with more respect by journalists. Another reason unlikely candidates act like they're running is that who knows, they may. It's hard to decide not to. It excites them to think they might. It helps them get up that morning and go to the 7 a.m. breakfast. "I'm not doing this for nothing, I may actually run. The people at the breakfast may hug me at my inauguration; I may modestly whisper, 'Remember that breakfast in Iowa when nobody showed? But you did. You're the reason I'm here.'" They're not horrible, they're just human. But history is serious right now, and it seems abusive to fake it. If you know in your heart you're not going to run you probably shouldn't jerk people around. This is history, after all.
View Full Image
Chad Crowe
.More Peggy Noonan
Read Peggy Noonan's previous columns
click here to order her new book, Patriotic Grace
.All this decision making takes place within the context of a new mood in the party. We are at the beginning of what looks like a conservative renaissance, free of the past and back to basics. It is a revived conservatism restored to a sense of mission.
The broader context is this: Every four years we say, 'This is a crucial election,' and every four years it's more or less true. But 2012 will seem truer than most. I suspect it will be, like 1980, a year that feels like a question: Will America turn itself around or not? Will it go in a dramatically new direction, or not.
And if there are new directions to be taken, it's probably true that only a president, in the end, can definitively lead in that new direction. On spending, for instance, which is just one issue, it's probably true that the new Congress will wrestle with cuts and limits and new approaches, and plenty of progress is possible, and big issues faced. But at the end of the day it will likely take a president to summon and gather the faith and trust of the people, and harness the national will. It's probably true that only a president can ask everyone to act together, to trust each other, even, and to accept limits together in pursuit of a larger good.
Right now, at this moment, it looks like the next Republican nominee for president will probably be elected president. Everyone knows a rising tide when they see one. But everything changes, and nothing is sure. President Obama's poll numbers seem to be inching up, and there's reason to guess or argue that he hit bottom the week after the election and has nowhere to go but up.
Most of my life we've lived in a pretty much fifty-fifty nation, with each cycle decided by where the center goes. Mr. Obama won only two years ago by 9.5 million votes. That's a lot of votes. His supporters may be disheartened and depressed, but they haven't disappeared. They'll show up for a presidential race, especially if the Republicans do not learn one of the great lessons of 2010: The center has to embrace the conservative; if it doesn't, the conservative loses. Add to that the fact that the White House is actually full of talented people, and though they haven't proved good at governing they did prove good not long ago at campaigning. It's their gift. It's ignored at the GOP's peril.
All of this means that for Republicans, the choice of presidential nominee will demand an unusual level of sobriety and due diligence from everyone in the party, from primary voters in Iowa to county chairmen in South Carolina, and from party hacks in Washington to tea party powers in the Rust Belt. They are going to have to approach 2012 with more than the usual seriousness. They'll have to think big, and not indulge resentments or anger or petty grievances. They'll have to be cool eyed. They'll have to watch and observe the dozen candidates expected to emerge, and ask big questions.
Who can lead? Who can persuade the center? Who can summon the best from people? Who will seem credible (as a person who leads must)? Whose philosophy is both sound and discernible? Who has the intellectual heft? Who has the experience? Who seems capable of wisdom? These are serious questions, but 2012 is going to be a serious race.
Good luck to those families having their meetings and deliberations on Thanksgiving weekend.
-
I hope we get candidates that have the skillset to do the job. Enough of the empty suits, such as the one we have now.
-
Nice discussion on the Palin thread. As we look for the next Reagan keep in mind there isn't one. We need to pick from this current group and maybe a handful of names we haven't thought of yet. Reagan for one thing was a two term governor of our largest state and was long outspoken on national and international issues. The executive experience brought him some credibility. For those who didn't care about that it also brought with him the experience and skill to manage a staff, stay focused on priorities and to campaign and govern effectively. Reagan annoyed the left as much as Palin but also stole from the Democrats and independents their more moderate members. Palin is not having that affect.
Since we aren't working with a perfect list, I don't count her out, but I certainly move her down from the 'A' list for those things already mentioned, she left her highest post midterm first term, and she annoys people like Crafty's wife and CCP both of whom I think we need to win. On the positive side, I think I can live just fine with all of her agenda, governing philosophy and positions on issues as it stands today. As Crafty hinted regarding her experience with energy, she was the most powerful woman in Alaska before she was governor and energy is still a central issue.
Who else is still on the 'A' list, Gingrich, Romney and Huckabee? I object to each for different reasons so none is my first choice. Gingrich is quite an idea guy and he certainly is well qualified as a past Speaker of the House. The personal stuff I think is his main political downfall. Like a Rove, he needs to be used for his wisdom, ideas and instincts but not be the candidate.
Romney has sufficient credentials to run and win including private sector successes and being governor of a blue state but got there by being inconsistent with principles and stands on issues. He projects himself as Presidential I think most people agree, and that is rare. But how can we take advantage of the political energy that comes from resistance to a government takeover of healthcare and then choose someone whose greatest accomplishment is something similar? Romney has veered back and forth on principle and issues a bit too much to ever be a Reagan-like leader. Yet maybe he can emerge as one who has erred and learned.
Huckabee is not my cup of tea either. I haven't seen him lately but he wasn't very conservative in his postions or governance yet close enough in most people's minds to be seen as the Christian-right and to alienate all who get alienated by that. His embrace of the Fair Tax was opportunistic IMO. Apologies to those here who disagree with me, but we aren't going to be repealing all other taxes at this point in history so now as we struggle to close the deficit is a very bad time to even mention the another potential layer of federal taxation.
That leaves a handful of not too well-known governors without foreign policy experience and a few others from congress or ambassadorship without executive experience. One of these needs to emerge as Presidential in a very short order.
The timing is bad for Republicans. Everyone is either tied to Bush or lacks experience in the executive branch. If we had 4 more years, there is a great group of conservative politicians coming up through the ranks. But we don't have 4 more years.
Right now I will keep my eye on people like Mike Pence and Ambassador Bolton. They are both acceptable to me, in both cases not quite enough experience, and we will see how others respond to them.
People might start getting to know the other second and third tier candidates like our Governor Tim Pawlenty. He won two terms in a blue state including the sweep election of 2006. He balanced a budget 8 times (really 4 biennium budgets) without raising state taxes, while working with (against) a 60+% Democrat majority legislature. He came in with a deficit, left with a surplus. He is conservative without coming across as extreme or threatening. (His wife is an attractive lady and a judge.) He is personable and sharp, can probably small talk with Katie Couric just fine. He is soft spoken mostly and doesn't make a big splash or impression. Not a Reagan in clout, clarity or by any other means. Maybe more like a Bobby Jindal who I also like. Pawlenty's google hit rate, as pointed out in the original Palin piece, is 1/87th that of Palin even though he has been traveling regularly to Iowa, New Hampshire and appearing on the national shows.
-
Bolton, Pence, Pawlenty. Time for them to get serious attention. Enough of the media constructs like Palin sucking the oxygen from the room.
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/clarence-b-jones/time-to-think-to-unthinka_b_792237.html
**Yes, please do!**
-
Ironic that this crowd is angry with him because he is not liberal enough.
I can't think of any more important issue for the USA right now than the don't ask dont tell. :wink: :roll:
I nominate Rachel Maddow to spearhead this issue by running for high office.
:-D
-
Certainly POTH is highly unreliable source, especially with regard to racially-tinged issues, but I must confess that it irks me how many Republicans seem to have a tin ear or worse on some of the history of the civil rights movement.
===========================
Gov. Barbour’s Dream World
Published: December 21, 2010
In Gov. Haley Barbour’s hazy, dream-coated South, the civil-rights era was an easy transition for his Mississippi hometown of Yazoo City. As he told the Weekly Standard recently, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was an unmemorable speaker, and notorious White Citizens Councils protected the world from violent racists.
Perhaps Mr. Barbour, one of the most powerful men in the Republican Party and a potential presidential candidate, suffers from the faulty memory all too common among those who stood on the sidelines during one of the greatest social upheavals in history. It is more likely, though, that his recent remarks on the period fit a well-established pattern of racial insensitivity that raises increasing doubts about his fitness for national office.
In the magazine’s profile of the second-term governor, Mr. Barbour suggests that the 1960s — when people lost life and limb battling for equal rights for black citizens — were not a terribly big deal in Yazoo City. “I just don’t remember it as being that bad,” he said. He heard Dr. King speak at the county fairgrounds in 1962 but can’t remember the speech. “We just sat on our cars, watching the girls, talking, doing what boys do,” he said. “We paid more attention to the girls than to King.”
And the Citizens Councils were simply right-minded business leaders trying to achieve integration without violence. Thanks to the councils, he said, “we didn’t have a problem with the Klan in Yazoo City.”
The councils, of course, arose in the South for a single and sinister purpose: to fight federal attempts at integration and to maintain the supremacy of white leaders in cities and states. Mississippi’s council, formed in reaction to the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954, was one of the most powerful political forces in the state, and later raised funds for the defense of the murderer of Medgar Evers. The council chapter in Yazoo City, so fondly remembered by Mr. Barbour, published the names of N.A.A.C.P. leaders who dared to demand the town’s schools be integrated in 1955. Those on the list systematically lost their jobs and their livelihoods, boycotted by white citizens.
Mr. Barbour hastily issued a statement on Tuesday describing the councils as “indefensible” and the era as “difficult and painful.” But this is the same man who in 1982 made an indefensible remark to an aide who complained that there would be “coons” at a campaign stop. If the aide persisted in racist remarks, Mr. Barbour said, he would be reincarnated as a watermelon and placed at the mercy of blacks. His campaign for the governor’s office was also racially tinged.
Memory has long been the mutable clay of the South, changing the meaning of the Civil War and now the civil-rights era. But the memory of Mr. Barbour’s personal history will not soon fade. That should give pause to the Republican Party as it considers his future.
-
Krauthammer has started a new fad. Blessed are the liberals to have a conservative lead the charge praising Obama. Of course they pick up the fumble and are heading for the endzne with it. See Estrich's column after Krauthammer. Sound familiar. Thanks Charles with you on our side why do we need liberals? I just don't see that there was any genius on Obama's part. Someone said they give Obama more credit than Congress for DADT and START and the rest. Why? In any case as long as we have a MSM that is so biased the Republicans have to do better at PR.
****Obama's new start
By Charles Krauthammer
Thursday, December 23, 2010; 8:00 PM
Riding the lamest of ducks, President Obama just won the Triple Crown. He fulfilled (1) his most important economic priority, passage of Stimulus II, a.k.a. the tax cut deal (the perfect pre-re-election fiscal sugar high - the piper gets paid in 2013 and beyond); (2) his most important social policy objective, repeal of "don't ask, don't tell"; and (3) his most cherished (achievable) foreign policy goal, ratification of the New START treaty with Russia.
Politically, these are all synergistic. The bipartisan nature of the tax deal instantly repositioned Obama back to the center. And just when conventional wisdom decided the deal had caused irreparable alienation from his liberal base, Obama almost immediately won it back - by delivering one of the gay rights movement's most elusive and coveted breakthroughs.
The symbolism of the don't ask, don't tell repeal cannot be underestimated. It's not just that for the civil rights community, it represents a long-awaited extension of the historic arc - first blacks, then women, now gays. It was also Obama decisively transcending the triangulated trimming of Bill Clinton, who instituted don't ask, don't tell in the first place. Even more subtly and understatedly, the repeal represents the taming of the most conservative of the nation's institutions, the military, by a movement historically among the most avant-garde. Whatever your views, that is a cultural landmark.
Then came START, which was important for Obama not just because of the dearth of foreign policy achievements these past two years but because treaties, especially grand-sounding treaties on strategic arms, carry the aura of presidential authority and diplomatic mastery.
No matter how useless they are, or even how damaging. New START was significantly, if subtly, damaging, which made the rear-guard Republican opposition it engendered so salutary. The debate it sparked garnered the treaty more attention than it would have otherwise and thus gave Obama a larger PR victory. But that debate also amplified the major flaw in the treaty - the gratuitous reestablishment of the link between offensive and defensive weaponry.
One of the great achievements of the past decade was the Bush administration's severing of that link - first, by its withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, which had expressly prevented major advances in missile defense, and then with the 2002 Treaty of Moscow, which regulated offensive weapons but ostentatiously contained not a single word about any connection to missile defense. Why is this important? Because missile defense is essential for protecting ourselves from the most menacing threat of the coming century - nuclear hyper-proliferation.
The relinking that we acquiesced to in the preamble to New START is a major reversal of that achievement. Sure, Obama sought to reassure critics with his letter to the Senate promising unimpeded development of our European missile defense system. But the Russians have already watched this president cancel our painstakingly planned Polish and Czech missile defenses in response to Russian protests and threats. That's why they insisted we formally acknowledge an "interrelationship" between offense and defense. They know that their threat to withdraw from START, if the United States were to build defenses that displease them, will inevitably color - and restrain - future U.S. missile defense advances and deployments.
Obama's difficulty in overcoming the missile defense objection will serve to temper the rest of his nuclear agenda, including U.S. entry into the test-ban treaty, and place Obama's ultimate goal of total nuclear disarmament blessedly out of reach. Conservatives can thus take solace that their vigorous opposition to START is likely to prevent further disarmament mischief down the road. But what they cannot deny is the political boost the treaty's ratification gives Obama today, a mere seven weeks after his Election Day debacle.
The great liberal ascendancy of 2008, destined to last 40 years (predicted James Carville), lasted less than two. Yet, the great Republican ascendancy of 2010 lasted less than two months. Republicans will enter the 112th Congress with larger numbers but no longer with the wind - the overwhelming Nov. 2 repudiation of Obama's social-democratic agenda - at their backs.
"Harry Reid has eaten our lunch," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, lamenting his side's "capitulation" in the lame-duck session. Yes, but it was less Harry than Barry. Obama came back with a vengeance. His string of lame-duck successes is a singular political achievement. Because of it, the epic battles of the 112th Congress begin on what would have seemed impossible just one month ago - a level playing field.
****Susan Estrich
Obama the Genius
Was it only a month ago that the chattering class was writing off the president as being almost as thoroughly defeated as the lame duck Congress, as the failed leader who had lost his way, popularity plummeting, accomplishments vulnerable? Insiders worried about who was up next. How much worse could it get? Did he really want to be a one-term president? Any Republican could beat him, friend and foe asserted. (Well, maybe not any Republican, but almost any). And then, like the weather in New England, everything changed.
In politics, the distance between idiot and genius, especially at the highest levels, can be measured in days.
In the past 30, this president has put in place a tax deal that also extends unemployment benefits - and made clear to House Democrats that they could like it or lump it. He pushed to a vote a new nuclear arms treaty with Russia, signed into law the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" and even got some judges confirmed. That's just off the top of my head.
Even without Rahm, it turns out the president knows his way around tough negotiations and games of chicken, not only forging a compromise but landing himself squarely in the middle. "Triangulation" minus Dick Morris. He has been decisive, tough and confident. When House Democrats revolted, he stood up to them and told them what was what. The once unified Republican bloc splintered. He found the votes he needed. The issue that threatened the early days of Bill Clinton's presidency — gays in the military — was resolved with the stroke of a pen.
Who is this genius?
Who is this natural-born leader?
None other than last month's beaten man.
The man we would wish were president if only he weren't.
Hillary has probably never been more popular. (Sometimes I wonder how she ever lost the nomination what with all the folks who now claim they were for her and were right, to boot. But then, I can remember when public opinion polls during Watergate showed that McGovern must have beaten Nixon.)
It's easy to read the daily polls and see the entire public as a fickle lot constantly racing in one direction or another, radiating anger as they do. But the reality is that it's mostly the middle that's swinging, if and when they pay attention. And that middle — the group that either likes Obama no matter what he does or doesn't like him, on the same terms — is mostly in the ideological middle, not to mention, by definition, nonpartisan.
So when the president acts in a nonpartisan way, when he forces a compromise that keeps the tax cuts for everyone and extends unemployment benefits for folks who really can't find work (even if our grandkids will pay for it) and ends the bickering and backstabbing and intolerable paralysis, those folks are more likely to swing in his direction.
And when Republicans like Susan Collins are willing to be in the picture, when the aisle doesn't bind, he gets points with people who are sick and tired of what mostly sounds, from a distance, like bickering bullies. And even if folks don't see all of it themselves, all the chattering about the president being back on top shapes the coverage and ultimately tends to nudge them in that direction.
And so Barack Obama ends the year not vanquished but firmly at the head of the table, which isn't bad for a guy who last month was taking heat from every direction.
He's on his way up. Mark my words. He's a genius — until, that is, the weather changes.
To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM****
-
Posting about Tim Pawlenty on the assumption that all of the 1st tier candidates are defective, including Obama. Romney - Health care, Newt - personal past, Palin - being Palin, Huckabee - longer story but I don't favor him.
Also on the assumption that we need someone with executive experience of some meaning, we don't have a governor from NY or Calif available, Texas - don't know. Takes us into the middle size states for some level of relevant executive experience. Carter was from Georgia, Clinton Arkansas, Dukakis - Mass, etc.
Tim Pawlenty won in Dem state twice, even in the storm of 2006. Governed with good popularity without selling out conservatism too badly. Handled a few challenges like closing budget gaps without raising taxes and catastrophe of the bridge collapse. Was a minority leader of the state House prior to Gov. Mentioned here for underwhelming people, but again making the rounds where he has quite a bit of experience and is gaining familiarity. Likable, common sense guy, sticks to his principles, very non-threatening to moderates and independents. Not a Martin Luther King of orators, but his political savvy and skills are very good and easily underrated. Kind of the opposite of the vocal right that is so hated but without a major distinction in policies. Less polarizing. Pawlenty was probably McCain's correct choice and adviser's first choice. May very well be VP choice in '12 if he never comes up from 2nd tier for top of the ticket.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/01/12/pawlentys_book_highlights_humble_qualities_big_achievements___108511.html
January 12, 2011
In Book, Pawlenty Touts Achievements, Humility
By Scott Conroy and Erin McPike
Unlike the recent works published by his potential competitors for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, Tim Pawlenty's "Courage to Stand" is notable for its overt humility and avoidance of sweeping statements that might be perceived as hyperbolic.
The former Minnesota governor's attempt at a pre-presidential campaign tome is similar to those penned by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in that it is part biography, part vindication of his own political record, and part policy prescription for America's future. But he spills more ink describing specific examples of his leadership as chief executive of his state while taking a more humble approach.
Receive news alerts
Sign Up
Scott Conroy and Erin McPike RealClearPolitics
election 2012 President Obama
Sarah Palin Mitt Romney
Tim Pawlenty
It's not that Pawlenty is particularly shy about touting his accomplishments. It is instead a matter of tone. As the low-key Minnesotan puts it on page 97, "Because of human frailty, it's important that leaders avoid the temptation to be self-righteous. Confidence and strength are one thing; a false notion of personal perfection is another."
Pawlenty has been positioning himself as the "anti-Romney" in the nascent race by touting his blue-collar background as the son of a businessman in contrast to the wealth and privilege that Romney was born into, and that theme shines through in "Courage to Stand."
Although the author repeatedly touts his social and economic conservative bona fides, it is Pawlenty's accommodation and humility that permeates the book. "Today, two lightning-rod issues associated with social policy are abortion and gay marriage," Pawlenty writes. "I'm pro-life and in favor of traditional marriage, but when I talk about these issues, I watch my tone."
And in a sentence that could be perceived as a not-so-subtle jab at the tenor of Romney's book, "No Apology", Pawlenty writes, "Sometimes an apology is itself a sign of strength."
But at least as pronounced as the contrasts with Romney's work are the differences between Pawlenty's book and Palin's 2009 No. 1 bestseller, "Going Rogue."
While Palin writes about her triumphant exploits as a starting guard on her state championship high school basketball team, Pawlenty seems unashamed to note that he never made it past the junior varsity level in hockey - yet he still exudes passion for the sport.
While Palin's book portrays a take-no-prisoners approach to politics, in which the former small-town mayor takes on the old bulls to defeat an incumbent Republican for the governorship, Pawlenty writes about how his career ambition was to become a dentist when he enrolled at the University of Minnesota. Later on, he opted not to run for the Senate race he intended to pursue in 2002 after getting a phone call from Vice President Cheney asking him to defer to Norm Coleman for the good of the GOP.
"Going Rogue" is replete with rampant score settling with former staff members and political adversaries, whom Palin almost portrays as modern-day Dickensian villains, while "Courage to Stand" has scarcely a negative word about anyone and praises Democrats ranging from Bill Clinton to John Mellencamp.
It's clear that Pawlenty strives to be perceived as genuine and relatable, and he would rather accept being labeled "boring" than risk becoming polarizing or accused of political posturing.
Perhaps more important is that the 50-year-old provides dozens of specific examples from his government experience thus far to cast himself as ready for the next office - and that will be a major theme in his likely presidential campaign in contrast to some of the front-runners, like Palin and Romney.
Romney's first book, "Turnaround" - published in 2004 - is a 384-page case study about his leadership of the Salt Lake City Olympics. He presents his many challenges and how he approached them, the national security aspect of the event and the funding and budgeting associated with the Olympics. A six-page epilogue discusses his ascension to the Massachusetts governorship. His second book in 2010 is devoted mostly to his national platform and largely glosses over his record in his one term as governor, as he chooses instead to sharply critique President Obama's performance.
Pawlenty's book, by contrast, pulls out a few examples of record-setting tax cuts and how he achieved them, as well as his handling of a nine-day government shutdown over a budget battle in 2005.
He also discusses his trade missions to China, which could prove to be a critical issue in 2012 - particularly with the likes of Romney and Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels potentially in the race.
And in a three-page passage deep into the part of the book that delves into his gubernatorial record, Palwenty walks through how he navigated a $1.6 billion deal with Essar Steel, a major corporation based in India that hoped to develop a manufacturing plant in Minnesota's Iron Range. Upon learning that the company was doing business with a plant in Iran, Pawlenty forced a choice on the company, showing how he prioritizes security matters with economic development and how he may approach diplomacy.
There's also a chapter devoted to the collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis and his response to the tragedy. Pawlenty takes the time to point out that a Democrat in the state called one of his staffers during the first few hours of emergency response to say how he was going to use the disaster to denigrate the governor. Pawlenty, who refuses to name the Democrat "because what he did was so awful," calls it "one of the most disgusting examples of low politicking I've seen in my entire career."
He even exposes his doubts about running for a second term and his decision to ignore the advice of political consultants about going negative toward the end of his re-election race. And he artfully handles how his education in "Minnesota Nice" crept into his line of work.
But can Pawlenty's nice-guy Midwesterner image work in today's hot-button political culture? In an appearance on "The View" on Tuesday, Pawlenty turned to the most frequently referenced conservative president of the modern era to make his case.
"People shouldn't confuse being nice or thoughtful or civil with being strong," Pawlenty said before dropping Ronald Reagan's name. "He had strong views, but he presented himself in a civil, thoughtful, decent, kind manner. There were almost no instances where Ronald Reagan yelled, screamed, judged, condemned."
-
My first post from the Daily Beast which I thought was more on the Huffington Post end of the spectrum. While republicans seem to only have second stringers, the incumbent has enormous and countless (at least a dozen) problems of his own. All of these have validity and a couple of big ones are missing.
--------------
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-28/obamas-reelection-chances-12-reasons-hes-likely-to-lose/
Supporters are as exhausted as Velma Hart, the Tea Party has momentum, and Republicans are now more trusted. Mark McKinnon on why those issues, plus nine others, spell doom for the president’s reelection hopes.
President Obama’s State of the Union was strongly bipartisan and made smart moves to the center, although it missed a chance to really tackle tough fiscal issues like meaningful entitlement reforms. His Arizona speechwas terrific, his favorable ratings are climbing over 50, the economy is showing steady signs of improvement, and the stock market is up. So, how could he possibly lose his reelection bid? Just ask George H.W. Bush, who had an approval rating of nearly 90 percent two years out from his reelection. $#&! happens when you are at the helm of the free world. What could happen? Let us count the ways...
1. Velma Hart Syndrome
Many of Barack Obama’s supporters “are exhausted.” Many defected in the midterms. Independents, suburban residents, college graduates, working-class voters, and even Hispanic voters shifted right. Exit poll analysis by National Journal shows “white voters not only strongly preferred Republican House and Senate candidates but also registered deep disappointment with President Obama’s performance.” Team Obama will focus heavily on minorities, the young, and women, but voter enthusiasm may be tempered by economic exhaustion. Good news for Team O? Velma liked the speech Tuesday night.
2. The Obama Overexposure Effect
With counsel that he needs to get out more among the people to sell his message, voters may be turned off by the Obama Overexposure Effect. A Pew 2008 weekly survey showed, by a margin of 76 percent to 11 percent, respondents named Obama over Sen. John McCain as the candidate they heard about the most. Close to half said they heard too much about Obama. And by a slight but statistically significant margin, they then had a less favorable view of him. Before the 2012 campaign even kicks off, will Obama fatigue return?
3. Debt Bomb
The national debt reached $10 trillion under President Bush, but deficit spending is at an all-time high under President Obama, with $1.4 trillion added in 2009 and $1.3 trillion in 2010. And the CBO now projects a deficit of $1.5 trillion this year. That means the federal government will borrow 40 cents for every dollar it spends. Bankruptcies loom for many states faced with unfunded public pension liabilities; strong-arm demands for bailouts by unions will threaten Democrats’ credibility. Sixty-eight percent of likely voters already express a preference for smaller government and lower taxes. Talk of more federal spending and the potential for state bankruptcies will increase voter anxiety. As the GOP educates voters about what the exploding debt burden means for future generations, its cost-cutting measures and messaging will resonate.
Article - McKinnon Obama 2012 Tom Williams / Getty Images
4. Voters Aren’t Better Off
In 1980, President Ronald Reagan famously asked: “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” The answer for many is “no,” with higher unemployment, more debt, record-high home foreclosures, and another housing dip on the way. The long road to economic recovery will continue to frustrate voters. And weekly reminders of rising prices at the gas pump and grocery store, where it hurts most, may cost Obama the election.
5. Ailing Health Care
• Mark McKinnon: 12 Reasons Obama Wins in 2012If “Obamacare” was historic legislation, so too was the House vote to repeal it. Though repeal today may be moot as Senate passage and a presidential veto are unlikely, as the true bottom line becomes known, in terms of increased costs, decreased access to care, and increased government controls, health care once again will be a decisive campaign issue. Efforts to dismantle or defund Obamacare will continue for the next two years. And as the public listens more to the credible Rep. Paul Ryan, the president will be on the defensive daily.
6. Tea Party Momentum
The momentum will not stop. With a majority voice and a mandate, GOP House members, and the increasingly popular Speaker John Boehner, are making all the right moves, with humility and focus on the most important issues: the economy and health care. Fired up by victories in the historic midterm elections, Tea Party, conservative, older, and right-leaning moderate voters will turn out in droves in 2012, challenging the Democrats’ ground game. With 33 Senate seats (23 of which are now held by Democrats), 435 House seats, 11 governorships, and perhaps the ultimate fate of Obamacare still on the line, all politics is turnout.
7. Obama’s Transparency Problem
If House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa is effective in questioning mismanagement and opacity in the administration, Team Obama will be forced off-message as the public is reminded daily of the president’s one-time promises of transparency. A bill introduced on the first day of this session that seeks to cut off funding to 39 “czars” appointed without congressional approval may also find its way to the light of day on Issa’s desk. And sunshine tends to disinfect.
8. Congressional Districts Reapportioned
With the reapportionment of congressional districts from the 2010 Census, and with Republican control of more governorships and state legislatures, Obama’s electoral road to reelection is not without a few bumps. Eight states gained at least one congressional district; five of those are traditionally red states, including Texas, which gained four seats. Six of the 10 states to lose a district are blue. And once reliable Democratic states voted Republican in the 2010 midterms. While Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post shows how Obama could survive the challenge, Karl Rove builds a case for the president falling 67 short of what he needs to remain in the White House.
9. The Wars Aren’t Over
President Obama gets credit for continuing George W. Bush’s strategies in Iraq and Afghanistan. And though the public grows weary, the anti-war movement is now strangely silent. The number of voters who believe the terrorists are winning is at its highest level in over three years, and voters continue to believe Obama’s ideas on foreign policy don’t quite match their own. Those concerns, along with growing international threats from Iran, and our increasing economic dependence on China, may push votes into the R column.
10. What About Overregulation?
By moderating his anti-business rhetoric, selecting William Daley of JPMorgan Chase as his new chief of staff, and naming General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt as the chair of the White House’s new Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, Obama is sending signals of the administration’s shift toward the center. But without real changes to the overregulation strangling business growth, those signals may be seen as all smoke, no fire. And if private-sector job growth does not improve, voters may punish Obama at the polls.
11. Republicans Are More Trusted
The country yearns for an optimistic leader who believes in America, and who is willing to make hard choices to save future generations from the burden of our mistakes. Many thought that was Obama’s promise. No matter how it may be spun, the midterm elections were a referendum on the president’s performance and platform. And Republicans are now more trusted on all the top issues, including the economy, taxes, and health care.
12. The Vision Thing
Though President Obama has matched his highest job approval rating in more than a year, he is under 50 percent when it comes to the economy, viewed by the public as the highest priority. Trust in his ability to handle health care has dropped to a new low. And only 37 percent of independents would vote to re-elect Obama if the election were held today. A $1 billion campaign fund may not be enough if the GOP’s “Candidate X” presents a compelling and distinctly different narrative, a better vision for tomorrow.
-
REPUBLICANS POISED TO WIN SENATE
By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann02.4.2011
I know we predicted Republican Senate control in 2010. Republicans did gain seven seats and came within four of winning control. Razor thin defeats in Colorado and Washington and unexpected thrashings in Nevada and West Virginia proved us wrong.
But this time – honest – we are going to win!
The battlegrounds in 2012 are a lot more red and less blue than in 2010. If we switch seats in North Dakota, Florida, Nebraska, Virginia, and Montana – red states all – we get control by 52-48.
And the way 2012 is shaping up, Republican control is more and more likely.
Start with retirements. Kent Conrad, the North Dakota liberal twin of retired Byron Dorgan, has announced that he won’t run again. That seat is a sure GOP pickup.
Jim Webb (D-Va) has raised very little money, speaks with ambivalence about Obama’s programs, and has not yet decided whether to run. George Allen’s announced challenge to his re-election should cool him off even further and he’ll probably drop out. Not a sure pickup but, if the Republican Party nominates Allen — and not some later day Christine O’Donnell – we should be all right.
Herbert Kohl, the Wisconsin Democratic octogenarian, may also not run. He hasn’t raised money but did lend his campaign $1 million to fill up his bank account. But loans can be repaid. Kohl may well retire. Defeated Democratic Senator Russ Feingold may challenge him in a primary, hastening his exit. Not a sure pickup, but in a state which went so heavily Republican in 2010 (the GOP captured the governorship, both houses of the legislature, a Senate seat, and more House members) it’s a likely Republican gain.
The Nelsons (Bill of Florida and Ben of Nebraska) both face tough challenges from strong candidates in red states. Who knows if they will really run? Ben Nelson has to have the model of Arkansas’ Blanche Lincoln firmly in his mind. He needs to quit before he gets thrown out.
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), a former client, may not run again especially since his state lurched sharply to the right in 2010.
And, in Montana, Democrat John Tester, who won by less than one point in 2006, is an easy target in a very red state.
So rate North Dakota, Nebraska, Virginia, Montana as very likely Republican victories.
But we won’t stop there. Wisconsin – against either Kohl or Feingold – is a good pickup prospect. Bob Casey (D-Pa) can be beaten as can Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio). Bill Nelson (D-Fla) probably won’t win again and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo) will likely lose to former State Treasurer Sarah Steelman. And Republicans have a good shot against Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich).
Joe Manchin (D-WV) faces mounting scandals and his failure to make good on his promise to vote like a Republican may cost him his seat. And Bob Menendez (D-NJ), the single sleaziest member of the Senate, may face a challenge in a state whose GOP is animated by its Republican governor Chris Christie.
It should be a happy election season!
-
Morris says: "If we switch seats in North Dakota, Florida, Nebraska, Virginia, and Montana – red states all – we get control by 52-48.
But he went on to mention 8 others, all plausible: Wisconsin, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri, Michigan, West Virginia and New Jersey.
He didn't want to say it but in a sweep that makes 60. Morris is about right for today, but the momentum it seems is going to turn one way or the other from here.
I called for clarity and 100% of R's in the Senate voted for repeal and 100% of D's voted against repeal of a bill twice (out of 4 tries) declared unconstitutional. (Both sides read the forum?) Differences don't get much clearer.
Meanwhile I think R's have to defend Scott Brown and Olympia Snowe.
(Wherever you are, get involved early and help somebody.)
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJnuoq20d6Y&feature=player_embedded
Something like 8 times the experience that candidate Obama had. Served both in the House and Senate. Knocked off (electorally) a sitting Senate Majority Leader. Married to his (first) wife. Never socialized medicine.
Watch for conservatives to speak at CPAC this week.
-
@Doug Per your request re Huntsman
I suppose Huntsman might be too moderate for some on this forum, but I guess that is where my beliefs stand.
And I think the man has integrity. Sadly missing among many politicians today.
Plus I think he is electable.
Ambassador Huntsman has an interesting life story. Born to a self-made billionaire father, Jon Jr. dropped out of high school to play in a rock and roll band. He later did go to college, earning a degree at the University of Pennsylvania after attending the University of Utah for a time. He did missionary work in Taiwan and speaks fluent Mandarin. He served in both the Reagan and Bush-41 administrations. His business background in the Huntsman Corporation as an executuve, and later as well with the Huntsman Cancer Foundation.
In 2004, Jon Hunstman Jr. was elected as governor of the State of Utah by a fair margin, 57%. He was re-elected in 2008 by a whopping 77%. During his term in office, Utah was named the best managed state by the Pew Center. Many were already eyeing him for a presidential run then, which is one reason why Barack Obama offered him the job to be Ambassador to China. Get him out of the country and out of the way.
But his service as ambassador has not always been so cooperative. Huntsman had envisioned himself as taking a lead role in policy and affairs with China and Asia in general. But time and time again, Obama has used others, such as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to function as ‘point-man’ in dealing with China. Huntsman has been becoming more vocally critical of the Obama administration’s Asia policies. A clear sign of dissatisfaction and political ambition.
As governor, Huntsman demonstrated political savvy, walking the line between moderate and Conservative ideology. Huntsman reduced taxes, reformed government, and sided firmly with those opposed to abortion, gun control and same-sex marriage. He also advocated energy efficiency and raised concerns on proposals to store nuclear waste in Utah.
So keep your eye on Ambassador Jon Huntsman Jr. as the presidential field begins to take shape this year. He has a thick dossier for economic, executive and international skill sets. He and his lovely wife, Mary Kaye, have seven children, two of which are adopted (one from China and one from India). Huntsman is smart, good-looking and plays a mean piano I hear. Just the sort who could be viewed with a wide base for popularity in the 2012 presidential campaign.
-
I like the executive experience and Mandarin especially. We could do worse.
-
True, Mandarin is important because of our friendship and common interests with ... Taiwan. :-)
JDN, Great post. Now can I ask it the other way, if Republicans can come up with a good candidate, still what would motivate you want to vote against Pres. Obama?
-
JDN, Great post. Now can I ask it the other way, if Republicans can come up with a good candidate, still what would motivate you want to vote against Pres. Obama?
Hmmm, if Huntsman runs, I'll vote for him.
And I hear your former governor Tim Pawlenty is pretty good; but to be honest I don't know much about him. Crist might be interesting and I'ld consider Jeb Bush.
But as GM said, "Mittens Romney and Newt, I find them smart and capable and utterly untrustworthy."
And I'm not a Huckabee fan.
But I'ld vote for the dog catcher before Palin. I didn't like Bush, but I would have voted for McCain, in spite of his years if he had chosen a different VP.
The key is "if Republicans can come up with a good candidate".
-
JDN, That was good but what I was trying to draw out was what about Obama's governance gives you inclination to vote against him, if an acceptable alternative emerges.
-----
Cap and trade, and 'smart growth' advocacy were concerns that your good post about his conservatism made me forget about Huntsman.
On the positive side, what caught my attention to Huntsman was his leadership on CNG in cars. Much of the population of Utah is in a valley where the air gets trapped in by a wall of mountains. For each cloud to get through, it must first drop its weight - to the tune of 500 inches/yr. of snow at Alta. CNG (compressed natural gas) burns much cleaner, 20-25% less CO2 is emitted, better cost and mostly north American origins. (Hardly should need subsidizing) Great idea with a cart before the horse problem - if there are no stations, there are no vehicle sales. Leadership made sense and the cause is a good one, but huge subsidies to the tune of getting other taxpayers to buy a big part of your ride does not.
Cap and trade is up there with Romney care in importance. With the Climate gate exposure being only a year or so old and plenty of new reports to refute alarmist urgency, people like Newt and Huntsman may get a chance to reconsider proposals to turn our economy upside down.
'Smart growth' is an innocent sounding phrase meaning that elitist leaders know better where your family should live than you freedom seekers do. Utah has unique geography for some justification, but the nationwide movement is the antithesis to conservative values or a red state map. Often liberal Utopians want us all to live in high density near light rail stations that they will locate for us at the mercy of government services provided, instead of further out, on our own, in Republican 'xurbs' where you can have a driveway, a yard and a distance to your nearest neighbor, not a shared wall. I don't mean a yard with one chair in the shade of a high rise, I mean room to hit a pitching wedge, set up a soccer game, have a horse if you want, in our case a boat, a dock and a skating rink. Perhaps not a national issue, but his affinity to the cause of the moment could be an indicator of governing philosophy.
-
"But I'ld vote for the dog catcher before Palin."
By "dog catcher" you mean a marxist Chicago crook with no experience outside of governmental shakedowns, that spent 20 years attending an anti-white racist church, yes?
-
And sits in front of millions of Americans and says things he knows to be lies with a totally straight face,
like he is absolutely *not* for redistributing wealth.
-
And sits in front of millions of Americans and says things he knows to be lies with a totally straight face,
like he is absolutely *not* for redistributing wealth.
Obama said that? :?
But our progressive income tax rate redistributes wealth.
Capital gains (poor rarely have capital gains) redistributes wealth.
Inheritance tax redistributes wealth.
Etc.
A little redistribution is not all bad. But you cannot stifle creativity and entrepreneurship.
-
In case you hadn't noticed, we're well beyond "little" redistribution.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7fi8STNlxM&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
"Collective salvation" is one of those marxist doctrines clad in christianity he learned from Rev. Wright.
-
I know. I was joking.... :-)
And (to answer Doug) if we go beyond and creativity and entrepreneurship is stifled we need a new president.
I think a lot of Americans will agree with me.
-
Yeah, the Obama-koolaid has turned bitter for many.
-
GM, That youtube is quite revealing. Side note is that we hear the same voice before he learned the cadence that makes him sound like... Obama impersonators.
FYI to the CiC, White executives out in suburbs actually do pay taxers that pay for inner city youth, even in the dark ages of 1995. It is the other way around. Fathers and mothers of the poorest inner city youth that aren't paying for the white executives kids to go to school - or for their own. Or paying for their own housing, food or healthcare. The wealthy who wouldn't pay their fair share he put in the cabinet.
The theme of inner city community organizing was welfare advocacy and welfare rights, not self sufficiency or individual excellence. If you succeed, then he cuts you down - or does that depend on your race.
The healthcare law is 2000 pages about redistributionism and zero pages about new surgical procedures or life saving drug advancement.
I like what JDN wrote about creativity and entrepreneurship. That is how you judge tax rates, regulating schemes and welfare dependency. Do the policies in total leave the people across the whole spectrum wanting to innovate, create, build something, start something, risk, borrow, invest, hire, expand etc, etc or more like now - fight with each other and mostly sit on the sidelines and argue over who gets what. The answer at this point in time is mostly negative.
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnwJDCK1rk8&feature=player_embedded#at=73[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnwJDCK1rk8&feature=player_embedded#at=73
What real leadership looks like.
-
Wow. I will be happy to have him lead this country. Sharing our values is one thing, but choose for President the one who best articulates them.
On Meet the Press he was soft spoken and humble, so they showed a video of his passion at the rallies making a strong claim about the administration. West calmly stood by what he said and gave specifics to demonstrate that it was true.
Allen West is President Obama's worst nightmare. He won't walk into a Presidential debate unsure about what he believes or how to express it. Let's see the one with the community background or ordinary Republicans question his experience or readiness to serve and to lead, 20 years in the U.S. Army he served in Operation Desert Storm, in Operation Iraqi Freedom, was battalion commander for the Army’s 4th Infantry Division, and in Afghanistan, where he trained Afghan officers to take on the responsibility of securing their own country.
2 Masters degrees I see, West is 'an avid distance runner, a PADI Master certified SCUBA diver, motorcyclist, ...His wife, Angela, holds an MBA and PhD. and works as a financial planner.'
So many points in the speech (the constitution is a restraining order is against big government) I hate to single any out, but West picked up the point that cash for clunkers is a symbol of our current, failed leadership (famous people read this forum).
Allen West, Take your own advice, "the time is now". Good leaders don't come around very often.
-
Herman Cain at CPAC
http://www.therightscoop.com/herman-cain-stupid-people-are-ruining-america
-
"Allen West is President Obama's worst nightmare."
Yes, and that is why MSLSD goes after him every way they can dream up.
The libs can't tolerate a conservative black anymore than a conservative woman now can we?
He seems ready and capable to handle the pending onslaught into his life.
-
West is a warrior. The MSM ain't nothing to him.
-
It is a little early but I am going to make my 2012 prediction right here, right now.
There will be fewer women fainting in the front rows of Obama rallies in 2012. Mark my words, you heard it here first. :wink:
------
Both West and Cain are amazing black conservatives. Just from what I saw, West spoke out very strongly but with carefully chosen words that he can back up and stand by. Cain has an amazing business background and a powerful presence at the podium. Like others in talk radio though, he left himself with a headline less impressive than his speech: 'Cain says we are ruled by stupid people'. That falls into the trap CCP describes, the media ready to chew up a very successful man on one inartful slogan. It is our job to make the case that the opponents are wrong on their policies, not stupid.
-
The Allen West clip has been removed :? My first listen was rather casual (I was doing emails at the same time) and I wanted to give it another listen :cry:
-
Go West! 2012!
-
This video looks like it starts near the beginning of that speech. The other one (removed)I think cut off with CSPAN near the end.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zo60ZbyZrI0
-
West is a warrior.
Isn't he the same guy who while facing court martial resigned from the army in disgrace?
He is a first term congressman. He lost in his first attempt for congress.
His resume is thinner than Palin's.
He is a good speaker; I agree. A lot of hot air. After the hyperbole if you check his facts,
well.....
Do you really think he can be elected on a national platform? Will general America vote for him?
Rather than choosing someone someone out in right field can't the Republicans focus on people
who are experienced and respected like Huntsman or even General Petraeus?
Do the Republicans want to win this election, or do they simply want to make a lot of noise?
-
"Isn't he the same guy who while facing court martial resigned from the army in disgrace?"
Hardly. He was fined for firing a pistol near an Iraqi Police Officer in US custody who had information on a planned ambush. It worked. Hard decisions in combat. He retired honorably.
"He is a first term congressman. He lost in his first attempt for congress."
He spent more than 2 decades as an officer in the US Army. That's real leadership, real decision making.
"He is a good speaker; I agree. A lot of hot air. After the hyperbole if you check his facts,
well....."
Such as?
"Do you really think he can be elected on a national platform? Will general America vote for him?"
Absolutely.
-
He has my interest for sure, but a lot remains to be seen. Getting things done in the political system requires the ability to herd cats, which is quite unlike the military.
-
Actually he did face court martial. And he did resign immediately thereafter...
They let him keep his pension. He was lucky.
While I have the upmost respect for our fighting men, and I agree they require leadership
and decision making in the field it's hardly real world experience unless you rise to a higher level. A Lt. Col.
is like a Assistant VP in a large corporation. A battalion is the smallest unit capable of independent action
having about 500 - 1200 men. Hardly qualifications to to run a country.
Worse, unlike the AVP who must achieve his position on merit, as an Officer, many make Lt. Col. in 16-20 years just on longevity alone; hardly indicative of the Army's recognizing
that he had outstanding talent other than putting in his years of service until full retirement after 20 years. And sorry, simply serving in the military, while honorable, does not necessarily make one
a leader or a capable manager outside of the army. Frankly, I think many officers/military people have trouble transitioning into civilian life; the skills are different.
Also, he's a freshman congressman; still wet never having held any political office before. That's experience? Like it or not, being a politician requires different talents than a field military officer.
But the key is that you "Absolutely" think he can be elected on a national platform. And that America will vote for him.
This is the guy you want the Republican's to run in a national election? Really?
I wish you good luck.
-
Actually he did face court martial. And he did resign immediately thereafter...
They let him keep his pension. He was lucky.
An Article 32 hearing isn't a court martial. Yeah, in combat, sometimes hard choices have to be made. He did the right thing, IMHO. I wouldn't expect you to understand this, JDN.
-
Actually, I said he was facing court martial. An article 32 hearing is a preliminary hearing. They gave him a break; he offered to resign and so they let him. He had no future in the military.
"Maj. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the 4th Infantry's top general in Tikrit, could have rejected the recommendation and ordered a court martial. If he were to be found guilty at a court martial of the two articles against him, West could have faced 11 years in prison, a military prosecutor told CNN."
As for doing the right thing, you are right; I don't know the answer to that. But his superiors disagreed with his actions and they do understand.
But more important, I'm still waiting to hear why his "experience" qualifies him to be President? :?
-
He led soldiers, both in peacetime and in war. He didn't get to his rank coasting along on white guilt, (unlike someone placed as editor of Harvard Law Review with no actual writing required) he got it by performance.
West knew the potential costs involved, the safe thing would have been for him to stay inside the wire. If he lost some troops to an ambush, he could easily compose letters to the families and work towards his next promotion. He chose to sacrifice his career in trade for the lives and limbs of his troops.
That is leadership, that is honor.
-
Agreed!
OTOH the question of how he operates in the civilian political system remains to be seen. One term in the House of Representatives is a REALLY thin resume in this regard.
-
DC has turned more than a few heroic figures into politibots over time. The less time someone spends in congress, the better the odds they keep their souls.
-
JDN: "...waiting to hear why his "experience" qualifies him to be President?"
I answered that from my point of view and I would like to elaborate on my answer. First though to help frame my answer, may I ask you what experience is required to be qualified?
George H.W. Bush was the resume President, served in congress, was Ambassador to China. Director of the CIA, Ambassador to the UN, served 2 terms as VP, you don't get much closer to CiC than that. He won one landslide running for 'Reagan's 3rd term'. Broke with Reagan policies and on his own he lost to the Governor of Arkansas.
The other with that level of experience was Walter Mondale, 1984. He served in the army, was elected state attorney general, served 12 years in the senate in the Hubert Humphrey seat, was Vice President of the United States (later was Ambassador to Japan) lost all 49 states other than his home state in 1984, took Wellstone's place in 2002, lost his home state becoming the first and only person in history to lose in all 50 states.
Reagan was a large state governor two terms, W. Bush the same, Clinton a two term (non-continuous) smaller state governor and Carter a one term governor.
Saving Obama for the comparison with Allen West or whoever will run against him.
-
I would add that
a) Reagan understood being in the public eye due to his acting career; and
b) There is perhaps no better preparation for the socializing, schmoozing, politicking, lying, and backstabbing of Washington than being President of the Screen Actors Guild.
-
Morris often gets outside of his true lane of expertise, but here he is back in it, dead center:
So what happens if the cuts proposed by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers, R-Ky., prove unacceptable to the Senate and the president? What if there is no compromise? What if nobody gives in?
A budget deadlock, played out over months, will doom President Obama and assure his defeat. But an easily won compromise will help him get re-elected.
The central question in Obama's bid for a second term is: Will the issues that doomed his party in 2010 still be the key questions in 2012? If they are, we already know how the election will come out. If they are not, Obama can win.
When the president says he does not "want to re-fight the battles of the past two years," he means that he embraces this reality. He doesn't want Obamacare, high spending, huge deficits, cap and trade, card check and the like to be the items of discussion in the 2012 election.
But he has failed to put forward a compelling agenda for the next two years. That was the essential defect of his State of the Union speech. Nobody is going to storm any barricades for high-speed rail and more R&D spending.
If the Republicans hold firm in demanding huge spending cuts and Obama does not give in, the question of whether or not to cut spending will dominate the nation's political discourse for months on end and will spill over into the 2012 election.
To assure that it will, the Republicans should hold firm to their budget spending cuts without surrender or compromise. If necessary, it is OK to vote a few very short term continuing resolutions to keep the government open for a few weeks at a time, always keeping on the pressure.
hen the debt limit vote comes up, they should refuse to allow an increase without huge cuts in spending. If the debt limit deadline passes, they should force the administration to scramble to cobble together enough money to operate for weeks at a time.
If Obama offers a half a loaf, the GOP should spurn it for weeks and months. Then, rather than actually shut down the government, let them accept some variant of their proposed cuts but only give in return a few more weeks time, at which point the issue will be re-litigated. Don't go for Armageddon. Just keep fighting the battle.
Same with the debt limit. Extend it for a few hundred billion dollars and then go back for more cuts in return for a further extension. Make Obama pay for each continuing resolution and each debt limit hike with more cuts to spending.
Always avoid cuts in Medicare and Social Security. Save those for after 2012. For now, focus on Medicaid block granting and discretionary spending (including some modest cuts in defense).
Like a guerilla army, never go to a shutdown (a general engagement), but keep coming up with cuts, compromising, letting the government stay open for a few more weeks, letting the debt limit rise a few hundred billion, and then come back for more cuts and repeat the cycle.
And don't just demand spending cuts. Go for defunding of Obamacare, blocking the EPA from carbon taxation and regulation, a ban on card check unionization, and constraints on the FCC's regulation of the Internet and talk radio. Put those items on the table each time, each session.
Every time the issues come up, every time the cuts are litigated, Obama's efforts to appear to be a centrist will be frustrated. Time and again, he will have to oppose spending cuts. Over and over, he will come across as the liberal he is, battling for each dime and opposing any defunding.
Obama's campaign strategy has two elements: Change the subject from the 09-10 agenda, and move to the center. A tough, determined Republican budget offensive, embracing all these elements and fought in this guerilla style, will frustrate both and lead to his defeat.
-
"A tough, determined Republican budget offensive, embracing all these elements and fought in this guerilla style, will frustrate both and lead to his defeat."
With walking the fine line not to appear like they are "shutting down" government and avoiding the cruetly label,
"you are throwing people onto bread lines"
"you are depriving children of an education"
"you are denying health care to the poor"
Notice the libs are just drooling at the chops trying to get the Republicans to say they need to cut Medicare, Medicaid, and SS!
They can't wait, the pols and the MSM to get Boehner saying this. They clearly have the jornolist onslaught just ready to hit every media outlet with a back lash and every senior, poor person, student teacher, mnority, Latino and every one else waiting to give their sob story on SoloDADs and ODonnels, and Mr. Ed's shows.
-
Crafty posted before some concerns about Haley Barbour and possible past links to racism.
Last night Chris Matthews appeared to be aroused by the accusation that Haley Barbour "refused" to denounce an attempt to have the state in Mississippi sponser a Nathan Bedford Forrest license plate. Remember this guy was not only a Confederate army officer, but the first Grand Wizzard of the KKK.
Barber did come out and say the law will never pass but would not criticize the Sons of the Confederates who sponsored it.
Personally, I think it very reasonable Blacks would be outraged. I would be too. It remains to be seen if Barbour comes out and denounces this but if he doesn't that is it for me. I would never vote for this guy if he can't/won't acknoweldge how wrong this proposal is. Perhaps I am missing something taken out of context. Perhaps I am just a damn Yankee but I am sick and tired of Southerners making the Confederacy about State's rights. It was about Slavery. Let's leave it in the past. Remember it for what it was and what it means now and stop playing sentimental crap with Gone With The Wind. Its over -thank God.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/02/12/in-haley-barbours-mississippi-civil-war-looms-over-license-pla/
-
I'm glad you can force yourself to sit through MSNBC, ccp. You're a better man than me.
Any mention in that piece about the Common Cause protesters that want to lynch Justice Thomas?
-
GM,
As a matter of fact, Ed the dead, and Lawrence OF o'donnell and Chris hard on Matthews have been going wild making every link of Clarence with the Coke-Cola "brothers".
They claim he should have recused himself from a case since he apparently met with them and may have received gratuities. It (at lest they claim) the appearance of a conflict of interests. They are also going hog wild trying to get him on his wife's policital activities.
However,
The Left, of course, has always been outraged by a Black conservative on the Court. Now more than ever they are trying to destroy him. Naturally so their front man, the One, could replace him and tip the balance in the Progressive's favor.
I usually watch for short periods of time. Naturally after at most 10 minutes I get disgusted and switch to another station.
One could simply say that this is the left version of Beck going after (exposing in my view) links between Soros and every single progressive movement in the World. Which by the way seems to be true. Soros' fingerprints are showing up on everything. What with seventy* (*Wikipedia) - count them - progressive front (whoops, I mean "philanthropic"), and investment vehicles, tax write off, etc. organizations.
-
http://newsbusters.org/node/8026
Late on Friday night's edition of MSNBC's "Hardball," former Bush administration aide Ron Christie, author of "Black in the White House," pressed host Chris Matthews on the suggestion that if Republican Sen. George Allen's alleged racial slurs in the 1970s are a character flaw, what about the Democrats re-electing Senator Robert Byrd, a former Klansman, this fall? Matthews protested in a lecturing tone that "everyone knows about it....It's been raised a thousand times on his record." After claiming he was not defending Byrd, he told Christie: "The guy's 90 years old. Give him a break."
About 50 minutes into the show, Christie drew Matthews out on the double standard:
Ron Christie: "If we're making this a race about character, one question I have, and the Democrats have been miraculously quiet about this. Is that you have We have a former member of the Ku Klux Klan in West Virginia, who used the N-word, who was in the Klan, who had it on tape two years ago. [Is Christie referring to the "white nigger" quote?] I don’t hear the outrage, I don’t hear the ‘oh my goodness. Why for goodness sakes, are we going to re-elect a man to the Senate if it’s about character?’ You don’t hear a word from the Democrats about Byrd."
Matthews: "You want some advice?"
Christie: "Please give me some advice."
Matthews: "Get some town mayors in Virginia who have worked with this Senator, George Allen. Staff people like yourself, African-Americans especially, who’ve worked with this senator and come out and publicly testify he's got no big problems in this area.”
Christie: "No, but you just evaded my question, Chris. You’re good.”
Matthews: "I’ll do it now. Robert Byrd was a member of the Ku Klux Klan. He was a Grand Kleagle back in his youth, and I believe he has dealt with that issue over the years, and [lecturing tone] everyone knows about it."
Christie: "Oh, but it’s –"
Matthews: "No one doesn’t know he was a Grand Kleagle –"
Christie: "But the question, I’m only posing your question back to you: You say it's a matter of character, why is it not a matter of character to look at someone – "
Matthews, frustrated: "You know why? It’s been raised a thousand times on his record –"
Christie: "It does not make it any less –"
Matthews: "And you know what, I’m not defending him. I’m just saying we’ve talked about it for so many years, it’s in every biography we ever look at of this guy.”
Christie, smiling: “I just had to bring it up.”
Matthews, after a pause: “The guy’s 90 years old. Give him a break.”
Christie, smiling: “No! No, I’m not going to give him a break!
Matthews, cutting him off, grinning: “Terry McAuliffe, Ron Christie. Up next: The latest accusation against in Virginia’s nasty Senate race, senior Webb aide Steve Jarding will respond to the latest accusations…."
Ron Christie definitely got the better of that battle. And for fact checkers, Robert Byrd is 88, and will be 90 in November of 2007.
Clay Waters reminded us that not every media outlet wants to dwell on Byrd's Klan days.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/node/8026#ixzz1EFRJVlN3
-
Ummm , , , fun story, but what does it have to do with the subject of this thread? :lol:
-
Chris Matthews' very selective outrage.
-
So Media Matters or Race on SCH would be a good place for it :-)
-
Just responding to ccp's post where Matthews went after Barbour for not going after some weird southern group.
MARC: Well, an intro statement by you to that effect would have been to good purpose then :-)
-
So Frank Rich is deluding himself into thinking this is because the ONE is to right. He is not left enough. So far so good. Obama is not pulling a Bill Clinton. Or at least he is not succeeding. I think Bmasters collusion with the fabulously rich founders of Google, Facebook, GE, MSFT would make a nice picture of replacing Mousilini. I think this does fall into the category of Facism.:
« Monday, February 21, 2011
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 23% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -18 (see trends).
Yesterday and today mark the president’s lowest ratings since mid-December. It remains to be seen whether this is merely the result of statistical noise or a change in perceptions of President Obama. For most of 2010, more than 40% of voters voiced Strong Disapproval of the president. However, following his December agreement with Senate Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts, the level of Strong Disapproval had declined.
It’s President’s Day, and 93% have a favorable opinion about Abraham Lincoln. Ninety-one percent (91%) say the same about George Washington.
Most voters continue to favor repeal of the health care law.
The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates are also available on Twitter and Facebook.
Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. Fifty-five percent (55%) disapprove.
Thirty-seven percent (37%) of voters now think a group of people selected at random from the phone book could do a better job than the current Congress. Only 41% disagree.
-
Check out Vermont - the only red in the whole NorthEast. Perhaps I should move to Wyoming abuild a fort. Yes Frank Rich. Americans are behing the unions in Wisconsin! Dream on you demagogue. The One's faint to the right is NOT working. :-D :-) 8-) :lol:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/146234/Number-Solidly-Democratic-States-Cut-Half.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=plaintextlink&utm_term=Politics
-
Mitch Daniels' case for a less strident conservatism
By George Will 2/17/11
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | At first, the banquet audience at the 38th annual Conservative Political Action Conference paid Mitch Daniels, Indiana's Republican governor, the conventional compliment of frequently, almost reflexively, interrupting his address with applause. But as they realized they were hearing something unconventional - that they were being paid the rare compliment of being addressed as reflective adults - they reciprocated his respect with quiet attention to his elegant presentation of conservatism for grown-ups.
America, he said, faces "a survival-level threat," a new "Red Menace" consisting of ink. No enterprise, public or private, "can remain self-governing, let alone successful, so deeply in hock to others as we are about to be." Some people accept or "even welcome" a "ballooning of the state" that consigns America to "a gray parity" with other profligate nations. Such people believe history is controlled by a "leftward ratchet," always - never mind "the Reagan Interruption" - moving toward a more powerful state.
For such people, the task now is merely defensive: The Obama administration's spending commitments - e.g., the health-care law is designed to "engulf private markets and produce a single-payer system or its equivalent" - will produce a leviathan state and reduce the American world preeminence some people deplore.
Focusing on earmarks (a "pernicious practice" but a "trifle") and "waste, fraud and abuse," says Daniels, trivializes the task of administering "bariatric surgery" to a "morbidly obese" government. He favors restoring to presidents the power to impound appropriated funds ("you'd be amazed how much government you'll never miss"). But the big twofold task is to reform entitlements and produce economic growth - "a long boom of almost unprecedented duration."
Americans must say "an affectionate thank-you" to the last century's major social welfare programs - then sunset them, after those Americans "currently or soon to be enrolled" in them have passed from the scene. Social Security and Medicare should be updated to conform to Americans' "increasing longevity and good health." Medicare 2.0 should respect Americans' dignity and competence by empowering them to make "their own decisions" by delivering its dollars directly to individuals and expecting them to "pay for more of their routine care like the discerning, autonomous customers we know them to be."
To spur economic growth, we must "untie Gulliver": "The regulatory rainforest through which our enterprises must hack their way is blighting the future of millions of Americans." Barack Obama's recent executive order to prune the forest was, Daniels said, akin to the world's leading rap music producer suddenly expressing alarm about obscenity. And Daniels thinks conservatives' "first thought" should be about "those still on that first rung of life's ladder":
"Upward mobility from the bottom is the crux of the American promise, and the stagnation of the middle class is in fact becoming a problem, on any fair reading of the facts. Our main task is not to see that people of great wealth add to it but that those without much money have a greater chance to earn some."
Author of the most succinct characterization of the Obama agenda ("shock-and-awe statism"), Daniels has practiced the lean government he preaches. Under him, Indiana has its fewest state employees since 1978, the nation's lowest state-government employment per capita, the lowest effective property taxes and the third-lowest per capita spending. So he has the credentials to counsel conservatives about the need to compromise in the interest of broadening the constituency for difficult reforms.
"Change of the dimension we need," says Daniels, "requires a coalition of a dimension no one has recently assembled," including people who "surf past C-SPAN to get to SportsCenter." Which may mean ideological dilution: "Purity in martyrdom is for suicide bombers" and "King Pyrrhus is remembered, but his nation disappeared." Daniels has "no interest in standing in the wreckage of our Republic saying, 'I told you so' or 'You should've done it my way.' "
He reminded his listeners that when he was serving Ronald Reagan, the president admonished him and others that "we have no enemies, only opponents." The case for less strident conservative rhetoric is practical: "As we ask Americans to join us on such a boldly different course, it would help if they liked us, just a bit."
Do not, Jefferson warned, undertake great departures on "slender majorities." Conservatives criticized Democrats for doing just that regarding health care. Big changes, Daniels knows, will require a broad majority, perhaps one assembled after 2012 by someone with his blend of accomplishments, aversion to pandering and low-key charisma of competence.
-
I will keep my eye out for more on this man.
-
CAIR asks West where in the Koran it says , , ,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MZx38i6iYs&feature=player_embedded
-
Mitch Daniels is the one I know the least about right now. He was George Bush's Budget Director(OMB). He explains that as well as honesty and politically possible here with Wolf Blitzer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x93UsezYvrE Fair enough, but doesn't stir the excitement and break with the past needed todayIMO.
-----
Dick Morris is politically astute, personal issues of his own aside, I heard him on the radio yesterday give a re-cap of candidates that pretty much lays out conventional wisdom at this point. Mitt is probably the leader but no one knows how he unties himself from Romneycare while the central fight is Obamacare. There is a distinction between state and federal but big government is big government.
Then Palin, Huckabee and Newt make up the first team each with the big question of getting down their own big negatives down.
For the second tier he mentioned Mitch Daniels and Rick Santorum. I noticed he skipped Pawlenty but didn't pretend to cover them all. Said something particularly strong about Herman Cain. Since he isn't a Governor, Representative or Senator, Morris said they will have to call him Mister! - meaning I guess the outsider / private sector candidate as a distinguishing positive. I would add that maybe they have to call him Mister Chairman, as in former Chairman and Member of the Board of Directors for the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. (Like Obama on the Law Review, I would like to read Cain's writings at the Fed.)
I think it was Laura Ingraham- she asked who Morris would most like to work for and Morris said Newt because he would eat Obama up in the debates (words to that effect). He made that point more than once, but then went back to the central question - wondering if Newt could overcome his negatives. (He can't)
I say both Morris and Gingrich if they are like-minded need to get together and figure out which of these others is the right leader and start handing him or her all the best ideas, policies and strategies they can for the good of the Republic.
---
Morris' latest strategy idea is targeted govt shutdown's: Cut the funds for specific enforcement of the the health care bill, in the IRS. When that fails, shut down only the IRS. Cut the funds for specific enforcement of the CO2 enforcement arm of the EPA, when that fails, shut down the the EPA. Etc. I will cut and paste this idea over to the budget-spend topic.
-
"Morris said Newt because he would eat Obama up in the debates"
Doug,
I just think Mitt could beat Obama in a debate. I could see him coming out slight ahead on the content but he would get wiped out on style and that to me is the problem at this point.
-
Mitt has patrician guilt complex and when push comes to shove will always fold to race baiting and class warfare.
-
It seems to me that the Mitt-bot can be programmed to advocate any political position needed.
-
Crafty,
Yes. Great point.
I think he would fold. Actually I meant I do *not* think he could beat Obama in a debate. He might on some logical points but not on the emotional issues like race baiting and class warefare.
We really need to get a candidate that can debate on those points.
GM,
I am not sure what you mean about Mitt?
-
ccp,
He could calmly espouse any position. He reminds me of the Japanese pop stars that are just computer generated voices/images.
-
In the age of youtube, GM's point about Mitt is provable.
I heard some commentator or guest say the number one quality people look for in a leader is 'unquestionable integrity'. No policy acumen or camera presence gets anyone past that question.
The question for conservatives I think goes something like this, who among these top 10 or 15 possible candidates is consistently principled conservative to their core with unquestionable integrity that you could visualize right now as President best articulating American principles directly to the American people on the whole realm of economic, budget and security issues we face.
In other words, not who could beat Obama, but who would lead best if he/she did beat Obama. Who would handle the cameras and the issues and the media and the crises and the questioning and the teachable moments. Who would cause a good number of independents and in-betweeners to recognize core principles with persuasion and conviction rather than compromise and poll watching.
There is no easy answer, but I say if they are not consistently conservative with unquestionable integrity and compelling and persuasive in their presence and delivery, rule them out and keep searching up and down the list.
-
"The question for conservatives I think goes something like this, who among these top 10 or 15 possible candidates is consistently principled conservative to their core with unquestionable integrity that you could visualize right now as President best articulating American principles directly to the American people on the whole realm of economic, budget and security issues we face."
One gigantic difference between liberals and conservatives is a conservative could win by being honest about who they are, what they believe in, and how to keep this country great. Unlike radical liberals who have to pretend they are for America and its historic principals yet in reality are for one world government, the UN as leadership role, world Leninism, a single "class" for everyone, etc. We know Obama believes this and strives for this but he cannot say this or he would never have been President. He pretends he is for America he pretends he is to keep her great he tries to copy Reagan etc but we all know how radical he really is.
This false and decpetive pretense and facade more than anything else he can and should be beaten and driven out of office head first in '12. We need a candidate who can and will call him out for this. Not let him and his MSM cohorts bluff us like they do. Newt is one who could do that. Mitt cannot not. I am not saying Newt is otherwise a good candidate but the only one clearly who could take Bamster on in a debate and show what a fraud he is and not let him lie us to death with deception. But Newt does need a softer side that can appeal to moderates in some way. He doesn't have that.
I don't know yet about Pawlenty, Daniels, or any other. West has the right mouth piece but as Crafty pointed out his resume is too thin at this point.
-
Pravda on the Beach had a piece on Romney today. Says he is looking to make himself look less patrician, less "perfect", more human, etc. Commented on him being poll-driven, blah blah.
-
Hey CCP, (from Decline, Fall, and Resurrection? of America thread) Just to clarify, I'm not a Huckabee fan in terms of the nomination, just taking his side for the right to speak the truth on cultural issues and anything else. Interestingly, I have a sister who lived in his state when he became Governor, knows him better than we do, and she would LOVE to see him become President. To her Huckabee was a breath of fresh air in Ark following Clinton and the convicted Gov. Jim Guy Tucker.
I don't see Fox News channel but heard him speak recently. I was surprised that he had no southern/Arkansas accent to my ear. I think that can be a big deal. I think Sarah Palin's accent is a big deal to her detractors and her negatives, maybe for others too, Hayley Barbor, Herman Cain? Depends on your ear. I don't know what Tim Pawlenty sounds like to people from other regions. Some like JFK, maybe Bill Clinton, used a regional sound to their advantage, also the contrived Obama cadence. The worst was Chicagoan Hillary Clinton returning to the south and faking a southern accent.
Huckabee to me is the wrong combination of not conservative enough on important things like illegal immigration and spending, but too conservative (unelectable?) in the perception of independents and swing votes because of his affiliation with the so-called Christian-Right.
-
(http://www.odmp.org/photo.php?id=20138)
Officer Tina G. Griswold
Lakewood Police Department
Washington
End of Watch: Sunday, November 29, 2009
Biographical Info
Age: 40
Tour of Duty: 14 years
Badge Number: 101
Incident Details
Cause of Death: Gunfire
Date of Incident: Sunday, November 29, 2009
Weapon Used: Handgun; 9 mm
Suspect Info: Shot and killed
Officer Tina Griswold, Sergeant Mark Renninger, Officer Greg Richards, and Officer Ronald Owens were shot and killed in an ambush style attack while sitting inside a coffee shop in Parkland.
All four officers had just finished a call and went to the coffee shop to complete paperwork. Sergeant Renninger, Officer Owens and Officer Griswald were seated at a table, and Officer Richards was in line waiting to order coffee. The suspect entered the shop, walked directly over to the table where the three officers were sitting, drew a 9 mm handgun and shot Officer Griswald, killing her. The suspect then shot Sergeant Renninger, killing him.
After shooting the two officers, the suspect’s weapon jammed and he became involved in a physical fight with Officer Owens. During the struggle, the suspect drew a second weapon, a .38 caliber revolver and shot and killed Officer Owens. Officer Richards, hearing the shots, moved toward the suspect and became involved in physical fight with him. During the struggle, Officer Richards was able to shoot the suspect once in the torso, before the suspect was able to gain control of his weapon. The suspect then shot Officer Richards, killing him.
The suspect fled the location, prompting a two day manhunt. He was shot and killed by a Seattle police officer after the officer observed him near a stolen car. The officer attempted to take the suspect into custody, but the suspect refused to follow commands and attempted to flee, prompting the officer to fatally shoot him.
Officer Griswold had served with the Lakewood Police Department for five years and had a total of fourteen years of law enforcement service. She is survived by her husband and two children.
-
(http://www.odmp.org/photo.php?id=20137)
Sergeant Mark Joseph Renninger
Lakewood Police Department
Washington
End of Watch: Sunday, November 29, 2009
Biographical Info
Age: 39
Tour of Duty: 13 years
Badge Number: 23
Incident Details
Cause of Death: Gunfire
Date of Incident: Sunday, November 29, 2009
Weapon Used: Handgun; 9 mm
Suspect Info: Shot and killed
Sergeant Mark Renninger, Officer Tina Griswold, Officer Greg Richards, and Officer Ronald Owens were shot and killed in an ambush style attack while sitting in a coffee shop in Parkland.
All four officers had just finished a call and went to the coffee shop to complete paperwork. Sergeant Renninger, Officer Owens and Officer Griswald were seated at a table, and Officer Richards was in line waiting to order coffee. The suspect entered the shop, walked directly over to the table where the three officers were sitting, drew a 9 mm handgun and shot Officer Griswald, killing her. The suspect then shot Sergeant Renninger, killing him.
After shooting the two officers, the suspect’s weapon jammed and he became involved in a physical fight with Officer Owens. During the struggle, the suspect drew a second weapon, a .38 caliber revolver and shot and killed Officer Owens. Officer Richards, hearing the shots, moved toward the suspect and became involved in physical fight with him. During the struggle, Officer Richards was able to shoot the suspect once in the torso, before the suspect was able to gain control of his weapon. The suspect then shot Officer Richards, killing him.
The suspect fled the location, prompting a two day manhunt. He was shot and killed by a Seattle police officer after the officer observed him near a stolen car. The officer attempted to take the suspect into custody, but the suspect refused to follow commands and attempted to flee, prompting the officer to fatally shoot him.
Sergeant Renninger had 13 years of law enforcement experience, five with the Lakewood Police Department and eight with the Tukwila Police Department. He is survived by his wife and three children.
-
(http://www.odmp.org/photo.php?id=20140)
Officer Ronald Wilbur Owens II
Lakewood Police Department
Washington
End of Watch: Sunday, November 29, 2009
Biographical Info
Age: 37
Tour of Duty: 12 years
Badge Number: 121
Incident Details
Cause of Death: Gunfire
Date of Incident: Sunday, November 29, 2009
Weapon Used: Handgun; .38 caliber
Suspect Info: Shot and killed
Officer Ronald Owens, Sergeant Mark Renninger, Officer Tina Griswold, and Officer Greg Richards were shot and killed in an ambush style attack while sitting inside a coffee shop in Parkland.
All four officers had just finished a call and went to the coffee shop to complete paperwork. Sergeant Renninger, Officer Owens and Officer Griswald were seated at a table, and Officer Richards was in line waiting to order coffee. The suspect entered the shop, walked directly over to the table where the three officers were sitting, drew a 9 mm handgun and shot Officer Griswald, killing her. The suspect then shot Sergeant Renninger, killing him.
After shooting the two officers, the suspect’s weapon jammed and he became involved in a physical fight with Officer Owens. During the struggle, the suspect drew a second weapon, a .38 caliber revolver and shot and killed Officer Owens. Officer Richards, hearing the shots, moved toward the suspect and became involved in physical fight with him. During the struggle, Officer Richards was able to shoot the suspect once in the torso, before the suspect was able to gain control of his weapon. The suspect then shot Officer Richards, killing him.
The suspect fled the location, prompting a two day manhunt. He was shot and killed by a Seattle police officer after the officer observed him near a stolen car. The officer attempted to take the suspect into custody, but the suspect refused to follow commands and attempted to flee, prompting the officer to fatally shoot him.
Officer Owens had served with the Lakewood Police Department for five years and had a total of twelve years of law enforcement service. He is survived by his daughter.
-
(http://www.odmp.org/photo.php?id=20139)
Officer Gregory James Richards
Lakewood Police Department
Washington
End of Watch: Sunday, November 29, 2009
Biographical Info
Age: 42
Tour of Duty: 8 years
Badge Number: 135
Incident Details
Cause of Death: Gunfire
Date of Incident: Sunday, November 29, 2009
Weapon Used: Officer's handgun
Suspect Info: Shot and killed
Officer Greg Richards, Sergeant Mark Renninger, Officer Tina Griswold, and Officer Ronald Owens were shot and killed in an ambush attack while sitting inside a coffee shop in Parkland.
All four officers had just finished a call and went to the coffee shop to complete paperwork. Sergeant Renninger, Officer Owens and Officer Griswald were seated at a table, and Officer Richards was in line waiting to order coffee. The suspect entered the shop, walked directly over to the table where the three officers were sitting, drew a 9 mm handgun and shot Officer Griswald, killing her. The suspect then shot Sergeant Renninger, killing him.
After shooting the two officers, the suspect’s weapon jammed and he became involved in a physical fight with Officer Owens. During the struggle, the suspect drew a second weapon, a .38 caliber revolver and shot and killed Officer Owens. Officer Richards, hearing the shots, moved toward the suspect and became involved in physical fight with him. During the struggle, Officer Richards was able to shoot the suspect once in the torso, before the suspect was able to gain control of his weapon. The suspect then shot Officer Richards, killing him.
The suspect fled the location, prompting a two day manhunt. He was shot and killed by a Seattle police officer after the officer observed him near a stolen car. The officer attempted to take the suspect into custody, but the suspect refused to follow commands and attempted to flee, prompting the officer to fatally shoot him.
Officer Richards had served with the Lakewood Police Department for five years and had a total of eight years of law enforcement service. He is survived by his wife and three children.
-
The above are four reasons I'll never vote for Huckabee for anything.
-
What does Huckabee have to do with four LEO murders in Washington?
-
http://patterico.com/2009/11/29/mike-huckabee-commuted-washington-murder-suspect/
11/29/2009
Mike Huckabee Commuted Washington Murder Suspect’s Prison Sentence
Filed under: Crime,Politics — DRJ @ 8:17 pm
[Guest post by DRJ]
The suspect in this morning’s murder of 4 Washington State police officers had his prison sentence commuted by Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee:
“Maurice Clemmons, the 37-year-old Tacoma man being sought for questioning in the killing this morning of four Lakewood police officers, has a long criminal record punctuated by violence, erratic behavior and concerns about his mental health.
Nine years ago, then-Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee granted clemency to Clemmons, commuting his lengthy prison sentence over the protests of prosecutors.
“This is the day I’ve been dreading for a long time,” Larry Jegley, prosecuting attorney for Arkansas’ Pulaski County said tonight when informed that Clemmons was being sought for questioning in connection with the killings.”
I think you can throw out those “Huckabee 2012″ bumper stickers. The Washington officials have some explaining to do, too.
-
For what was the sentence which Huckabee commuted?
-
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5835831-503544.html
Nine years ago, former Arkansas governor and 2008 GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee commuted the prison sentence of Maurice Clemmons, the man being sought by police in connection with the weekend murder of four police officers in Washington.
Huckabee's decision to commute Clemmons' sentence came "over the protests of prosecutors," according to the Seattle Times, which quotes an Arkansas prosecutor saying, "This is the day I've been dreading for a long time."
Huckabee distanced himself from Clemmons in a statement last night, writing that if Clemmons is found responsible for the murders, "it will be the result of a series of failures in the criminal justice system in both Arkansas and Washington State." Here's more from the statement:
He was recommended for and received a commutation of his original sentence from 1990. This commutation made him parole eligible and he was then was paroled by the parole board once they determined he met the conditions at that time. He was arrested later for parole violation and taken back to prison to serve his full term, but prosecutors dropped the charges that would have held him. It appears that he has continued to have a string of criminal and psychotic behavior but was not kept incarcerated by either state.
4620389Clemmons has a long criminal history that reportedly includes at least 13 felony convictions, and most recently had been in jail on charges of child rape. According to the Times, he was sentenced to 60 years in prison in 1990 for burglary and theft, when he was 18 years old; he had already been serving a 48 year prison sentence at the time, and faced another possible 95 years behind bars on separate charges. Huckabee reportedly commuted that sentence, pointing to the fact that Clemmons was just a teenager.
This is not the first time Huckabee, who is widely believed to be considering another presidential run, has faced questions tied to his intervention on behalf of a prisoner.
In 1985, a man named Wayne DuMond was convicted of the rape of a 17-year-old girl with a connection to then-Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton. DuMond's sentence was set at life in prison, plus 20 years. In 1992, Clinton's successor in the Arkansas governor's mansion, Jim Guy Tucker, reduced that sentence to 39 years, making DuMond eligible for parole.
When Huckabee became governor in 1996, he expressed doubts about DuMond's guilt and said he was considering commuting his sentence to time served. After the victim and her supporters protested, Huckabee decided against commutation.
But in 1997, according to the Kansas City Star, Huckabee wrote a letter to DuMond saying "my desire is that you be released from prison." Less than a year later, DuMond was granted parole. He was later arrested for sexually assaulting and murder and was the leading suspect in a second rape and murder.
Huckabee's office denied that the governor played a role in the parole board's decision, but there was evidence to contradict that claim.
In 2007, Huckabee told CNN, "For people to now politicize these deaths and to try to make a political case out of it, rather than to simply understand that a system failed and that we ought to extend our grief and heartfelt sorrow to these families, I just regret that politics is reduced to that."
-
In my own slanted political view I have come to believe I can generally find a core falsehood in the first sentence or first premise of almost any liberal attack piece. However, in the story that GM covered about Huckabee that liberals would run hard with, it is true. The story of Newt's personal failings is true. The story of Palin quitting the her highest post is true. And this piece by Michael Kinsley, as liberal as they come, about Mitt Romney flip flopping and lacking core convictions is true. We need to put a little more pressure on our opponents than that to win.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-kinsley-romney-20110308,0,3857595.story
-
Do any of you know more about Herman Cain than is present in this story? Thanks.
http://www.theroot.com/buzz/former-godfathers-pizza-ceo-considering-presidential-run
-
BD:
I think there are some posts about him earlier in this thread. Apparently he has extensive successful big corporation executive experience. In response to the argument of the article you posted, I would point out that this is QUITE a bit more experience than Obama had -- though allow me to make clear that I am not suggesting that it is enough.
-
BD:
I think there are some posts about him earlier in this thread. Apparently he has extensive successful big corporation executive experience. In response to the argument of the article you posted, I would point out that this is QUITE a bit more experience than Obama had -- though allow me to make clear that I am not suggesting that it is enough.
Thank you, sir. I did, indeed, find what I figured someone here knew eearlier in the thread.
-
Bigdog, all,
I share the curiosity about Herman Cain as he keeps moving up my list.
Many people have great business experience. Not many of those are willing to also get involved in politics and take a stand on the issues of the day and the great principles of our country. There is a very limited list of conservative republicans available for leadership, probably none, that have a conventional road paved for them to the nomination or the Presidency, with past electoral success, serious executive level public sector experience, foreign policy experience, etc. at all much less not tainted by failures and mis-steps of the past. Private sector experience sets up a pretty good contrast to the current administration, especially if one sees the current group's public sector experience as unsuccessful.
Must comment on the journalism at the original link: http://www.theroot.com/buzz/former-godfathers-pizza-ceo-considering-presidential-run - This is the kind of journalism that makes people like me scream:
"It's funny how the GOP likes to suggest black candidates with no experience as a viable replacement for President Obama. One black man in exchange for another, which is the height of racism."
First of all, the man is 65 years old with a WEALTH of real world experience, he grew up poor, has one wife (my snip at Newt), a Masters degree, A mathematician in the U.S. Navy, a successful career at Coca-cola, VP of Pillsbury, led a successful turnaround within Pillsbury's Burger King group, a successful turnaround and buyout of Godfather's Pizza, Chairman of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank, then a career in issues commentary rising to be recognized as a leading conservative voice seriously considered for the Presidency. Mark me down as envious; the incumbent would be too if he understood our economic system.
Like hearing that brutally cold winters are caused by global warming, someone please help me here. The GOP is racist :? for excitement at the possibility of finding a black man (or Alaskan woman, Mormon or white midwest Governor) worthy of the Presidency to defeat this incumbent? Good grief. If so-called white tea party types wish for an authentic black conservative to defeat a duplicitous, wishy-washy, 'transformational progressive' Marxist, Leftist, Statist, doesn't that mean that the goal is to change the direction and quality, not the color, of the leadership?? What am I missing?
Telling that the author/accuser has a focus all about race while her target called racist, tea party type conservatism, has none.
-
"has one wife (my snip at Newt)"
Newt was working so hard for us, he committed personal "indiscretions". :roll:
I guess it's all our fault.
-
Obama sympathetic strategists look at the table set for 2012 from the Obama perspective:
http://www.tnr.com/article/the-vital-center/83993/obama-2012-reelection-colorado-ohio
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/84860/obama-election-2012-ohio-president%20
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/03/18/obama_should_use_the_colorado_strategy_to_win_ohio_109273.html
In a nutshell, they debate whether he forms the same coalition as 2008 with minorities, young people, socially liberal women and other upscale, upper middle class voters, or working class whites, or fight back after the college-educated whites, which swung 18 points to the Republicans in just 2 years. Everyone is in a group in their world. No mention of targeting AMERICANS.
My take is that he is screwed either way IF he faces a strong competitor. :-)
-
Strategy of going after the "white working class" "defined as those without college degrees".
I smile when the author points out how "Clinton figured out" a way to get these voters in his camp. Well, despite the screw up by WHBush throwing away a 90% approval rating in 1992 and a three way race for the Presidency, and a very weak candidate in Dole, Clinton still never got more than 48% of the vote. I guess, despite Dems furious bribes to people with more and more taxpayer money this is a center right country.
The lib armies are already trying push this strategy to make the union issue in Wisconsin a "middle class issue". They are actually trying to persuade most Americans that government spending for public union workers is great for all.
-
Clinton still never got more than 48% of the vote. I guess, despite Dems furious bribes to people with more and more taxpayer money this is a center right country.
A popular vote majority is a rather rare presidential election. Don't read too much in Clinton's inabilty to get 50% or more.
-
"A popular vote majority is a rather rare presidential election. Don't read too much in Clinton's inabilty to get 50% or more. "
- This is true. I remember in 2000 that Al Gore won with only 48.4% of the vote. :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000
-
GM posted this elsewhere: "US Cost of Living Hits Record, Passing Pre-Crisis High"
Read differently, if incomes are flat, and cost of living hits record, then the standard of living is falling. Begs the reelection question, are you better off now than you were...
I would judge Presidents by the success or failure of their policies, not the chronology of the days their name was on the door. This was a 6 year experiment in leftism. Power in Washington changed in Nov 2006. That's when Obama came into the ruling majority and when Bush became fully a lame duck, at least on economic policies. In Nov 2008 it was all-Dem, even during transition. In Nov 2010 it switched halfway back, to stalemate, with two parties to fight over policy. R's can't quite repeal what happened and Dems can't enact any more of it. So the most telling part about these policies is the part between the elections in 2006 and the elections in 2010. Coincidentally perhaps the worst economic times of our lives - for most of us. Unemployment doubled, revenues imploded, spending and deficits exploded, energy prices, all the best investments have gold in their name, etc. Not everything that went wrong was 100% their fault (RINOs have their fingerprints over all of it too, and same goes for the Fed), but buy now people hopefully see some correlation. Maybe things grow from here, we'll see. I'm predicting sputtering, mixed results, near zero growth. Certainly not consistent growth of more than the 3.1% or so we need just to break even. Whatever the case, this is the record he will run on. Kind of hard for any core constituency to get ecstatic about. I can't quite hear the sound yet of full stadiums with the styrofoam Greek columns chanting: 'Four More Years!'
The flip side of my argument is that if Obama succeeds in framing it as coming into power after these crashes, the are you better off question becomes more like a 50-50 rather than a slam dunk against him. Then it just comes down to how well he can spin his accomplishments of spend and regulate.
Contrast Obama's record with the President he likes to contrast with, Reagan was having 6 consecutive quarters of nearly 8% economic growth at this point in his Presidency and went on to win 49 states. The difference: Reagan enacted pro-growth policies, Obama and his allies enacted anti-growth policies. That, over time, goes from conjecture to that which is readily apparent.
-
Numerous articles in this week's Economist mag. delving into the issue of how much government is good and bad. The world wide trend is for less government at least in the West. All over Europe are movements that are akin to the Tea Party here in the US. The Economist also seems seems to come down on the side that too much gov. is bad, is like a tsunami that is impossible to stop from growing and is leading the West to financial ruin.
Great Britain is actually leading the way to reign in on the costs of an out of control state.
GB is also going the opposite way on health care that the lobs here in the US are praising them for.
After reading several articles one can only conclude as we here on this board have already believed that Bamster, to the contrary of what he and his liberal cronies allege are not on the right side of history, but instead are on the WRONG side of history.
And this leads me to believe that this is the fundamental issue to take him on for '12.
The two problems in convincing a majority that he is the one who is wrong and pushing us the wrong way are:
50 % pay no taxes. So this groups has to be convinced despite the bribes, that this situation is not sustainable.
The other is Republicans MUST in my small time opinion address the wealth gap and how the middle class is not going to continue falling behind and ever more government entitlements paid for by taxpayers including years of retirement, health care, is not the answer to sustain a middle class lifestyle.
-
My prediction that Obama won't be the nominee of his own party still looks absurd, but pieces of that puzzle slowly begin to fall into place. a) Dems are starting to notice his unique combination of inexperience, incompetence and unattainable expectations, b) Any perceived move away from hard left is a move against the angriest wing of politics today, the ones coincidentally who spearheaded his election in the first place. Obama now is what they once called General BetrayUs.
I've never seen the left turn so hard against one of their own as the quotes coming out now against Pres. Obama. Losing his base does not bring him support from the middle -ask Bush about that. When the key charges are incompetence, cluelessness and disengagement, support can erode from all directions.
---------------
Speaking of troubled candidacies, I was reading about frontrunner Mitt today, found a couple of items that don't help him win with conservative activists.
Judicial appointments: 9 out of 36 were Republican. From Boston.com: “Of the 36 people Romney named to be judges or clerk magistrates, 23 are either registered Democrats or unenrolled voters who have made multiple contributions to Democratic politicians or who voted in Democratic primaries, state and local records show. In all, he has nominated nine registered Republicans, 13 unenrolled voters, and 14 registered Democrats.”
HealthCare Form HC Massachusetts: http://www.mass.gov/Ador/docs/dor/health%20care/HC.pdf Take a look. Square this up with a right to privacy or with a movement seeking smaller government. It doesn't fit.
-
Mittens is a non-starter with me.
-
Maybe I'm missing it, but I'm not seeing much contrary commentary from the current field of potential contenders on Libya, on the feebleness of budget cuts, on much of anything.
-
Yes, pretty damn disturbing. Leadership vacuum.
Just great.
Well, good thing the world is stable and the economy is doing well, otherwise I might worry.
-
a) I saw that Newt apparently was for an invasion of Libya a few weeks ago, until now he was against it.
b) Pravda on the Beach (Left Angeles Times) reports this morning that Haley Barbor has been caught in a fib about not representing the Mexican govt as a lobbyist in its efforts to secure amnesty for its citizens here illegally or something like that.
-
"I saw that Newt apparently was for an invasion of Libya a few weeks ago, until now he was against it."
I think a number of the so-called candidates have that same problem, Romney, Pawlenty, Palin, and Huckabee also come to mind. It is very easy to criticize no matter the policy choice, and very hard to put a successful policy in place.
Huckabee, for one, at least acknowledged some of that while Obama was dithering: "I'm always a little careful to say, here's what I would do, because I think you have to base a decision based on good intelligence and information which a person in my capacity as an ordinary citizen at this point simply doesn't have." http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/24/huckabee-talks-libya-2012/
Giuliani said regarding Obama's disengagement and travels: A leader would WANT to be right there in the middle of the discussions and negotiation and critical decision making that was going on without leadership.
I find much of the conservative radio reaction immature (Hannity comes to mind). Parroting the Bush-haters, everything is an opportunity to attack Obama. These candidates become the guests on these shows doing much of the same. US policy and involvement in the Middle East and North Africa is more important than that. A serious candidate needs to instead lay out a serious case for what criteria goes into all these questions, who leads the coalition, whenr to go to congress, how to communicate what we are doing to the American people and what we want to communicate to others who will read something into our actions, such as the tyrants and rebels in other countries.
-
"My prediction that Obama won't be the nominee"
Who else?
Hillary puts her self on the line with Lybia. Outcome good her loyalists will tout her as the courageous one who pushed for the policy despite BO's reluctance. Outcome bad - silence from her worshipers.
"Parroting the Bush-haters, everything is an opportunity to attack Obama."
Agreed.
-
Doug:
I agree on points both small (e.g. Hannity is an ass) and large ("Parroting the Bush-haters, everything is an opportunity to attack Obama. These candidates become the guests on these shows doing much of the same. US policy and involvement in the Middle East and North Africa is more important than that. A serious candidate needs to instead lay out a serious case for what criteria goes into all these questions, who leads the coalition, whenr to go to congress, how to communicate what we are doing to the American people and what we want to communicate to others who will read something into our actions, such as the tyrants and rebels in other countries.")
EXACTLY SO. Let this sentiment guide all of us here!
-
From CCP: "Republicans MUST...address the wealth gap and how the middle class is not going to continue falling behind and ever more government entitlements paid for by taxpayers including years of retirement, health care, is not the answer to sustain a middle class lifestyle."
-----
One example of wealth gap: Black unemployment is up 25.4% under Obama. That causes more dependency, but it is also evidence of failure.
The message (IMO) needs to put a new opening of optimism, opportunity and economic growth - for all. Contrast that with the current message of abject pessimism - we collapse if we don't spend trillions in pretend stimuli.
The bully pulpit needs to mention that we also need our best and the brightest to design and build products, invest and hire in the private sector, not just agitators and regulators. :-)
-
"One example of wealth gap: Black unemployment is up 25.4% under Obama. That causes more dependency, but it is also evidence of failure."
This is clear evidence of what Michael Savage has called the strategy of the left including the great ONE:
"trickle up poverty".
""Republicans MUST...address the wealth gap and how the middle class is not going to continue falling behind and ever more government entitlements paid for by taxpayers including years of retirement, health care, is not the answer to sustain a middle class lifestyle."
Well, the Repulbicans might win without specifically addressing the middle class per se or the wealth gap.
However, if they wanted to *crush!#*+*!!! the Dems they can IMHO do so only addressing these issues.
Can you imagine if repubs can convince the middle of the roadsters how much Dems are hurting them and their lot in life with big gov and spending and taxation?
I think many of this group are unconvinced they don't need big daddy to help them with their mortgages, their kids schooling, electric bills, etc.
I have no problem opening the spiggets so the wealthier more succesful can thrive and thus help the economy as a whole but we need a real level playing field and the trust the pols are making them stay honest and not just ripping the rest of us off. (I guess I am in dreamland on this point however)
I think the Dems clearly recognize their need to cling onto the middle class when they attempted to make the strikes in Wisconsin not a union issue but "an attack on the middle class". They tried unsuccesfully (I think) to try to generalize the strike to the entire middle class not just *gov* employees.
-
[I predicted Obama will not be the Dem. nominee.
CCP asked who else?
GM previously brought out the name of Evan Bayh]
Obviously a centrist won't bring out the energy of the activist wing of the party, but I had the chance to hear Bayh interviewed on conservative radio and he was very thoughtful, articulate and well-spoken. On Libya, he laid out a nice explanation of how none of the alternatives facing Obama including doing nothing were good ones, which is true. Laura Ingraham confronted him on Obamacare, saying that his one vote could have stopped it. He said it was a 50/50 choice to him and decided to vote yes and hope to fix what is wrong in the bill instead of voting no and losing what he thought was right in the bill. An unacceptable answer to me, but probably right on the pulse of what mainstream Democrats if there are any, not far leftists, think today. On fiscal matters, he said that is where he parts with Dem leadership and was about as strong on spending reductions, deficits and entitlement reform specifically as any serious, elected Republican.
Bayh is not running, but the scenario where someone like that gets through the process is where Obama first drops considerably further in approval, second gets challenged hard from the left with more than one challenger - pulling the weakened President to the left (or out), third Republicans find some momentum with a candidate to the right, leaving the need and temptation for a Dem to challenge from the middle, and fourth, someone centrist with trust, gravitas and common sense walks in and cleans house.
We are looking for one solid R candidate to challenge Obama. Wouldn't it be great if the country had two solid candidates to chose from.
-
I'll say this for Trump, at least he has balls.
-
Trump also has a political track record that will not stand up to scrutiny. I forget the details, but remember that there is plenty of stuff in there that would really annoy most of us here.
I am bummed to see how high Obama's poll numbers actually are.
Generally I think the Reps have been playing the Libyan thing badly-- typified perhaps by Newt's (apparent?) flip flop-- which I think cost him a lot of credibility. Imagine the ads BO could run with that footage! In 2008 I was very strong for him and very disappointed when the Fred Thompson boomlet used up the oxygen that Newt thought he would need were he to run, but now I have a "Show me what you got" attitude.
For reasons both of genuine patriotism as well as political advantage, the Reps (and we here I might add) need to take an attitude of "this has been badly done (perhaps giving most of the credit to Hillary :evil: ) but for the good of the country we hope it works out."
-
Libya, one way or another, will turn out to be a total goat-rope.
-
That may well be, but IMHO as good Americans we must not wish or work for it to be so in order to politically hurt Obama-- nor should we been seen as wishing or working for American failure. Leave that to the Progressive Dems as they did to us in Iraq.
-
What would constitute success in Libya?
-
Death or departure of Kadaffy, some sort of reasonable government (i.e. not AQ types) or , , , some honorable way out of the whole fg thing.
-
So by arming and providing air support to jihadists, this will happen?
-
"I predicted Obama will not be the Dem. nominee."
Another Dem to watch would be Coumo from NY.
They are already touting him though 2016 looks far more likely.
He is pretending to sound like a Republican with spending cuts etc.
Don't be fooled. He is just as much a party hack as his father was/is.
He has the whole Dem machine in NY behind him. He will come onto the national stage at some point probably soon.
-
GM:
I don't think the point is whether I/we agree with Baraq. We don't!!! The point is that at the water's edge we should be very careful with partisan bickering.
I would be delighted if one of Kadaffy's henchmen were to put one bullet through both his ears and some sort of national reconciliation coalition government were to form even though it would be to Baraq's political benefit. I would be delighted if our course of action earned us respect and good feelings in the Arab world, in the Muslim world. I'm not saying this is likely, but who the hell knows? I'm certainly not saying that Baraq went about any of this very well, merely that I wish our country success.
I certainly like the spirit of the rebels I see in news clips. Most of them seem like real people, bearing arms in spontaneously formed well-unorganized militias :wink: against one genuine anus of a leader, with an intuitive desire for something freer than what they know now. Its a spirit that America used to be known for supporting.
-
Tell that group that one of their tribesmen converted to christianity and see what happens.
We once supported an oppressed people in a country called Afghanistan. We are still receiving their gratitude and goodwill to this day, yes?
Remember how we protected Bosnian muslims? I think their gratitude can be summed up in the "allah akbar" shouted as a bosnian muslim went on a shooting rampage in Salt Lake City, or "allah akbar" as a bosnian muslim shot our troops in a German airport shuttle recently.
-
I will watch for Cuomo. The Dems also need to start lining up and pre-positioning. The backup quarterback can get called in at any time!
Hillary (I HATE to say) seems to have a new found confidence in the aftermath of saying that she will never serve in any capacity ever again, and empowered in the void of an AWOL President. Remember that Carville already split with Obama over the gulf, Rahm has moved out, and the real leftists have drawn lines in the sand with the President. There is still a Dem power base outside the White House to contend with. Hillary is certainly not what I had in mind. I would like to see it come from one of the retiring, sane, moderate Democrat Senators, Bayh, Conrad, Dorgan, Webb, and several others come to mind, but they have no money or power base. They need to raise they stature now and in 2012 even if their plan is 2016.
-
Doug,
I don't know if you read Drudge or not but today headline includes a poll with Hillary at a 67% approval rating!!! :? :cry:
She certainly appears to me the most stressed and unhappy Sec of State I can recall.
I have been trying to think of a way the Republicans can figure out a better way to appeal to middle class voters or those middle voters who feel the rich keep getting richer. The "right" has NEVER been able to address this except with some vague dubious "trickle down stuff". Yet it is plainly obvious the middle class are working harder for less and there is as always a super rich group that just keeps getting richer no matter what.
If conservative policies makes can come up with better ideas to "level the playing field" so everyone has a more equal chance of succeeding than that would be a good strategy. Governments job should not be :
social engineering
taxing and spending to alter society up the wazoooo.
It should be to ensure laws and regulations are followed, not gamed, not circumvented.
For example,
Simplify the tax code for all so the wealthy can't game the system.
Companies like Walmart should not get some discount on say a local tax (that no one else can get). They could build there store in a given area and compete with competitors without this. Yes I know they create jobs, and localities feel they need to offer them a free deal to get them to bring business to the area.
But this type of gamesmanship clearly makes for an unequal playing field and is skewed to the rich.
Isn't this what the middle class resent? Isn't this what many see as unfair?
If government has the same rules, regs. and opportunities for everyone who takes risk, can raise the investment etc than this might be an answer the right can use to address concerns for some in the middle class who feel trapped.
Trickle down wealth is certainly better than trickle up poverty but it isn't much of an answer to a middle class that has been relatively stagnant for decades.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=G7354AsuLng
No reasl substance here, but a chance to get a feel for his personality a bit.
-
Ready! Set! Wait.
Ask any grass-roots Republican, and they will tell you that what gets them out of bed in the morning is the prospect of defeating President Barack Obama in 2012. Ask them who is going to do it, and be met with sigh.
The GOP presidential primary race is now—honestly—in early full swing. Candidates are filling out paperwork, snapping up operatives, and prepping for the first debate (just a few weeks away). There is a heady feeling that this Republican contest will prove the most unique in half a century: It boasts an unusually wide-open field and comes at a tipping point for both the party and the country.
All that's missing? Any clear voter enthusiasm for the obvious candidates. Until, or if, a candidate figures out how to become that object of inspiration, this could be a slow ride.
Yes, it's early. Then again, contenders ought to be concerned that even at this stage they've already earned some sticky labels. Mitt Romney: Unreliable. Newt Gingrich: Yesterday. Sarah Palin: Flighty. Tim Pawlenty: Boring. Mitch Daniels: Bush's guy. Jon Huntsman: Obama's guy. Haley Barbour: Southern guy.
These are crudely drawn caricatures. But they are also an acknowledgment that many in the field are starting with very real liabilities, ones the contenders must yet confront. Mr. Romney is going to have to address RomneyCare; Mr. Gingrich is going to have to address marital infidelities; Mr. Barbour is going to have to address the confederate flag. It's as if GOP voters know these discussions must happen and are already weary. They want a candidate who is 24/7 talking about ObamaCare, spending reform, and world leadership—not Bristol Palin's performance on "Dancing with the Stars."
It ought to be of concern to the presumptive field, too, that grass-roots and influential Republicans continue to spend most of their energy and daydreams on people who are either: a) not running—New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio; b) were all but unknown a year ago—Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and pizza magnate Herman Cain; or c) might not even be Republican—Donald Trump.
View Full Image
Chad Crowe
.The polls ought to be even more concerning for "known" candidates. It is one thing for Mr. Pawlenty or Mr. Daniels to be polling in the single digits; they are relatively new names. But what primary voter is unfamiliar with Mr. Romney, who ran second to John McCain? Or Mrs. Palin, the veep nominee? Or Mike Huckabee, of Iowa fame? If history were a guide, one of them ought to be pulling a third of primary voters today. Instead, "there is not a single Republican who can claim support from as many as one in five primary supporters," says GOP pollster and co-founder of Resurgent Republic Whit Ayres. He suggests that some candidates stuck in the low double digits might already have "fatal flaws."
History, in this case, is no guide. The Republican Party has a tradition of nominating the next guy in line. In 1976 it nominated Ford over Reagan: It was Ford's due. Reagan's due came after that, and George H.W. Bush's due after that, and . . . straight through to Mr. McCain. Mr. Romney, for one, is betting that tradition still holds, and that he can burst onto the scene as the anointed one.
Good luck with that. For the first time since the 1940s, the Republican field truly is open. And that is because of a cataclysmic shift in the GOP and independent electorate, one that many in the field seem not yet to have understood. The contenders are out there, dutifully bashing President Obama, chiding Congress for not being tougher, complaining about spending and Libya and gas prices. GOP voters want to hear that. And they want so much more.
This is a group of voters that may not like Mr. Obama, but they respect his skills. They want somebody who can match him in charisma and communication. This is a group of voters disillusioned by Republican behavior. They elected the GOP last year, but mostly as a protest vote against Mr. Obama. They now want somebody—preferably a new face, without the baggage—who can articulate a vision for the party and reassure it that it really is in new, strong, capable hands.
These are voters who every day are seeing national headlines about reformist governors—Wisconsin's Scott Walker, Mr. Christie, Ohio's John Kasich—and making comparisons. That may not be fair, since many of the presidential contenders are no longer in office. Then again, many in the electorate are wondering why they never read these headlines when those contenders were in fact in office.
Put it all together—the desire for a hard-charging, big-thinking, articulate, new face—and the interest in the Christies and Rubios makes sense. That isn't to say that those already getting in can't win over the electorate. But if they want to—if they want to generate the gigantic voter enthusiasm that will be needed to knock off a sitting president—they are going to have to start being the Next (and New) Big Thing. Nothing less, in this environment, is going to thrill.
-
Bolton.
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIA5aszzA18&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
O-Ba-Ma!
-
I'll be passing that one along :-D
As for Bolton: He has not a chance in the world. He is exclusively about foreign affairs, has no track record of any domestic political issues, and no political experience whatsoever.
-
The clock is ticking, and the 12th imam will be here before the next Reagan.
-
That appears to be the case :cry: OTOH we are AMERICANS by God!!!
-
Some of us still are. The rest will vote for Obama.
-
"As for Bolton: He has not a chance in the world. He is exclusively about foreign affairs, has no track record of any domestic political issues, and no political experience whatsoever."
If he is articulate on foreign policy, he would hold his own just fine IMO on economic issues against this incumbent. Having the facts on your side is an advantage. (Time spent at AEI I think meant sharing ideas back and forth with people like Jack Kemp.) No elective experience whatsoever is true! No political experience isn't quite right as he was UN Ambassador and got a little practice being the lightning rod for having principles in a place where that is not appreciated. He also served previously just below cabinet level at DOJ and State Depts for Reagan and HW Bush, worked on non-proliferation, worked on the Scalia nomination for examples. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Bolton
I think Crafty is right, too bad from my point of view. All these candidates have holes in their resumes, so I keep an open mind. It may come down to who can articulate well in the debates and sound Presidential in a crowded field. If nominated, his lack of domestic policy details could work right into a Paul Ryan type selection for VP. The attacks can come from the no. 2.
I recall that he was very controversial when appointed to the UN, needed a recess appointment. I wonder who within the Bush Cheney circles was advocating for him. Doesn't seem like Bush's type. The controversy against him seemed to be that he had a similar views about the usefulness of the UN as several of us here have. They were losing the vote of a RINO or 2 on the committee and couldn't hit 60 votes in the senate. Looking back, any organization that had Ghaddafy on the human rights commission might deserve a little criticism and skepticism.
-
Bolton -
My take is I have been concerned about lack of political experience and not sure of his domestic skills.
From a foreign policy view I love the guy. I really love to hear him when he gives his views on foreing affairs. I turn up the volume and tune in every time he is on.
It is really great and refreshing to hear someone speak about the US in a global picture point of view who actually holds the interests of the US as paramount and not as just another country in a see of countries with the whole concept of "country" as seen as ancient and dark ages.
He needs to go on the road and start giving speeches and promoting himself. Given some time we hope he will improve. He is a first rate intellect and appears to be able to synthesize info. and learn from it quickly.
As for resume, some can overcome that. Look at the One. Almost a zero resume. Of course he had the entire progressive movement cover for him.
-
In lots of ways I love Bolton, but not only would the Pravdas have it in for him but I suspect he would have quite the tin ear on many domestic issues. Furthermore, has he ever run for anything? There's a lot to be learned about how our political system works before one is up to being a good president , , ,
-
Well, Ron Paul is leading in fundraising.....
:roll:
-
"Well, Ron Paul is leading in fundraising....."
With each new war his non-foreign policy gains traction. With each new trillion in debt he wins more people over to his spending discipline ideas. If we project these trends forward he will be President when we have 8 wars and maybe 50 trillion in debt. It shouldn't be too long now.
-
It's a "kinetic military action", not a war. :wink:
It won't matter if Ron Paul raised more money than anyone in history, he's unelectable. A nazi-hugging loon, BTW.
-
Doug,
Your in Minnesota. How come I don't see you speak much of Pawlenty?
What is your take on him?
-
CCP, What a nice set up for my endorsement. (Out of the announced field of Pawlenty vs. Obama) I announce today (DB exclusive) my endorsement of Gov. Tim Pawlenty for President and my availability to work as a paid adviser to the campaign and to his administration.
I have written about him previously, to the reaction of a yawn around here. Others didn't find him exciting. Borrowing $1.6 trillion a year is exciting. 9% unemployment and still killing more industries, that's exciting. Handing our missile defense to Russia and weakening our alliances, that's exciting. I'm not looking for any more excitement!
I'm looking for a grounded candidate that will lead with common sense conservatism. Pawlenty won in Minnesota twice (with less than 50%), and had to govern against extremely high majorities of the opposing party in the legislature. He implemented some cuts from the previous Governor (famous wrestler) and held the line on taxes, balanced 8 budgets, alienated about the right amount of people on both sides.
He is an easy to underestimate politician. He has been out doing all the ground work that these candidates need to do, from becoming McCain's first choice (oops) for VP at one point, to appearing very regularly on all the national shows building a comfort level with the mainstream media questioning, speaking at CPAC, visiting the wars and frequenting all the early primary states, hiring the money people, etc.
Like all Presidents who come from a Governor background, he has executive experience but not foreign policy experience. Only Bolton passes him up on that but Bolton lacks the elected and executive experience.
Pawlenty from MN is a middle state in population and economy. I like to look first to Governors of the largest states as having American governing experience closest to being President, but no Reagans are lurking out there.
Pawlenty served two full terms and left things in reasonably good shape pushing MN away from the dubious highest tax states distinction. You wouldn't know that from an attacking editorial in last Sunday's Minneapolis Red Star Tribune. Like all states, MN faces a deficit - if you project forward large enough spending increases.
I wrote previously I have met him and talked with him on 3 occasions. He sat with my daughter and I at a dinner and asked her all about school and her activities relating it to his daughters of similar age. He is a very approachable and personable guy.
His strength is that he promotes and presents conservatism in a non-threatening way. (For example, I think Huckabee is less conservative but more threatening to moderates and independents. Palin is threatening and polarizing. Bachmann also.) Without the charisma or magnetism of say a Marco Rubio, Pawlenty can only win by being consistent and grounded as the more flashy players stumble. All the top players have key defects and someone from this second tier is very likely to win, not many are truly stepping forward with both feet as Pawlenty did and offering to jump into this horrific game we call Presidential politics. The referendum in Nov. 2012 has to be on the incumbent and the direction of the country, not on the polarizing past or statements of the challenger. The task in 2012 is not to draw attention to yourself as the candidate, it is to draw attention to the needs of the nation.
-
Doug
thanks. I repsect and agree with your opinions so your endorsement means a lot to me as such to keep in my front running list.
FWIW I still think that a Republican could clean up if he addresses issue of the "middle class" which I still feel like is lackluster for conservatives.
The middle class absolutely has stagnated. The fat cats are getting richer. The bankers salaries have gone up?!
Something is really wrong with this picture. Republicans do need to address this to keep middle class people from turning to governemnet largesse to bail them out.
This is in my judgement the big challenge for the hearts and minds of voters who are the backbone of America. It certainly is their pocketbooks "stupid". A take-off on it's the economy stupid.
I figured out the answer that Republicans can express. That is that all of us really do have equal chance to succeed. government need only truly treat everyone equal and enforce regs already on the books. For example: Walmart cannot get a tax break in some small town without anyone else being able to get the same break.
Please see this article from this week's Economist which is akin to what I am saying:
*****Marx, Mervyn or Mario?
What is behind the decline in living standards?
Mar 24th 2011 | from the print edition
ARE you better off than you were two years ago? Although the economic recovery in the developed world is almost two years old, the average Westerner would probably answer “No”.
The authorities have applied shock and awe in the form of fiscal and monetary stimulus. They have prevented the complete collapse of the financial sector—bankers’ pay has certainly held up just fine. The corporate sector is also doing well. Even if banks are excluded, the profits of S&P 500 companies were up by 18.7% last year, says Morgan Stanley.
But the benefits of recovery seem to have been distributed almost entirely to the owners of capital rather than workers. In America total real wages have risen by $168 billion since the recovery began, but that has been far outstripped by a $528 billion jump in profits. Dhaval Joshi of BCA Research reckons that this is the first time profits have outperformed wages in absolute terms in 50 years.
In Germany profits have increased by €113 billion ($159 billion) since the start of the recovery, and employee pay has risen by just €36 billion. Things look even worse for workers in Britain, where profits have risen by £14 billion ($22.7 billion) but aggregate real wages have fallen by £2 billion. A study by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, a think-tank, found that the median British household had suffered the biggest three-year fall in real living standards since the early 1980s.
Are these trends a belated vindication of Karl Marx? The bearded wonder wrote in “Das Kapital” that: “It follows therefore that in proportion as capital accumulates, the situation of the worker, be his payment high or low, must grow worse.” But Marx also predicted a decline in profit margins in capitalism’s dying throes, suggesting some confusion in his analysis.
A more positive view of this divergence between capital and wages is that developed economies had become too dependent on consumption and had to switch to an export- and investment-led model. That was the view of Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of England, when he said in January that “the squeeze in living standards is the inevitable price to pay for the financial crisis and subsequent rebalancing of the world and UK economies.”
That reasoning might work for Britain and America. But it is hard to apply to Germany, where unit labour costs have been held down for a decade and where, if the economy does need to be rebalanced, it is arguably in favour of consumption.
There is also a longer-term trend to explain. Wages still account for a much greater slice of income than profits, but labour’s share has been in decline across the OECD since 1980. The gap has been particularly marked in America: productivity rose by 83% between 1973 and 2007, but male median real wages rose by just 5%.
The decline in labour’s share has also been accompanied by an increased inequality of incomes, something that economists have struggled for years to explain. Mean wages, which include the earnings of chief executives and sports stars, have risen much faster than the median. This premium for “talent” may reflect globalisation as the elite are able to move to the countries where their skills are most appreciated. Or it may reflect changes in technology, which have generated outsize rewards for those people most able to take advantage of them.
An alternative explanation has been to blame the decline in trade-union membership. In the 1960s and 1970s powerful unions in manufacturing industries like cars were able to demand higher wages. But high-paying blue-collar jobs have been in decline since then. John Van Reenen, the director of the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics, reckons that privatisation has also led to a decline in labour’s share of the cake. Managers of newly privatised industries tend to lay off workers as their focus shifts from empire-building to profit maximisation.
One factor that should perhaps get more emphasis is the role of the financial sector. Central banks have repeatedly cut or held down interest rates over the past 25 years in an attempt to boost bank profits and prop up asset prices. With this subsidy in place, is it surprising that earnings in finance have outpaced wages for other technologically skilled jobs?
Attempts to remove that subsidy are met by threats from international banks to move elsewhere. This is a little reminiscent of the protection rackets run by the gangsters in Mario Puzo’s “The Godfather”. It is as if the finance sector is saying: “Nice economy you got there. Shame if anything should happen to it.”****
-
Trump is starting to grow on me.
http://blogs.forbes.com/markpasetsky/2011/04/07/twitter-explodes-over-donald-trump-today-show-interview/
-
Sucker. :-D
Trump is a classless, unprincipled ego maniac; tis a close call whether he or Baraq are vainer.
-
I'm not going to declare Trump a "lightworker" or Reagan II, but he is taking the fight to Obarry and b*tchslapping the media spokesmodels along the way.
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/04/07/trump_this_country_is_going_to_hell.html
Fight!
-
Well I agree with Trump on the absence of Bamster's birth ceritficate. I too question is this the biggest fraud ever hoisted on America. Where is it? It is no where to be found. Why not? Not a peep from the Bamster team except to kill the messengers -they are all "crazy".
INteresting the Dem Gov of Hawaii can't even find it! Yet he is states he can vouch that Bamster was born in the US 50 years ago! He remebers because he knew the family. Yet no one else remembers anything about Bamster from high school, college or anywhere else till he shows up at Harvard.
Even Beck is calling Trump wrong for questioning this?
I don't get it. Where is his birth certificate? Did it say Muslim? Did it ever exist? Would a white Christian parent or grandparents in 1961 announce the birth of a black illegitimate baby of a Muslim foreign born father in the newspaper?
That was 1961 not 2011.
-
My question is, why does the certificate presented list the fathers race as "African"?
-
How Is Race Determined on a Birth Certificate?
By Amber Keefer, eHow Contributor
.
Identifying Information
Birth certificates contain a good deal of information, much of it personal identifying information. The types of details recorded vary among jurisdictions. Some birth certificates indicate the infant's birth order among his or her siblings. Race and ethnicity may also be included, but not always. In some cases, the certified copy records the parents' address and the name and signature of the attending physician at the time the infant was born.
Recording Race
Births in the U.S. are registered locally. The information is then forwarded to both a regional and national center, where the statistics are compiled. In some states, both the mother and father's race are noted on the birth certificate, although certain jurisdictions list only the mother's race. Basic race categories are Black, White, Asian, American Indian or Alaskan Native (AIAN) and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (NHOPI). Some birth certificates allow for the listing of multiple races.
Race for Statistical Purposes
Some states ask parents for other information that is not included on a certified copy of the birth certificate. This may include mother and father's race and ethnicity, highest level of education completed and type of occupation. Many state departments of health now ask parents to complete a birth certificate worksheet that provides information to help hospitals prepare a child's birth certificate. Much of the information requested is for statistical purposes and is considered to be confidential. Information that may not appear on the birth certificate includes the mother's/father's date of birth; social security number; birthplace; and city, township or borough where they reside. Race and ethnicity of the parents also may not appear on the child's birth certificate.
Types of Birth Certificates
In the U.S., each state's Office of Vital Statistics or Division of Vital Records keeps a record of each birth, issuing certified copies of the certificate when requested. The hospital where the birth occurs forwards the information to the state. A short form birth certificate or wallet-size birth card usually contains information such as the name of the person to whom the certificate is being issued, and the person's sex, date of birth and county of birth. A file number and the date the birth was filed are also included on the card.
The long form birth certificate is a copy of the original birth record prepared by the hospital or physician who delivered the baby. This document includes the legal name of the person to whom the certificate is being issued, the person's date of birth, mother's maiden name, father's name and county of birth. Other information includes a file number, date the record was filed and date the birth certificate was issued. Long forms usually include the race of the parents.
.
Read more: How Is Race Determined on a Birth Certificate? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/how-does_5365750_race-determined-birth-certificate.html
-
I watched that interview with Trump, including the Part 2 that can be found on the screen after Part 1 finishes. Gotta say, I was rather impressed on several levels.
-
Trump can play a role like Perot did, weakening the incumbent. He is just dying to get off his trademark line; you-re fired.
-
Donald Trump has written a letter complaining about me.
“Her storytelling ability and word usage (coming from me, who has written many bestsellers), is not at a very high level,” he penned.
Although Trump and I have had our differences in the past, I never felt it was personal. In fact, until now, I have refrained from noting that I once got an aggrieved message from him in which he misspelled the word “too.”
But about the letter. Mainly, it’s a list of alleged evidence that Barack Obama was not born in the United States. Trump has made this the centerpiece of his faux presidential campaign, falling further and further into the land of the lunatic fringe. I find this a disturbing spectacle — a little like seeing a guy you know from the neighborhood suddenly turn up in the middle of Times Square with his face painted blue and yelling about space aliens.
“Bill Ayers wrote ‘Dreams From My Father,’ I have no doubt about it,” Trump told Joe Scarborough, who reported on Politico.com.
Ayers is the former ’60s radical who became a huge Republican talking point in 2008 because he had once given a house party for Obama when he was running for state senate. It’s a pretty big jump from coffee and cookies to writing an entire book, but I guess that’s what neighbors are for.
“That first book was total genius and helped get him elected,” Trump continued. “But you can tell Obama did the second book himself because it read like it was written by somebody of average intelligence with a high school education.”
Did I mention that, in his letter, Trump complained about my calling him a “birther” because the word was “very derogatory and meant in a derogatory way”? Obama, of course, graduated from Columbia University and Harvard Law School — if you can believe Columbia and Harvard Law.
“Three weeks ago I thought he was born in this country. Right now I have some real doubts. I have people that actually have been studying it, and they cannot believe what they’re finding,” Trump announced on “Today.”
Trump does not actually seem to have people studying, or even Googling. Still, he sounds very self-assured. This is because before he was a reality-show host, he was in the New York real estate business, a profession in which it is vital to be able to say imaginary things with total certainty. (“I have five other people who are begging me to sell them this property. Begging.”)
Let’s run over some of his arguments:
THE GRANDMOTHER STORY “His grandmother in Kenya stated, on tape, that he was born in Kenya and she was there to watch the birth,” Trump wrote. This goes back to a trans-Atlantic telephone call that was made in 2008 by Ron McRae, an Anabaptist bishop and birther, to Sarah Obama, the president’s 86-year-old stepgrandmother. He asked her, through an interpreter whether she was “present when he was born in Kenya.” The translator responded: “She says, yes, she was. She was present when Obama was born.”
It is at this point that some of the tapes floating around the Web stop, which means that the listener doesn’t get to hear the follow-up, which makes it very clear that Sarah Obama misunderstood. The full conversation ends with the interpreter saying, for the umpteenth time: “Hawaii. She says he was born in Hawaii. In the state of Hawaii, where his father, his father was learning there. The state of Hawaii.”
THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE If only Hawaii made its birth records public, and charged people a thousand dollars a pop to look at them, the state’s budget problems would be solved by the conspiracy theorists. However, it doesn’t. If you were born in Hawaii and request a copy of your birth certificate, you get a certification of live birth, which the federal government accepts for passports. Barack Obama requested his in 2007, and his campaign posted it on the Internet.
“A certificate of live birth is not even signed by anybody. I saw his. I read it very carefully. It doesn’t have a serial number. It doesn’t have a signature,” said Trump on “Today.”
The document has the stamped signature of the state registrar. The University of Pennsylvania’s FactCheck.org made a pilgrimage to the Obama campaign headquarters, examined the document, felt the seal, checked the serial number and reported that it looked fine.
THE EMPTY PHOTO ALBUM “Our current president came out of nowhere. Came out of nowhere,” Trump told the Conservative Political Action Conference to great applause. “In fact, I’ll go a step further. The people that went to school with him, they never saw him; they don’t know who he is. It’s crazy.”
This week on CNN, Suzanne Malveaux played Trump clips of Hawaiians reminiscing about the schoolchild Obama for a documentary the network had done on the president.
“Look, I didn’t say that ... If he was 3 years old or 2 years old or 1 year old and people remember him, that’s irrelevant,” Trump responded. “You have to be born in this country.”
Recent polls have shown Trump running second among potential Republican primary voters. I believe this is not so much an indication of popularity as a desperate plea to be delivered from Mitt Romney.
-
She gets a couple of things wrong. When Obama's popularity fell and when Donald joined the fray, being a birther moved from the fringe slightly back to the conversation. Also now that the fight against Obama is engaged on all the real issues, the 'birther' question is a distraction for him not his opponents. Trump isn't even a candidate much less running for the wrong reasons.
Collins starts with the Kenya story. Fine. But she gives it credibility by bringing it up again - in the NY Times! Stanley Ann never went to Kenya, she never had a relationship with Barack Sr. IMO but that story sits out there stewing because Barack Obama decided to spend $2 million dollars in legal fees instead of tell us whatever the true story is about his origins.
The accusation about Ayers writing the first book is very likely true. Collins can scoff at that but scholars have loked at sotry lines and wording comparisons - it makes perfect sense. It isn't that it is the first autobiography to have a ghost writer, it is that his real story is still very much unknown, he is the the leader of the free world (actually Sarchozy currently holds that position) and totally missed by POTH thinking, Ayers is not just a writer - he is an admitted terrorist and (IMO) an enemy of the United States. That is a small deal to leftist journalism but a firestorm that Obama has left still smoldering near the kindling pile.
Collins who I've never heard of doesn't understand media focus like Trump. Obama was born in the U.S. but there is something false about his story and something he is intentionally covering. Trump is attacking because the door was left open. He makes it clear his reasons IF he runs are those other things, then continues the attack.
Obama will either have to clear this up or let it go on with his defenders getting mopre and more obscure. If he clears it up, then someone like Trump will start asking for his college records, and his medical records. He is an admitted coke addict, cigarette addict, if he was new to the scene and not owning the media, there are some other questions inquiring minds would want to know before trusting him with the 3am phone call.
This is hardball politics. Obama got where he is knocking opponents off of ballots. Giuliani had his troubles. Edwards is in hiding. Hillary survived felony level commodity non-tradings, Gingrich faces mean scrutiny, Huckabee pardoned a mass murderer, etc. Nixon gone, Reagan ended his Presidency under the cloud of a controversy. Cheney lost all power after he shot the lawyer. The exception was for Obama to get a free pass, but the rule at that level is strict scrutiny. He wasn't born in Kenya but he will have to start answering some questions or keep facing the music.
If he prefers a more private life, I prefer that for him as well.
-
We know less about Obama than we know about George Washington. I think he was most likely born in the US, but there are many things he's trying to hide. Why is the "most brilliantest president evah" hiding his school records?
-
@Doug: 8-)
-
I was listening to radioman Michael Smerkonish who stated that Bamster wrote in his book Dreams that he found a newspaper article along with his birth certificate and that this incidental mention was evidence he has a certificate and had it in his possession. Smerkonish than goes on to say that this is signifcant because it was "before" Bamster ran for office. Yet his premise is obviously worng. Bmaster's book is obviously a political document. Certainly he (Ayers) only wrote this book because he intended to run for office. Why else would a ~34 y.o. write such a book?
In any case even his own book raises questions about what Bamster is obviously hiding about his birth:
****January 17, 2011
What Obama Has Said about His Own Birth
By Jack Cashill
While Democrat Congressman Frank Pallone read the "natural born Citizen" clause of the U.S. Constitution on the House floor last Thursday, a spirited female in the audience shouted out, "Except Obama! Except Obama! Help us, Jesus!"
Later that day, NBC's Brian Williams improbably chose to assign blame for the woman's outburst on newly elected House speaker John Boehner. "How much responsibility do you feel?" Williams asked pointedly.
"The state of Hawaii has said Obama was born there," said Boehner, who is no more intimate with the "Birther" movement than Williams himself. "That was good enough for me."
The person Williams should have been asking about "responsibility" is the president. Obama's conspicuous fabrications over the years have caused even the sober among us to doubt his origins story.
In September 2009, President Obama addressed the nation's schoolchildren writ large, an innovation that struck many on the right as a wee bit too Big-Brotherly. In the talk, Obama asked America's students to take personal responsibility. That was all well enough.
Missed in the media hubbub, however, was his take on why this could be difficult for some students. "I get it," he told the kiddies. "I know what that's like. My father left my family when I was two years old, and I was raised by a single mother."
In his 1995 memoir Dreams from My Father, Obama made the same claim. "He had left Hawaii back in 1963," he wrote of Obama Sr., "when I was only two years old."
When Obama wrote this in Dreams, he may have been relating what he had himself been told. By 2009, he knew better, but so vested was he in the story, and so useful had it been in his rise, that he continued to dissemble, even before millions of schoolchildren.
There are clues in Dreams, however, which suggest that Obama was creating a fiction for future use that he already knew to be untrue. He tells of coming across an article from the Honolulu Advertiser celebrating Barack Obama, Sr.'s planned grand tour of mainland universities on his triumphant way to Harvard.
Obama writes ruefully in Dreams, "No mention is made of my mother or me, and I'm left to wonder whether the omission was intentional on my father's part, in anticipation of his long departure." What Obama does not mention is that the article was dated June 22, 1962.
Obama was reportedly born on August 4, 1961. He was not yet a year old at the time Obama Sr. left Hawaii for good. More to the point, Obama fails to mention that he and his mother, Ann Dunham, were living in Seattle at the time and had been since at least August 19, 1961, the day she enrolled at the University of Washington.
In short, the family never lived together. There was no Obama family. The Obama camp surely knew this by the time he ran for president, but Obama kept dissembling about his origins nonetheless.
Although Obama's African relatives seem to have accepted the president as one of their own, there is even less clarity on the Kenyan side. According to Dreams, Obama Sr. had children with at least four different women, two of them American, and he occasionally circled back to the first of the four, Kezia.
Ruth Nidesand, a white American, had two children by Obama Sr., Mark and David, the latter of whom died young in a motorcycle accident. She was also forced to raise Kezia's two oldest children, just as the woman Obama knows as "Granny," the family storyteller, was forced to raise Obama Sr. as her own. In another time and place, the Obamas would have had their own reality TV show.
Questions linger about the paternity of many of these offspring. In Dreams, Obama's cryptic and contrarian Aunt Sarah would tell her presumed nephew, " ... the children who claim to be Obama's are not Obama's." Obama must have wondered whether she was referring to him.
Curiously, when Obama found the article about Obama Sr.'s departure, he found it "folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms." Later in Dreams, in a passage heretofore overlooked, Obama unwittingly reveals that there may have been problems with that birth certificate.
On the occasion of his father's death in 1982, lawyers contacted anyone who might have claim to the estate. "Unlike my mum," Obama tells his half-sister Auma in Dreams, "Ruth has all the documents needed to prove who Mark's father was."
Ruth obviously could produce a marriage license and a birth certificate for her son Mark. Ann Dunham apparently could not do the same for her son Barack, at least not one that could tie him to Obama Sr. -- not even with a potential payoff on the table.
The long form birth certificate could pose a number of problems other than country of origin, including the date of Obama's birth, the state of his birth, and the identity of his father. Any one of these revelations could unravel the yarn that Obama has been spinning.
These problems derive from the fact that Ann Dunham enrolled at university on August 19, 1961 and returned to Hawaii only after Obama Sr. had left Hawaii for good. Both of these facts are more firmly established than President Obama's Honolulu birth on August 4, 1961. In my forthcoming book, Deconstructing Obama, I review these possibilities in some detail.
The failure of the mainstream media to even address the inconsistencies in Obama's story is downright shameful. That failure has created a windstorm of curiosity that is becoming increasingly difficult for the media to ignore. The final responsibility for the outburst in Congress last week is theirs.
Jack Cashill's new book, Deconstructing Obama, can be pre-ordered here, with a special offer for American Thinker readers.****
-
In addition it has been pointed out by Doug and others that Bamster has now spent 2 mill suppressing his records.
Including college, Columbia, Harvard and a thesis. One can only imagine the thesis this extreme leftist political science major must have written.
It most certainly must have diatribes against America, perhaps whites, Jews, Christains, who knows.
If one thinks that Michelle's shame of America was news one can only speculate what is being covered up by liberals about Obama's past and real true core beliefs.
Otherwise, it is simple to say there are no other reasons these facts are being hidden from public view.
Only a leftist media would have let this guy get away with this. Trump is a God send IMHO.
Could anyone imagine that a thesis by a sitting President cannot be reviewed by the public????
-
Top Ten Reasons to Support Herman Cain for President
By C. Edmund Wright
Even those conservatives who will not vote for Herman Cain to win the Republican nomination should hope that he does run -- and that his candidacy lasts a long time during the nomination process, perhaps even succeeding.
Not the least of reasons is that a Cain candidacy would be a hoot. And I do not mean that in a derisive or condescending way at all. I mean that it would be the kind of doggone honest and refreshing campaign the country needs. It would be the opposite of the stale McCain run. Cain does not speak Washington drivel, and he's not afraid to take a strong position. Dare I say it? He'll call a spade a spade, and he'll reach across the aisle only to smack someone down. He will admit what McCain would not: that we do have a lot to fear from an Obama presidency.
Herman Cain is peerless among the long list of potential candidates -- and his impact on the field and the direction of the party will be in the direction of free enterprise, less government, and speaking with boldness -- you know, pretty much the opposite of what the GOP has done since Newt's Congress lost steam in the mid- to late '90s.
To codify, here are the top reasons to support Cain based on my observation of the man over a period of years:
10. The "race card": A Cain candidacy not only takes the race card off the table -- it might in fact put it in the Republicans' camp. Frankly, Cain is "blacker" than Obama in every way imaginable. He does not have a white parent. He has a slight black dialect and does not "turn it off" to impress Harry Reid or Joe Biden, nor does he "amp it up" to impress Jeremiah Wright.
As Obama's presidency has shown, America did not need a black president. What America needs is to just get over the race thing, period. Cain is over it, and I bet he would flat-out tell Obama to get over it, too.
9. Been there, done that: Cain brings a lot of "been there, done that" to the office, and that is in stark contrast not only to Obama, but to almost anyone else running. Cain is not shy about making fun of politicians' lack of understanding of the reality of the free-enterprise system, and certainly no group embodies that ignorance more than Obama and his administration. Making a payroll; dealing with employees, the IRS, the INS, insurance companies; dealing with rents, lawsuits, unemployment commissions, etc. -- Cain has been there, done that. Obama has not.
8. Not forgettable: One Herman Cain soundbite is worth ten from Tim...um, what's his name? Oh, yeah, Pawlenty. Cain's boldness and confidence and accent and voice will cut through the noise out there, and this makes his candidacy dangerous even if he faces some financial handicaps versus other folks running. He is a talk radio host now by trade and knows how to hold folks' attention.
7. Will break every rule set for him by "strategists": This one might be my favorite. Cain has never counted on political strategists to get him where he is now, and this alone separates him from all other candidates. Lord help the first "strategist" from the RNC who advises Cain to "tone it down" or "soften his position."
6. Will really get under the skin of the Washingtonian class: A Cain candidacy would drive David Brooks to apoplexy. Charles Krauthammer -- doing his best to run off legions of his longtime fans -- would no doubt find some Palinesque reasons to object to Cain. And those are the conservative ruling-class folks. Imagine what the liberals will say about this non-Ivy league, non-elected Southern black guy running for president. I can't wait to hear it.
5. Will not get in way of the 2010 Congress' momentum: This might be the most important reason to support a Cain candidacy. He has gained momentum as part of the Tea Party movement that was the defining factor in the 2010 congressional elections. A Cain candidacy would be in lockstep with what the country told Congress it wanted in November 2010. It will be an extension of the 2010 campaign, and that's preferable to a presidential election that will distract from the 2010 results.
4. Never held office before: While Cain's opponents -- on both sides of the aisle -- are licking their chops over this one, they should rethink this. Mr. Cain already has a lethal (can we still say that?) response to this one: "Everyone in Washington has held public office before. How's that working out for you?" Case closed.
3. Ann Coulter's second-favorite pick: So Ann's first choice is Chris Christie, and Cain comes in second. With some 25 names floating around out there, being number 2 on anyone's list is pretty good at this point in the game. Besides, I predict that Cain will overtake Christie on Ann's list. Cain is more conservative and even less afraid to speak his mind. While I love Christie's boldness on the issues where he is conservative, he will wobble off to the Jersey left a bit on some issues. Cain will not.
2. Will not be cowed by the new speech police: The attempt by the left to silence conservatives in light of the Tucson shootings will not be the last. And you can bet that when they do, some on the right will recoil and fall prey, regardless of how mindless the attempts are. If you have followed Herman Cain, you know that this will not be an issue for him.
And the number one reason to support a Cain candidacy? It opens the door to a ticket of Cain and Haley Barbour in some order. OK, maybe this is not earthshaking, but imagine the "racist Republican Party" putting forth a national ticket including a drawlin' Mississippi good ol' boy and a black businessman who still speaks a smidgen of Ebonics.
This would be the hope and change America thought they were getting in 2008. This would be ticket not so much of "racial healing" as it would be the ticket of "just get over the race thing." Because liberalism is joined at the hip with the race pimp industry, a liberal African-American cannot by definition do for the country what a black conservative can. A black liberal winning reinforces counterproductive stereotypes. A conservative black winning crushes them. Period.
Yes, I know that reasons number one and ten seem a lot alike. They are. We have just about destroyed our country trying to put this issue to bed, and the result is that tensions are higher than they were before Obama was elected. Which we predicted.
A Cain presidency would actually go a long way towards solving this. And besides, Mr. Cain has some great ideas for getting government out of our way and letting America be America again. And we all need that.
91 Comments on "Top Ten Reasons to Support Herman Cain for President"
-
All good points.
-
I watched that interview with Trump, including the Part 2 that can be found on the screen after Part 1 finishes. Gotta say, I was rather impressed on several levels.
Trump can play a role like Perot did, weakening the incumbent. He is just dying to get off his trademark line; you-re fired.
2012 will be here sooner than you think. If I was a Republican I would be disappointed in my choices...
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/04/13/morrissey.trump.show/index.html?hpt=C1
-
"If I was a Republican I would be disappointed in my choices..."
Republicans have not had a good candidate since 1988. In retrospect I am not sure how good he was. He led to Clinton. He led to international coalitions. He led to his son who got elected despite not being able to string two sentences together.
A few weeks ago Ann Coulter was telling us if Romney is the choice for the Rep. party we *will* lose.
A few days ago when discussing the prospect of Trump and trashing him up and down she changed her tune and said, Romney "could" win.
Bamster may very well win by default just as Clinton did in '96. That would be the definite end of the US as we know it. Can anyone imagine Bamster appointing more Supreme Court Justices? That would be the final nail in our coffins. I am glad I am older rather than younger. I don't give much of a shit anymore.
We have Cain, West, and Rubio and a few other up and comers but no one clearly there yet.
I don't understand the R "establishment's" calling for Cristie to run for President. They really think he is more ready then any of the others?
-
I watched that interview with Trump, including the Part 2 that can be found on the screen after Part 1 finishes. Gotta say, I was rather impressed on several levels.
Trump can play a role like Perot did, weakening the incumbent. He is just dying to get off his trademark line; you-re fired.
2012 will be here sooner than you think. If I was a Republican I would be disappointed in my choices...
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/04/13/morrissey.trump.show/index.html?hpt=C1
If I was someone who voted for Obama, i'd be very embarrassed in my choice.
-
"If I was a Republican I would be disappointed in my choices..."
"If I was someone who voted for Obama, i'd be very embarrassed in my choice."
-----
Isn't this where we are every 4 years? Review the Dems first: I say it goes back to 1984 when they picked a seasoned party leader, former VP with plenty of experience and credentials - Walter Mondale. He lost 49 states. In 1988 they called them the 7 dwarfs but really all since have been political dwarfs: Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry and Obama. Bush Sr was a senior statesman equal to Mondale (and a mediocre President), but since then on the Rs, Dole was no leader and W. Bush can go in with that group of Dems. McCain was a maverick, not a leader. JDN, we aren't choosing superstars on either side, and vice versa, the superstars aren't choosing this rotten profession that we have made it.
I like the timing of this comment, "2012 will be here sooner than you think". Agree! You pointed out Huntsman. Is he the savior of the movement (is he even in the movement?) or who, out of 300 million people, should it be, before our choices are down to one or two? Before we narrow the list, we need to expand and make sure we didn't miss the best choice. Note the excitement on the board every time a new face becomes a possibility: Rubio, West, Cain... Trump?
One problem with JDN as the judge our choices :-) is that I'm not sure you share the goals of the movement. That is for you to decide. There are people we want to persuade and there are people we want to defeat. One suggestion is that if you lean more to the center than others here you have both sides to pick from. I recently listed a pack of qualified Dems more moderate and experienced than Obama, mostly retiring senators. Who do YOU think should be President in Jan 2013? Wouldn't it be great if both sides picked someone where I could say wow, that candidate would make a great President. Highly unlikely.
What are the qualities required, what are the top 3-5 issues and what are the direction on those issues that we need to turn?
For me:
1) Security, that means peace through strength, not necessarily firing a lot of missiles but allies and enemies all have a clear idea about where we stand. Also means securing our own border.
2) Grow the damn economy, which means the private economy, which means abandon the petty little games being played with the tax code and regulatory schemes and pretending the bloated bureaucracy can micromanage every aspect of the private economy. Let freedom ring like we've never seen. Healthcare, entitlements, energy and budget/debt issues fit in here.
3) Appoint Justices who will cherish and protect our founding principles.
Is that too much to ask?
I would like to actually see these potential candidates come out with mutually signed letters of agreement on positions and issues instead of looking for differences. Groups of economists or environmental scientists do this from time to time. Let's get clarity and agreement on the agenda and then see who is best fit to lead, articulate it and .
JDN, I came out with support for Tim Pawlenty. What is your 'disappointment' with him? Not flashy enough? Too small a state? Too right, too left, too center? Two term governorship, considered for VP and preparing for the Presidency best he knows how for at least 4 years, is that not good enough preparation (compared with first term partial term Senator with one failed term as President for the incumbent)?
Just like Dems didn't have anyone with executive experience on a national level at most points in our life, R's by definition don't have anyone not tied to Bush that has served anything significant in the executive branch over the past two decades. If we are trying to head in a new direction, why would we want the senior leadership that led us in the old direction? You say lousy choices, I say learn everything we can and pick one. It isn't going to be the incumbent.
-
Doug posted, "JDN, I came out with support for Tim Pawlenty. What is your 'disappointment' with him? Not flashy enough? Too small a state? Too right, too left, too center? Two term governorship, considered for VP and preparing for the Presidency best he knows how for at least 4 years, is that not good enough preparation (compared with first term partial term Senator with one failed term as President for the incumbent)?"
Actually, I think Tim Pawlenty is just fine; I would vote for him, but most wouldn't. His experience is fine, so are his politics, but in this age of sound bites, TV, Youtube, etc. you need some charisma. As a party, I think one has two objectives; find a candidate who shares you goals and ideals AND is electable. Obviously, goals and ideals are most important, but if the candidate is not electable, what's the point? I presume you want Obama out? Well, the only way to do that is run someone who can beat him. Frankly, I think that means someone who might not meet 100% of the goals of "the movement", i.e. immigration, taxes, social issues, etc, but rather is a bit more central in their viewpoint, yet still fiscally conservative. And has some charisma.
As for your points, I don't think everyone's definition of "security", or how to grow the economy, or which Justices will cherish and protect our founding principles is the same. Yet I think nearly everyone agrees these points are important.
As for me, as you pointed out, I came out in favor of Jon Huntsman, Jr. But then I do not share all the goals of "the movement". I'm a centralist. But the Republicans need votes from people like me, those of us undecided and/or in the middle if they want to win in 2012. Better Huntsman than Obama, don't your think? Better half a pie than none at all.
While I know nearly everyone on this site wants Obama out, give him some credit; Obama did inherit a mess and times worldwide have been tough, nevertheless our economy is starting to improve, unemployment is slowly dropping, the Stock Market is absolutely booming, we seem to be withdrawing and/or limiting our exposure to war and Obama seems to be moving to the middle (clever). Are there problems? Of course, but IMHO, given the choice of viable candidates to date, I don't see anyone today beating Obama in 2012. Time will tell.
-
"Obama did inherit a mess"
Unemployment: Jan 2009 7.6%
Unemployment now: 8.9% (in reality, much worse)
Wars: Then 2
Now 3
Total Public Debt: Jan. 9, 2009: 10,609,758,567,607.17
Now: 14,272,993,603,617.44
Gas price average: Jan. 9, 2009: $1.79
Now: $3.78
Then: Egypt a stable US ally
Now: No longer
Then: Saudi Arabia a vital US ally
Now: Looking to replace the US with China and/or Russia
-
In my opinion GM is sugarcoating the Obama results (liberal media ?) :wink:. I contend that this bunch rode into power in Nov. 2006, not Jan. 2009. That is the inflection point on the curve for all things economic; coincidentally, that is when power in Washington changed hands. The difference involves trillions and trillions of dollars of additional damage. The only thing that happened the last 2 years of Bush with the Pelosi-Obama congress that was not the liberals doing was the surge in Iraq, and that was the only thing that went right during that time.
-
JDN: "Tim Pawlenty is just fine; I would vote for him, but most wouldn't."
Reaching to the middle far enough to reach you is enough to win. Any further and we lose direction, purpose and energy. The middle always says we need the middle to win and we do, but frankly conservatives run better as principled than as Dem-lite type candidates.
The charisma issue gets judged over time and in context. My opinion is that Obama lowered the bar by losing his. Mere competence could defeat him along with a clearly articulated change in direction.
I see some positive in Huntsman, but I think we are discussing an empty canvas to paint our own picture on until he lays out where he stands on everything crucial. Much of what was here on him was the wikipedia record mostly his own press accounts. This would be a good time for him to announce and to face scrutiny like the others if he is running. Maybe he stood up to Obama some behind the scenes and he stood up to the Chinese at least slightly while leaving that job. Still I would ask if and how our relationship with China improved under his watch - I think it didn't.
Defeating Obama if it means (not aimed at you or any moderate candidate in particular) getting a spineless, uncommitted, unpredictable, unprincipled, poll following centrist is not any goal I intend to work hard for or care much about. If failure is to be the result I would rather have voted against it. Nothing short of a no apologies, pro-growth, comprehensive agenda is going to turn this ship round at this point in time IMHO.
We have defeating leftism previously only to fall into our own mediocrity and lose it all back. Doing that again doesn't appeal to me at all. How about we make the guy at the top of the ticket solid and competent and have the VP nominee be charismatic. Govern wisely, communicate well and you could put a 16 year positive glide path in motion.
-
"Defeating Obama if it means (not aimed at you or any moderate candidate in particular) getting a spineless, uncommitted, unpredictable, unprincipled, poll following centrist"
And that is exactly what we will get if the "establishment" repukians keep listening to Karl Rove.
I say let's listen to Dick Morris.
I also have to reiterate to probably ad nauseum that the cans still have not answered questions and concerns that independents will have like I keep pointing out:
What about the middle class seeing their livelihoods slip into oblivion while Wall Street dances into princely kingdoms?
What about making it fair for all and not just the rich?
I do not want to tax the rich more at all. They already pay the lion share.
But we have to change the tax code.
No more loop holes.
No more deductions (inclucing charitable schemes set up so they can avoid millions in taxes), No more offshore shit.
We should have a national sales tax - even those who are poor will have to contribute to the Fed treasury. Either a flat tax for all except maybe those in poverty.
Get rid of the ridiculous cottage industry of tax lawyers and accountants who basically are siphoning off billions just because the tax codes are absurdly complicated, corrupt, and too much with the social engineering crap.
In other words the rich should not be taxed more but they and corporations do need to pay up something. On the other hand a national sales tax will force the 50% of the free loading crowd to start contributing too.
Simple quotes from Reagan, Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin, growth, free markets yadda yadda yadda just don't cut it anymore.
The repukians still don't get it. Get rid of Rove. He is a genius. Got a totally inarticulate guy elected twice. But now we will lose it all if we keep listening to him.
The crats and their jornolisters are out in force doing exactly what I have tried to ask here on this board what will be the answer to the middle class falling behind, the widening disparities of the rich vs. middle class. Of course they were just waiting and praying for the cans to say anything about the social security medicare debt problems.
That dispicable guy spitzer was for weeks now going after every Republican guest - "where are you going to cut spending? Where Where Where? What about the big programs meidcare social security etc?" He was drooling waiting for someone to say it then he could jornolist the white house, Reid and the rest of the liberal media....
In any case the cans still *don't have a clue* about how to deal with this that I have heard.
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DpeIV9X-smg#t=159s[/youtube]
This needs to be the core of the debate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DpeIV9X-smg#t=159s
-
GM,
The debt is a big if not thee main issue.
The fault lines are on how to deal with the debt.
FWIW the polls are showing most people want the "rich" to pay.
Majority do want sending down too.
The crats are already out in force that "revenues" need to increase. That means only one thing tax increases.
Since 50% pay no Fed tax (absurd) what do they give a hoot if taxes go up.
Since a majority of middle of the roaders don't want to pay up anymore they are also delighted to let the "rich" pay more.
So how do Repuks deal with that? I am still waiting for an answer that is not a penny short.
All I see or hear is this question/issue keeps getting ignored, the run around, talked around, avoided, confused answers, redirected, nonanswers but lots of proclamations, double speak, beautiful ideological solutions that ignore the REAL everyday world most people live in.
The cans will have a real battle if they can't address this.
-
If we taxed the "rich" at 100%, leaving them naked on the side of the road, it would pay for our federal spending for one year. We get back to M. Thatcher's quote about running out of other people's money. We are getting there soon.
-
Well the crats keep pointing out the Bamster panel on debt concluded we will not solve our problems with spending cuts alone we need tax increases.
so most people want someone else to pay for it. Like the teacchers in Jersey who want the "rich" to pay for all their benes.
It is always the rich should pay.
For Gods sakes can't we have real bold action?
GM I appreciate your responses but this is still a penny short. Ain't going to work.
I want my side to answer these questions. I don't want to sit through a year and a half of hearing the same tired old arguments screamed back and forth between the left and right. We need some real answers. We need mouth pieces. People who make sense. Not political rhetoric.
-
CCP , With you except in the idea of a national sales tax and the offshore comment. Offshore or don't invest at all are options that come from making it lousy to invest here. Look at the money going into gold. What does that produce? Nothing. The opposite of building plants, expanding and hiring - but it was the best investment of the Obama era.
"I do not want to tax the rich more at all. They already pay the lion share." - true. They don't need to pay a higher rate, but they will pay more in total as they also grow their incomes.
"But we have to change the tax code." - Yes! (Easier said than done.)
"No more loop holes." - Corporate welfare should be combined with the other reforms of welfare and get a wider group to support reform.
"No more deductions" - No phony ones. You still need to subtract real business expenses in order to calculate income.
"Get rid of the ridiculous cottage industry of tax lawyers and accountants who basically are siphoning off billions just because the tax codes are absurdly complicated, corrupt, and too much with the social engineering crap." - YES! Too much of our national brainpower and productive capacity is devoted to these government caused activities that produce nothing.
"We should have a national sales tax - even those who are poor will have to contribute to the Fed treasury. Either a flat tax for all except maybe those in poverty."
- Ryan proposed a two rate system, 10% up to a certain amount (I'm sure nothing at the low end) and 25% above that. I would tweak that by starting with zero rate at zero income, ending at 25% cap and making rates continuously variable up to the cap. Lower the rate at the cap and you lower everyone's rate. Raise the rate at the cap and you raise everyone's rate.
National sales tax is a non-starter for me. You trust the feds with another huge way to tax us on everything? I don't:
a) More taxes have not proven to close deficits.
b) Sales tax is regressive. If we were willing to reduce progressivity (for the most part we aren't), a straight flat tax would set off tremendous growth.
c) replacing income taxes with consumption taxes requires a constitutional amendment repealing the income tax authority and that isn't politically possible. If we could get 70+% of the people and representatives to agree on any responsible course of action we wouldn't have a problem.
d) A national sales tax would step on a main funding source of our bankrupt states - who will then turn to the Feds for their bailout.
We need a zero deficit at full employment, that necessarily means firsst we need to move toward full employment. Full employment requires capital and labor. The idea that we can fully employ labor while walking all over capital is socialist fallacy. The idea that workers benefited from 5 year campaign against the rich and fighting disparity is exactly upside down. The Pelosi-Obama agenda took Washington by storm in Nov. 2006, see 1/2007 on Obama BLS unemployment chart:
(http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt114/dougmacg/unemployment.gif)
In the election of 2012, we will have one incumbent (presumably) running on the words of Wednesday's speech, which is to accuse, deny, blow hot air, and pledge to continue stomping out new investment, running against one ordinary, mortal Republican of medium charisma and experience proposing something on the order of the Ryan plan, and they will perhaps be joined by one famous egotistical independent (Trump? Bloomberg?) either confusing the choices or adding one, depending on your point of view.
Investors need a fair, competitive and CONSISTENT set of rules. There is plenty of idle capacity dying to be set free in our economy (yadda, yadda :-) ) None of this spending cut talk or revenue enhancement talk will get us anywhere with our engine missing on nearly all cylinders.
-
Doug, great reply. Now you are talking. How can we tie such ideas of tax reform so the average Joe will "buy" in??
We need more radical ideas not just the right shouting tax and spending cuts and those on the left tax increases. Otherwise I/we am going top go crazy listening the the idiots scream the same old tired non starter ideas back and forth forever. I can't take it anymore. I can't stand a bunch of rich white boys speaking ideology anymore than I can stand a bunch of angry blacks, gays female nannie statists, liberals downing everything white male, eurocentric, capitalistic, successful, corportate.
I am sick and tired of being ripped of by wall street Goldman Sachs, and sick and tired of the entitlement classes even more. We need a truly fair system for all, as well as individual responsibility. Where is the vision???
BTW,
The only reason I brought up the national sales tax idea was to get the freeloaders to start to contribute. I don't give a rats ass if you are out on the street. I want everyone to start paying up! Something. Even if only a few bucks a month.
-
"The only reason I brought up the national sales tax idea was to get the freeloaders to start to contribute."
Doc, Please be careful about mentioning new taxes out loud. There is a very old song by Pink Floyd called 'Careful with that Axe Eugene'. I am looking for the emoticon to symbolize that 8 minute scream for my reaction to giving congress one more way to tax us.
Remember we don't need to persuade every militant free loader, just pick up a certain number who care about the future of the country and the future of their own children and grandchildren. We need to get the policies right, get them sold and passed and bring in the results. We need a candidate stronger and more consistent than McCain, while Dems seem stuck with the one who has already failed, flip flopped and floundered, not to mention disengaged from the job. Obama as an empty canvas won by 7 points in a total Dem year. Many of those latched on to the excitement, not the agenda. Those 7 points are gone. Now only 35% support Obamacare and Gallup today has Obama at 41%, that is before his big fall IMO. Everyone by now knows that you don't raise taxes in a recession. But when you keep bringing the tax hikes forward, you just get perpetual recession/stagnation as investors keep seeing that prospect and uncertainty. The opponents magic is gone. As you suggest, this will be a right vs. left campaign with both sides fighting to convince the middle of where the answers lie. One side said big government stimulus and control is the answer and they failed. I say the answer is (competent) limited government with pro-growth policies aimed at growing the private sector. (With specifics, not yadda yadda!) I am more worried about getting the agenda right than winning at this point. Winning will come if we deserve it, but governing after victory is the real question. The excitement needs to shift from welfare rights, equalization and activism to the expanding job and business opportunities presented with a high growth economy. Accomplish that and enough frustrated centrists will jump on board.
I still say they cannot make incomes look stagnant in a high growth economy without distorting what they measure and report. Answering the negative is okay for a moment but off-message in the fight to move forward. Designing a high growth system that micro-manages outcomes simply is not going to happen and slow to medium growth means the debt elephant dominates us forever or until full collapse and default.
Politics goes in pendulum swings. ACORN activism and redistribution sold because people took growth and prosperity for granted before we ever fully achieved it. Now people can see that stagnation sucks, and fighting over the shares of a fixed or declining pie will get us nowhere.
-
"Please be careful about mentioning new taxes out loud"
In general I am not for tax increases. Yet I am not for 50% of America not paying any Federal taxes and the rest of us supporting them. (except for active military personel I think they do pay tax but I would be in favor they don't pay a cent).
It is a problem if we have so many people who don't pay Fed income tax. Thus they do not have any financial incentives to keep from spending other people's monies.
Every American has to be in this.
I got a laugh when the cable nanny network pointed out those "cheating" the gov. out of taxes are guess who? Predominantly "the rich". Are they suggesting that millions are not taking cash on the side and not reporting it? I digress.
"Remember we don't need to persuade every militant free loader"
True. But we have to address this sense of entitlement and the free loading to begin with. I really enjoyed Dennis Miller the other night on O'Reilly when he said time is up for free loaders and losers. He pointed out he didn't mind helping the really needy but those who are just plain screw ups and lazy ass types who abuse the system - it is time to stop the handouts. Thank God someone *finally* said it. Mazoltov!!! Since he is not Jewish perhaps I should say God bless him.
As far as I know he is the first to publically say what those of us who work hard are thinking.
-
While I seem to be the lonely voice of the independents on this site, I absolutely agree with CCP's post (although I too have questions about a national sales tax).
In summary, CCP said, "The crats and their jornolisters are out in force doing exactly what I have tried to ask here on this board what will be the answer to the middle class falling behind, the widening disparities of the rich vs. middle class. Of course they were just waiting and praying for the cans to say anything about the social security medicare debt problems."
The shrinking middle class; that is the issue. And why not address social security and medicare? Everyone is living longer. Why not extend the age before distribution of Social Security benefits? Ease it in; let's say beginning in 2020 or something. And Medicare too needs to be examined; perhaps raise the deductibles, increase premium, or increase co-pays. Why is this "untouchable"?
Again, CCP said, "Where is the vision???"
"I also have to reiterate to probably ad nauseum that the cans still have not answered questions and concerns that independents will have like I keep pointing out:
What about the middle class seeing their livelihoods slip into oblivion while Wall Street dances into princely kingdoms?
What about making it fair for all and not just the rich?"
Make it fair for all; it's true; the same old ideas aren't going to sell. But if you take care of the middle class, have a heart for social welfare for the truly needy, it might work. I am an optimist; I believe most of the poor, even those illegal immigrants aspire to be "middle class". Give them a way.
As for the rich, nothing wrong with being rich, but get rid of the special "rich" loopholes and deductions. I suggest taxing all mortgages
above 1million. And eliminate second home deductions. The middle class doesn't live in million dollar homes or have second homes. And if you are rich enough to own one, why should you get a deduction, when the middle class guy living in an apartment gets nothing. And scale back charitable
contribution deductions; I donate my appreciated art collection or stocks to my alma mater and never pay tax; is that right? The middle class
doesn't have that option. Etc.
Show that you are "fair", then find someone who can articulate your position, has some family values and the Republicans should win. I'ld vote for the guy. And so will a lot of other Americans.
-
"As for the rich, nothing wrong with being rich, but get rid of the special "rich" loopholes and deductions. I suggest taxing all mortgages
above 1million. And eliminate second home deductions. The middle class doesn't live in million dollar homes or have second homes. And if you are rich enough to own one, why should you get a deduction, when the middle class guy living in an apartment gets nothing. And scale back charitable
contribution deductions; I donate my appreciated art collection or stocks to my alma mater and never pay tax; is that right? The middle class
doesn't have that option."
-----
Another set of new laws targeting this and targeting that so it applies to one group and not to another. I am fighting for the opposite - one set of rules. If you want, lower the rates and eliminate the deductions for everyone IMO. Eliminating the charitable deduction at these rates will eliminate plenty of charities, making government even more in charge of our every need, just what they want.
You are right IMO on this: reforming Social Security IS touchable. I say adjust FDR's ratios to today's realities (1% tax?). The alternative for those who want to remove the income cap is to: lower the rate, apply it to ALL earned income evenly, make it transparent - consolidate the employer hidden half so people see what is taken, raise the retirement age way up to the point of unable to work, means test every benefit, and let it become the smaller welfare net that people seem to want instead of the insurance enhancement product that it once was.
SS has been solvent up until now but at 15+% it is eating up the taxable income potential from the rest of our needs. It is a brutal tax on the middle class and the thriving self-employed. Let's downsize it.
-
JDN,
Thank you for your thoughts and reply.
Since you identify yourself as an independent I appreciate your thoughts even more. The crats understand the need to reach out to the "shrinking" middle class and try to sell them the concept that what they need is big government to help them. The Republicans really don't understand this the way the crats do.
I want the Republicans to fight for this group. To prove to this group, to win over that the Republican vision is the better choice for them and America. As of yet I have not heard that other than indirectly - trickle down stuff etc.
JDN, it sounds like you would agree with me that the republicans need to do a better job reaching out to this group. Not with handouts the Dems offer but real opportunity. And real *fairness*. They need to sell the concept the answer is not to soak and steal more from the rich. But to stop the rich from getting away with "murder". For example, with loopholes like you wisely point out the rest of us don't enjoy.
Like Bon Jovi paying 1/50 of my NJ mortgage tax for a property that must be 100 times the size because he raises bees on his property. He probably saves at least 100K a year at least for NJ property taxes. Same for Sprinsteen (according to Stossel).
"Show that you are "fair", then find someone who can articulate your position, has some family values and the Republicans should win. I'ld vote for the guy. And so will a lot of other Americans."
Yes, thank you JDN. This is what I am talking about. :-D
-
Thank you CCP :-D
Another set of new laws targeting this and targeting that so it applies to one group and not to another. I am fighting for the opposite - one set of rules. If you want, lower the rates and eliminate the deductions for everyone IMO. Eliminating the charitable deduction at these rates will eliminate plenty of charities, making government even more in charge of our every need, just what they want.
In theory I agree Doug, but frankly I don't think it's salable. You can't eliminate the mortgage deduction for everyone the first year. Or all charitable contributions. It is political suicide. That gets back to my point earlier about principles and electability. Step by step... But you can overcome if you are patient. :-)
-
Doug,
"If you want, lower the rates and eliminate the deductions for everyone IMO."
Yes. The only deductions should be business expenses. Nothing else.
I disagree.
"Eliminating the charitable deduction at these rates will eliminate plenty of charities, making government even more in charge of our every need, just what they want."
Charitable deductions help the rich by far at the cost to the rest of taxpayers. IF the rich are so wonderful than just donate to charity.
We are broke.
Politically I admit the nannies will not let this happen anyway.
-
So today I see Rove called Trump a joke. Marc Levin states Trump is not the real deal or a serious candidate.
I tend to agree. Trump is a bit of a loose cannon and it is likely just a matter of time he says something that will cause his spiral down.
Plus he is a great salesman who sounds like he knows how to straighten out the country but he is short on details or real policy if you ask me.
Yet I think he serves a great purpose by putting the phoney ONE on the defensive.
I don't know if Bamster was born here or not. I don't know it it says Muslim or not.
The point is the guy is hiding something. I would really rather see what is in his thesis and his records from school. I suspect the one was a militant anti American. He hates capitalism, white eurocentric democracy as has been the custom for 200 years. I speculate he congregated with the radical hate America Columbia crowd.
He is definitely hiding past issues that we have a right to know. Again I don't know how he has gotten away with it. And I applaud Trump for having the courage to take him on these issues.
As for Rove I don't know what to say. I really don't understand how he has so much credibility with the *establishment* as it appears. He has done much to hurt the party and his strategies have been proven failures. Why is anyone listening to him with more than a grain of salt? Everytime I see him I think Bushes. Whatever anyone thinks of H or W they are over and past tense. Time to clean house and move on. As for Jeb Bush the guy is a sell out.
-
These special privileges need to be treated or ended in a package: ethanol in Iowa, charitable giving over at the churches (etc) and the mortgage deduction everywhere. Each agrees to give up your own to lock in the package - or it can't happen. The Iowa farmer loses his ethanol subsidy for example but the policy package will bring diesel costs down by a third along with inheritance tax reform. Deductions phase out but rates come down. There has to be a bright side - besides saving the republic!
Sometimes the compromise can be right down the middle (not so much for abortion). With business meals they start allowing half the expense. Ending the deduction entirely and you kill restaurants and lose those jobs. Allow 50% of charitable to be deducted would seem like a fairer outcome. Or end all deductions for the lower rate, both are okay with me. But we don't save money by killing off cancer research and turning all charitable work into functions of government. In general I prefer that social functions handled more by charities, versus more to government.
From JDN: "You can't eliminate the mortgage deduction for everyone the first year. Or all charitable contributions. It is political suicide. That gets back to my point earlier about principles and electability. Step by step."
I agree. Find the right policy and phase it in. If the end point is 50% of mortgage interest and 50% of charitable giving is to be deductible, then phase it in with a 10% change per year until you hit the new policy.
Phasing in tax rate cuts however doesn't work because of the incentive to delay the gains for the lowest rate. The corporate tax rate should be cut instantly to the average of OECD, taking away part of the incentive to capture income offshore. That will not cost us revenue. Capital gains tax rates should be either lowered or locked in where they are without expiration. How can anyone advise for or against a major investment decision with detailed analysis without knowing the tax rate? They can't and most major expansions are either on hold or built elsewhere.
-
CCP: "Marc Levin states Trump is not the real deal or a serious candidate."
I was listening to that same show. It wasn't Levin's opinion but the evidence he presented that was persuasive. I enjoy what Trump is saying now; it fits with the tea party message. 2 years ago Obama supporters loved what he was saying.
He explains his Dem/leftist contributions as giving to both sides is a cost of doing business. Yet his contributions were 80% to the left so any reaching across would be the rare occasions he supported conservatives. Plenty of business people have taken a principled position in politics. He hasn't. What he calls a cost of doing business is now baggage for pursuing public office. He had every right to promote Chuck Schumer's agenda, but he doesn't have the power or charisma to make that go away.
Along with no electoral experience, from a conservative point of view he would seem to also have no principled voting experience either or pattern of showing conviction.
Earlier in my real estate investing career and earlier in Trump's career, I bought his book 'Art of the Deal', sold as a how-to book and quickly learned that it was an egotist writing 'aren't I great' and 'don't I hang around with important and famous people' with nothing of value for the reader. The message was that if you're him, don't bother. People who run for President need a healthy ego but I prefer the outlook that this is about we the people not he the leader.
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ9hVMN8UMY&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
Compelling. If you have a double-digit IQ.
-
Well it is amazing that this celebrity would garner 34% of likely voters. As noted Obama still is not over 50%. Trump was on the other day and said he wants to consider a run because he loves this country and is concerned about what is happening to it. I admit this is one time I didn't find him convincing about his convictions.
***Obama 49%, Trump 34%
Monday, April 18, 2011
President Obama leads Donald Trump by 15 percentage points in a hypothetical 2012 match-up, but the president is unable to top the 50% level of support even against an opponent some are deriding as a joke.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that the president earns support from 49% of Likely Voters nationwide, while Trump attracts the vote from 34%. Given that choice, 12% would vote for some other candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Only 65% of Republican voters would vote for Trump over Obama. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, 48% prefer Obama, 25% Trump, and 20% would opt for some other candidate.
Regardless of what Republican is matched against the president, Obama earns between 42% and 49% support. Trump doesn't run as well against the president as the top tier of GOP candidates, but he does pick up more support than insider favorites Mitch Daniels and Jon Huntsman and entrepreneur Herman Cain.
Unlike several potential Republican candidates, Trump does not suffer from a lack of name recognition. Instead, he suffers from high unfavorable ratings. Most voters (53%) offer an unfavorable opinion of the reality TV star and businessman, including 29% with a Very Unfavorable view of him. Only 39% offer a favorable assessment, with 10% Very Favorable.
The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters nationwide was conducted on April 15-16, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted byPulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Trump's numbers have changed little from a May 2007 survey when 33% viewed him favorably while 54% had an unfavorable opinion.
Because of his wealth, Trump has indicated that he could finance his own presidential campaign if necessary and not have to be beholden to special interest contributors. Just over half (54%) of voters say a candidate's ability to finance his own campaign is at least somewhat important to how they will vote for president, with 22% who say it is Very Important. Forty-two percent (42%) say an ability to self-finance a presidential campaign is unimportant to them, including 12% who say it's Not At All Important.
Republicans value this ability more than Democrats and unaffiliated voters.
But then 61% of GOP voters have a favorable view of Trump. Seventy-one percent (71%) of Democrats and 58% of unaffiliateds regard him unfavorably.
-
Is it true that Trump has given lots more money to Democrats than Republicans and that he has donated lots of money to Chuck Schumer?
-
Is it true that Trump has given lots more money to Democrats than Republicans and that he has donated lots of money to Chuck Schumer?
Here is a list of his political contributions. Without looking at all 7 pages and doing the addition for which party he has contributed more to, he has contributed to Tom Daschle, Harry Reid, Chris Dodd, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.php?name=trump%2C+donald&state=&zip=&employ=&cand=&all=Y&sort=N&capcode=rjjbr&submit=Submit
(click on "all cycles", and it will give you from 1992)
-
The Republican nominee MUST win the base AND reach to the middle. McCain (for example) was the exact opposite. He appealed during his career to the middle and then reached during the final stretch to the base, which is backwards. 2008 was a known Dem year. 2012 will either lean R or best case for the Dems will be fought on equal footing IMO.
These early head to head polls ask the judges to score before they see the contest.
The seven point win of Obama is not going to happen again. He has lost independents and is no longer a blank slate. He has also done several things to undermine the energy from his base. The Republican candidates look weak now but one will rise and win by showing political and persuasive strength across different parts of the country.
Trump's 35% now could work in a 3 way contest but probably only as spoiler, like Perot. I doubt in the end that he will run.
----
Political contributions are pretty easy to verify (see BD post). The second link has a list compiled over a long period, including: Schumer, Rangel, Gillebrand, Anthony Weiner, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Erskine Bowles, John Kerry, Frank Lautenberg, Torricelli, Ted Kennedy, Patrick Kennedy, Harry Reid, Arlen Specter, Dick Durbin, Rahm, Harry Reid, Chris Dodd, Charlie Crist, Bill Nelson (FL) etc. JIMMY CARTER 1979, and also Republicans to a lesser degree: Tom Coburn, McCain, George Allen, Giuliani, RNC...
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/02/20/is-donald-trump-a-conservative/
http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations/Donald_Trump.php
-
And this can be done. The Repubics don't have the balls or are not girl enough to do it though.
I have it figured out. I don't see most Republicans saying anything but the same misleading message. Again they may lose. Again it is the same screaming match back and forth.
Selling trickle down economics alone will not win over the middle. Most people don't buy this simplistic solution anymore. The rich ARE richer and the middle are stagnating.
If Republicans want to win they need to repackage the brand. The need to take away the class warefare argument from the dems. There IS ONLY ONE way they can do that and stay true to their principles. Otherwise we will continue to see the right appealing only to the right and the sell outs like the Bushes and Roves giving in. But there is a way out.
Reduce government, reduce regulation, reduce taxes but make the system truly fair for everyone and stop allowing the wealthy to reap the benefits only they can take advantage of.
Otherwise we will have class warfare and the same screaming matches that we have had for 30 years now going back and forth with no end.
-
No. If serious action isn't taken very soon, our financial house of cards will fall. Socialism always fails and we are running out of other people's money.
-
"Socialism always fails and we are running out of other people's money"
My point is the rich have unfair advantages. If you want people to vote Republican because they believe in the party and not just because they hate Bamster more you have to get the middle calls to buy in.
The reason Bamster still has the support of many in the middle, still, is because they know the deck is stacked agianst them.
What do you think people think when they see 400 top earners in the US pay 16% income tax?
You think that is fair?
I pay more than that. I am outraged at the loopholes. Why am I paying more? I am also outrage 47 pay nothing.
Both ends are taking advantage of the middle. A Republican who addresses this WILL WIN. And win easily. Otherwise it is a screaming match.
-
ccp,
The rich always have advantages. So? The rich can travel more, have better houses, healthcare, food and cars than those that are not wealthy. Wealth is not a zero-sum game. As the rich get richer, they bring the rest of us along with them.
From memory, the top one % in this country have 20% of the wealth, yet pay 40% of the taxes, while roughly 50% of the country pay NO taxes. Is that fair?
Now if we were to copy Hong Kong and have a simple tax code that is about 200 pages long, that's a good change to look at.
-
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3793
Hong Kong's Excellent Taxes
by Alan Reynolds
President Bush gave former Sens. Connie Mack of Florida and John Breaux of Louisiana the unenviable task of trying to say something new and interesting about tax reform.
When it comes to designing a simple tax system that does the least damage to the economy, it would be difficult to find a better role model than Hong Kong. As The Economist wrote a few years ago, "The territory's tradition of simple and low taxes ... is widely seen as a main reason for its stunning rise to prosperity." Many advantages of the Hong Kong tax system have been widely emulated in Asia, yet remain poorly understood in this country. One such misunderstanding may have resulted in an unfortunate spat between two old friends, Steve Moore and Bruce Bartlett.
Moore proposes that individual taxpayers should be allowed to either pay taxes under the current rules, or instead forego deductions for mortgage interest and charitable deductions and pay 20 percent on that broader measure of income. "Bruce Bartlett attacked this plan as a gimmick," writes Moore. "But he fails to realize this is precisely how the Hong Kong tax system works. Hong Kong has a complicated system and a simple flat tax, and filers choose between the two."
Alan Reynolds is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute and a nationally syndicated columnist.
More by Alan Reynolds
Gimmick or not, Moore's "freedom to choose flat tax" is not remotely similar to the Hong Kong tax system, which is not complicated in any respect. I may have been partly at fault for that misunderstanding.
Steve Moore and Bruce Bartlett were advisers to Jack Kemp's tax reform commission in 1995, and I was research director. Asked by one commissioner about Hong Kong's "flat tax," I replied that the tax on salaries is not flat but steeply progressive. There are four marginal tax brackets of 2 percent, 8 percent, 14 percent and 20 percent. I would prefer a single tax rate, for reasons I explained last November in "The Case for One Tax Rate." But any tax with a top rate of 20 percent is hard to fault.
Unlike the United States, Hong Kong is not plagued with tax credits that create random spikes in marginal tax rates as the credits are phased out. But Hong Kong does allow charitable deductions up to 25 percent of salary income and a mortgage interest deduction up to about $13,000 (in U.S. dollars). Other deductions are allowed for adult education, care of elderly relatives and retirement savings plans.
Personal exemptions are so generous that most employees owe little or no tax on salaries. For those with high salaries, however, it is cheaper to forego personal exemptions (but not deductions) and pay a 16 percent "standard rate." Only the top 2 percent usually pay that standard rate, yet they account for nearly half of all revenue from the salaries tax.
Groping for an explanation of the standard rate a decade ago, I suggested it was something like an "alternative maximum tax" -- a phrase Moore has used to describe his own, very different tax proposal. But the standard rate is automatic, not a matter of choice. Taxpayers fill out a one-page online return declaring their salary and deductions, and the government sends them a bill.
The standard rate does not make Hong Kong's tax system simpler, but it does make it more efficient. Academic studies of optimal taxation have long concluded that marginal tax rates should be lowest at the highest levels of income. As Joseph Stiglitz wrote in 1987, "the marginal tax rate on the highest income (ability) individual should be zero." Hong Kong does not go quite that far, but the marginal rate is reduced from 20 to 16 at the highest incomes, while keeping their average tax high by eliminating personal exemptions.
As clever as this is, it is not the most interesting aspect of the Hong Kong tax system. What makes taxes in Hong Kong so uniquely simple and effective is that businesses pay all the taxes on income originating in business (profits), and employees pay all the taxes on salaries.
Hong Kong has no payroll tax for Social Security, no general sales or value-added tax, no tariffs on imports and no personal tax on income from financial assets. What Hong Kong has is called a "Dual Tax" -- progressive tax rates on labor income but a flat tax of 17.5 percent on corporate profits, 16 percent on property owners and unincorporated enterprises.
The low tax on profits brings in substantially more revenue than the tax on salaries, in marked contrast to the United States, which collects little from profits taxes that are nominally twice as high. Corporations in Hong Kong pay the profits tax before distributing dividends to shareholders, so there is no extra tax on dividends to be collected from individuals. Reinvested profits result in more business income to tax in the future, so there is no extra tax on capital gains to be collected from individuals.
Companies in Hong Kong deduct interest payments, however, so it would be theoretically appropriate to tax individuals on income they receive from local corporate bonds. This exemplifies the key tax principle of symmetry: Whatever is a deductible expense for those making any payment ought to be taxable income for those receiving that payment. But there would still be no need for individuals to report interest income, because a flat tax can easily be collected at the source, before the check goes out.
The United States could easily adopt something similar to the Hong Kong tax. It would require no wrenching changes, such as giving up interest deductibility for corporations or homeowners. Some tax rates would presumably have to be higher (the 2 percent rate is ridiculously low anyway), but not as much higher as you might think.
Hong Kong's taxes on salaries and profits amounted to about 7 percent of GDP last year, while combined U.S. corporate and individual taxes brought in only 8.6 percent of GDP. Since a larger percentage of American employees have higher salaries, a salary tax such as Hong Kong's would raise more money even without higher tax rates.
The Hong Kong tax system has one major advantage over even the most elegant theoretical alternatives. It has been tested for more than 50 years. It works.
-
Economics, President Barack Obama: "If we keep spending more than we take in, we are going to do some damage to our economy."
- He acts like the excess spending was an accident, an act of God - like a tsunami - that hit the nation and his budget. (Same goes for gas prices, an global phenomenon that really he had nothing to do with.)
Everyone including the President, please re-read every Krugman column since before his election and review every Obama speech he has made and every policy they have put out including his most recent budget proposal. THE DEFICIT SPENDING WAS INTENTIONAL (sorry for the shouting); it is the heart of the failed Keynesian philosophy they were ramming down our throat with our own dollars and some new ones that look like ours, with Krugman, the economic spiritual leader still calling on him to double the ante. Excess public spending IS the stimulus, in their mind, and we are lucky to have 1% nominal growth and U6 at 16%? Deficits are what supposedly saved millions of jobs, ('created or saved'). And when they said temporary, they meant permanent. Like those great magic shows - what they tell us changes right in front of our eyes and know one can see it happen. They are so used to playing with words and labeling things the opposite of what they are, they didn't even notice themselves telling a patent falsehood. We know how to start a spending program, but we don't know how to end one. Everybody knew that. Nothing was put in to make things temporary. The exact opposite is true - they made it so it is a cut to end things that were 'temporary'.
How are you supposed to know when you are wrong if you are Obama, Jarrett, Krugman, Biden, Reich et al, and when are you supposed to know? How are you supposed to gracefully turn 180 degrees, save face, and start undoing what you did and start doing things that really work, and bring along all the people with you that you recently and repeatedly told the opposite - as recently as last Wednesday. In sports (or in war with generals), you don't change the coach's mind; they get fired for results like these. You hire someone else to run the organization in a better direction.
-
"As the rich get richer, they bring the rest of us along with them"
Well recent stats if true show the rich are 399% richer since around 1980 and the rest of us around 15%.
The above statement is exactly what is wrong with the Republicans and why they have trouble fighting off class warfare accusations from liberals. I am not a liberal. I am not for social welfare. I am not for taking more from the rich. I don't know why you seem to not see my points. What I am proposing is an excellent answer to the problems repubs have getting "market share" WITHOUT" compromising their general principles.
It seems only JDN understands what I am saying.
-
Do you understand the Laffer curve and the difference between tax rates and tax revenues? Having higher tax rates can actually (and usually does) reduce the amount of money taken in by the gov't.
Just as higher taxes on cigarettes discourages smoking, income taxes discourages income creation, which penalizes the non-rich the most.
-
CCP: " I don't see most Republicans saying anything but the same misleading message... Selling trickle down economics alone will not win over the middle."
- Trickle down is a label put on the policies by the people who oppose them. I don't know what part of across the board they never understand. The main effect of supply side or 'pro-growth' policies is on the people who potentially want to go forth and achieve rather than to those who already have. Simpler, more evenly applied policies with slightly lower disincentives for all productive activities regardless of who does them, that's all it is. Not what Bush did for example. That involved lower rates, but moving everything else in the wrong direction in terms of the burden imposed by a growing public sector.
You are correct that we need better messaging, but constantly denying a negative is not how to stay on message. Repeatedly answering the charge, 'when did you quit beating your wife,' doesn't make for the best press conference. For the whole disparity thing, ask yourself which disparity study you've ever read that adjusted for things like what you did to get where you are, a 4 year degree, medical school, residency, sleepless weeks in training, giving up a good part of a decade in training, taking/passing boards, risk taking, possibility of being sued or losing license or small judgments made every day, carrying the pager, carrying the malpractice policy, paying the student loans back, accepting delayed benefits, etc etc. Other people didn't do all that and many did none of it. Which study adjusts for that? Nothing I've ever seen. Shouldn't we have that freedom and that choice - to jump all in, or part way in with more leisure, less responsibility - especially at different points in our lives?? Outcomes are going to differ; that is a fact, not an issue. Maybe the super rich of the moment are doing something right economically in terms of providing something that a large global market needs and maybe the middle class is sitting on its laurels, doing things the same year after year. As you say with messaging, the bully pulpit needs to join with the policies and inspire more people to go out and achieve.
Where we are now is the opposite, we oppose producing energy, propose higher disincentives and tell everyone to leave the car in the garage and be a blockworker agent for redistributive justice. How is that working out, is what I would ask.
---
"...the rich are 399% richer since around 1980 and the rest of us around 15%."
Each year they measure a different group. The top 400 for example changes every year. It isn't the same people in what they call the rich. These measures are highly misleading. Still, what should the disparity outcome be between one person who is all in, in terms of pursuing wealth through productive enterprise, and someone else who is not? How much of the reward for all that wealth creation can we take away and still get the same amount of it to tax at all? GM already answered it but the answer is no, disincentives matter. There isn't some clever way to target this and tweak that and have it all work out without screwing up our badly needed economic growth.
---
"...when they see 400 top earners in the US pay 16% income tax?"
They take the SS as a tax but defend it as an insurance policy. Then they take the taxation of long term gains earned with after-tax dollars,including the inflation component (not a gain at all) and compare it with taxes on earned income. I have 2 solutions for that. One is re-define SS as general welfare since that is what that comparison infers. The other is to remove the inflation component of gains before you tax them as ordinary income. States BTW already tax capital gains as ordinary income, even inflationary gains - a small point always left out of all the disparity hysteria, all state and local plus the corporate tax was already taxed before the distribution gets to the owner. They include the SS, which is capped on BOTH paying in and paying out, and exclude things like state taxes, property taxes and corporate taxes, then point to how unfair the difference is. I know you don't put up with that level of analysis in a medical study, but I agree it is hard to keep going back to answer every charge.
We need to remove loopholes, these were the genius, social engineering ideas of the previous congresses and administrations. Just like spending programs, each has a constituency, but the theme is that everything is negotiable. As Clinton used to say, "we can do more...' or the other CLinton said, 'you can't afford all of my ideas'. How many of the working poor went out and took thousands in the cash for clunkers 'tax credit', to get a $45000 car and 'save money' on gas. That's one loophole, also wind and solar. How many homeless got the insulation credit? Electric vehicle credits went to golf cart purchases, how many of the recently foreclosed got the tax credit for one of those. The same jerks who did all of that who now point to the loopholes. End them, fine, an lower the rates. But a loophole is not to take actual costs that oil companies incurred to produce oil and disallow the expense in the year it was incurred. I wasn't a conservative policy of taxing all income equally that caused GE (with the CEO on the Obama board) to hit the zero mark.
This really shouldn't be that hard to build a persuasive case against Obama's policies and to put forth a better alternative.
-
Do you understand the Laffer curve and the difference between tax rates and tax revenues? Having higher tax rates can actually (and usually does) reduce the amount of money taken in by the gov't.
Just as higher taxes on cigarettes discourages smoking, income taxes discourages income creation, which penalizes the non-rich the most.
That's voodoo economics that no one really believes anymore.....
If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims are false. We're not talking just ivory-tower lefties. Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html
-
The Time editorial disguised as an article ignores the hard numbers that directly refute it's claims.
(http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/01/~/media/Images/Reports/2007/bg2001/chart2_lg.ashx)
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/01/~/media/Images/Reports/2007/bg2001/chart2_lg.ashx
Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.
As previously stated, whether a tax cut pays for itself depends on how much people alter their behavior in response to the policy. Investors have been shown to be the most sensitive to tax policy, because capital gains tax cuts encourage enough new investment to more than offset the lower tax rate.
In 2003, capital gains tax rates were reduced from 20 percent and 10 percent (depending on income) to 15 percent and 5 percent. Rather than expand by 36 percent from the current $50 billion level to $68 billion in 2006 as the CBO projected before the tax cut, capital gains revenues more than doubled to $103 billion.[10] (See Chart 2.) Past capital gains tax cuts have shown similar results.
-
It works in reverse as well:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-laffer-curve-strikes-again/
The Laffer Curve Strikes Again
Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell
In the private sector, no business owner would be dumb enough to assume that higher prices automatically translate into proportionately higher revenues. If McDonald’s boosted hamburger prices by 30 percent, for instance, the experts at the company would fully expect that sales would decline. Depending on the magnitude of the drop, total revenue might still climb, but by far less than 30 percent. And it’s quite possible that the company would lose revenue. In the public sector, however, there is very little understanding of how the real world works. Here’s a Reuters story I saw on Tim Worstall’s blog, which reveals that Bulgaria and Romania both are losing revenue after increasing tobacco taxes.
Cash-strapped Bulgaria and Romania hoped taxing cigarettes would be an easy way to raise money but the hikes are driving smokers to a growing black market instead. Criminal gangs and impoverished Roma communities near borders with countries where prices are lower — Serbia, Macedonia, Moldova and Ukraine — have taken to smuggling which has wiped out gains from higher excise duties. Bulgaria increased taxes by nearly half this year and stepped up customs controls and police checks at shops and markets. Customs office data, however, shows tax revenues from cigarette sales so far in 2010 have fallen by nearly a third. …Overall losses from smuggling will probably outweigh tax gains as Bulgaria struggle to fight the growing black market, which has risen to over 30 percent of all cigarette sales and could cost 500 million levs in lost revenues this year, said Bezlov at the Center for the Study of Democracy. While the government expected higher income from taxes in 2010 it has already revised that to the same level as last year. “However, this (too) looks unlikely at present,” Bezlov added. Romania, desperately trying to keep a 20 billion-euro International Monetary Fund-led bailout deal on track, has a similar problem after nearly doubling cigarette prices in 2009 then hiking value added tax. Romania’s top three cigarette makers — units of British American Tobacco, Japan Tobacco International and Philip Morris — contributed roughly 2 billion euros to the budget in taxes in 2009, or just under 2 percent of GDP. They estimate about a third of cigarettes in Romania are smuggled and say this could cost the state over 1 billion euros.
-
More Laffer Curve goodness. California raised taxes, got less revenue and caused a boom in black market tobacco sales.
http://www.mackinac.org/10060
The 1990's: California's Tax Evasion Escalates Dramatically With Internet Sales and Proposition 10
By Michael D. LaFaive, Patrick Fleenor, and Todd Nesbit, Ph.D. | Dec. 3, 2008
For a little more than a decade, the ruling in the Chemehuevi case had seemingly solved the Indian tax-exemption problem. This began to change in the mid-1990s, however, when the tribes both in and outside California began selling cigarettes over the Internet, as did vendors in foreign countries. Suddenly, travel was no longer necessary as the Internet revolution put brand-name cigarettes within reach of every customer with Web access for as little as $1.25 per pack.
As with sales on military bases and Indian reservations, this convenient new way to shop for tax-exempt cigarettes put a major dent in the state's taxed cigarette sales. California had enough trouble doing legal battle with Indian tribes; they struggled even more in their attempts to enforce tax laws against vendors in foreign countries.
The California Board of Equalization responded with a public relations campaign to remind smokers that if they purchased cigarettes online where taxes weren't collected, they were still required by law to send the tax payment to Sacramento.[197] Beginning in 1999, BOE went further, deciding it would not let out-of-state vendors operate with impunity. The agency threatened online vendors with legal action under the federal Jenkins Act if they didn't turn over their California customer lists. Only a fraction of Internet retailers did so, and when the BOE sent their customers overdue tax bills, some for thousands of dollars, only a few actually paid.[198]
The BOE also created a computer model of the cigarette market. This was a custom software program that could use survey data about smokers and historical sales data from the tobacco manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers to produce estimates of supply, demand and tax evasion. In 1999, the BOE's first computer estimates showed that 11 years earlier, the 1988 tax hike had boosted smuggling substantially. The estimates were approximate, but even under conservative estimates, the numbers were staggering. During the 1990 fiscal year (July 1, 1989 - June 30, 1990), between 183 million and 377 million packs of cigarettes had illegally entered California. That is about four tractor-trailers full each day, and in revenue terms, the state lost between $64 million and $132 million in one year.
Soon other states raised their cigarette taxes, making them more attractive to smugglers than California was. By fiscal 1993, the BOE estimated that tax evasion had dropped 13.2 percent in three years. California's 2-cent per-pack tax increase on Jan. 1, 1994, temporarily reversed this trend slightly, but by 1998, BOE estimates showed that cigarette tax evasion had fallen 26.2 percent since 1990. Even with smuggling on the decline, the estimated volumes were still considerable: Between 135 million and 278 million packs of cigarettes were estimated to have illegally entered California in fiscal year 1998, representing between $50 million and $103 million in potential excise tax revenue.[199]
The moderate decline in illicit smuggling that lasted 10 years between 1988 and 1998 ended when California voters raised the cigarette tax by 50 cents per pack, from 37 cents to 87 cents, by approving Proposition 10 in November 1998. That same month, California signed the national Master Settlement Agreement, which raised cigarette prices by about 45 cents per pack. That created yet another slice of potential profit that smugglers could realize when bringing cigarettes in from abroad. Not only could they avoid 87 cents per pack in state taxes, but they could also avoid the 45-cent MSA payment and the 24-cent federal tax.[200]
That meant smugglers could possibly earn hundreds of thousands in evaded taxes on every shipping container of cigarettes smuggled into the state. And indeed, the BOE model showed evasion surging 12 percent after 1998. Police and BOE inspectors came across more and more cigarettes smuggled from abroad, and the U.S. General Accounting Office found that seizures of counterfeit cigarettes at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach increased dramatically in the years following the tax hike.[201]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[197] "California Excise Tax and Use Tax Due on Cigarettes Purchased from Outside California," California Board of Equalization, News Release #4-G, January 18, 2000.
[198] Troy Wolverton and Greg Sandoval, "Taxes Threaten Booming Sales of Cigarettes Online," CNET News.com, February 18, 2000.
[199] "Preliminary Estimates of Cigarette Tax Evasion," California Board of Equalization, June 1999, 4.
[200] Ibid.
[201] Cigarette Smuggling, (Washington, D.C.: United States General Accounting Office, 2004). Also see Lisa Friedman, "Smoking Gun at Ports?" The Daily News (Los Angeles), July 3, 2004.
-
"That's voodoo economics that no one really believes anymore....."
What are your examples of significant rate cuts that didn't grow revenues?
The voodoo line BTW was abandoned by its author, revenues to the Treasury doubled in the 1980s. US Budget History, see page 26: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/hist.pdf
GM gave the 2003 example. Look also at the Clinton capital gains cuts of 1995 or the Kennedy cuts, 'rising tide lifts all boats'.
Let's take a look at the opposing examples...
-
If only the left in the US were less marxist than the ChiComs..... :roll:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011-04/20/content_12364183.htm
China's new tax cut good news for consumers
(Xinhua)
Updated: 2011-04-20 16:24
BEIJING - The threshold of China's personal income tax (PIT) will be raised to 3,000 yuan ($455) if China's top legislature passes the first reading of the proposal.
The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress began to assess the draft on Wednesday. The second examination will start in June. Once agreed upon, the new tax rate will become effective in the second half of this year.
Xie Xuren, minister of China's Ministry of Finance estimated that a higher threshold will eliminate 99 billion yuan in tax revenue. Vice-minister Wang Jun said earlier that it would reduce the number of taxpayers by 48 million, or 12 percent of the tax base.
This is good news for consumers, as inflation recently hit a 32-month high in March and is continuing to increase. It is also a necessary measure to realize the country's goal of closing its widening income gap, and make consumer spending a major driver for the world's second largest economy.
In 2010, China collected over 480 billion yuan in PIT, which accounts for only 6.3 percent of the government's total tax revenue. However, as far as boosting consumer spending is concerned, this amount will be significant.
Liu Huan, the deputy dean of the School of Taxation of the Central University of Finance and Economics, said that the PIT threshold hike is good news for most people, since the current 2,000-yuan PIT threshold is already lower than average living costs in big cities such as Shanghai and Beijing.
"Raising the PIT threshold will boost the purchasing power of low-income groups and help subsidize low and middle-income workers amid soaring prices." he said.
China's retail sales of consumer goods rose 16.3 percent year-on-year to reach 4.29 trillion yuan ($657.29 billion) in the first quarter of this year, the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) announced last Friday.
Consumption was slowed down by higher commodity prices and interest rates. The growth of retail sales in the first quarter slowed down by 2.5 percent from the fourth quarter in 2010, a decrease of 1.6 percent from a year ago.
-
If only the left in the US were less marxist than the ChiComs..... :roll:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011-04/20/content_12364183.htm
China's new tax cut good news for consumers
(Xinhua)
Updated: 2011-04-20 16:24
BEIJING - The threshold of China's personal income tax (PIT) will be raised to 3,000 yuan ($455) if China's top legislature passes the first reading of the proposal.
The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress began to assess the draft on Wednesday. The second examination will start in June. Once agreed upon, the new tax rate will become effective in the second half of this year.
Xie Xuren, minister of China's Ministry of Finance estimated that a higher threshold will eliminate 99 billion yuan in tax revenue. Vice-minister Wang Jun said earlier that it would reduce the number of taxpayers by 48 million, or 12 percent of the tax base.
This is good news for consumers, as inflation recently hit a 32-month high in March and is continuing to increase. It is also a necessary measure to realize the country's goal of closing its widening income gap, and make consumer spending a major driver for the world's second largest economy.
In 2010, China collected over 480 billion yuan in PIT, which accounts for only 6.3 percent of the government's total tax revenue. However, as far as boosting consumer spending is concerned, this amount will be significant.
Liu Huan, the deputy dean of the School of Taxation of the Central University of Finance and Economics, said that the PIT threshold hike is good news for most people, since the current 2,000-yuan PIT threshold is already lower than average living costs in big cities such as Shanghai and Beijing.
"Raising the PIT threshold will boost the purchasing power of low-income groups and help subsidize low and middle-income workers amid soaring prices." he said.
China's retail sales of consumer goods rose 16.3 percent year-on-year to reach 4.29 trillion yuan ($657.29 billion) in the first quarter of this year, the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) announced last Friday.
Consumption was slowed down by higher commodity prices and interest rates. The growth of retail sales in the first quarter slowed down by 2.5 percent from the fourth quarter in 2010, a decrease of 1.6 percent from a year ago.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/6789
January 30, 1998
hoover digest » 1998 no. 1 » china
The Great Tax Cut of China
by Alvin Rabushka
Care for definitive proof that supply-side policies spur economic growth? Take a look at communist China. By Hoover fellow Alvin Rabushka.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In recent years, supply-side economics has taken a back seat around the world to the politics of balanced budgets, and--where deemed necessary--tax increases to achieve balance. This is especially true among developing and transition economies. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) routinely insists on increased tax collections as a precondition to financial aid. Indeed, the IMF recently forced the Thai government to accept a 7 to 10 percent hike in the value-added tax and a host of other "austerity" measures so that Thailand could get a multibillion-dollar bailout to help it out of its currency turmoil.
It is ironic that communist China, notably absent from the IMF list of clients, provides the best evidence of the benefits of a supply-side approach. Supply-side economics emphasizes the incentive-driven, productive capacity of private sector activities, in contrast to the Keynesian demand-side strategies that use government-centered fiscal and monetary stimuli, along with measures to attain macroeconomic balances.
A World Record
China has averaged 10 percent real growth annually for nineteen years, a world record. This growth, admittedly, took off from an initially low starting point. But per capita income has reached about $2,750 in purchasing-power parity terms, which makes China "middle income," according to the World Bank, and it continues to grow at about 10 percent. The key ingredient fueling this expansion is massive, sustained tax reduction, which has provided financial resources for the burgeoning private sector and spawned a high savings rate. The ratio of investment to consumption has steadily risen, with funds disproportionately flowing into the nonstate sector.
China has averaged 10 percent real growth annually for nineteen years, a world record. The key ingredient? Massive, sustained tax reduction.
Let's look at the numbers. In 1978, the late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping launched economic reforms that set China on a path of rapid growth. Between 1978 and 1995 (the latest year for which Chinese State Statistical Bureau data are available), the gross domestic product (GDP) expanded from 362 billion yuan to 5.77 trillion yuan at current prices, or almost fivefold in real terms. Gross national product per capita rose from 379 yuan to 4,757 yuan (current prices), or fourfold in real terms. During this eighteen-year stretch, annual real growth averaged 10 percent, while real growth in per capita income averaged 8.5 percent. (The IMF's estimate of China's growth in 1996 is 9.7 percent.) If China can sustain this rate, national output will double again in seven years and quadruple in fourteen years. This growth has analysts projecting China's economy as the world's largest by 2020 in absolute terms and its people achieving parity with U.S. living standards by the middle of the twenty-first century.
-
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkeconomicclubaddress.html
But the most direct and significant kind of federal action aiding economic growth is to make possible an increase in private consumption and investment demand — to cut the fetters which hold back private spending. In the past, this could be done in part by the increased use of credit and monetary tools, but our balance of payments situation today places limits on our use of those tools for expansion. It could also be done by increasing federal expenditures more rapidly than necessary, but such a course would soon demoralize both the government and our economy. If government is to retain the confidence of the people, it must not spend more than can be justified on grounds of national need or spent with maximum efficiency. And I shall say more on this in a moment.
The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrents to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system — and this administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in 1963.
I'm not talking about a "quickie" or a temporary tax cut, which would be more appropriate if a recession were imminent. Nor am I talking about giving the economy a mere shot in the arm, to ease some temporary complaint. I am talking about the accumulated evidence of the last five years that our present tax system, developed as it was, in good part, during World War II to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; that it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incenitives [sic] for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking. In short, to increase demand and lift the economy, the federal government's most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures.
-
Lots of great stuff today on this thread, but it is a mystery to me why an extended discussion on tax rates would not be on the Tax thread :? :lol:
-
Because our debt crisis is THE focus of 2012, or at least should be. Although the MSM will be pushing something else as the dominant narrative like "Mr. President, are your opponents evil, stupid or racist, or some combination of all three"?
-
I get that, but this thread is for the dynamics of the Presidential race, not for the particulars of the various issues that will arise; otherwise this thread becomes a giant incoherent clusterfornication. OTOH if we keep a discussion on tax rates on the Tax Policy thread then someone who wants to find that post on Hong Kong's tax rate policy for example will have a better chance of finding it.
-
10-4
-
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/04/20/trump-on-kelo-i-happen-to-agree-with-it-100-percent/
Trump on Kelo: I happen to agree with it 100 percent
Credit Mark Levin with bursting the Trump bubble. Just last week he was the first voice on the right to thoroughly dissect Trump’s history of political activity (donations to Hillary, Weiner, Rahm, Schumer and others).
He was also the first to ask a number of important questions about Trump’s world view, including, “What does he think about Kelo?” The Club for Growth is out today with the answer … directly from Trump himself from 2005 on Fox News.
“I happen to agree with it 100 percent, not that I would want to use it. [note below, he would actually want to use it]
But the fact is, if you have a person living in an area that’s not even necessarily a good area, and government, whether it’s local or whatever, government wants to build a tremendous economic development, where a lot of people are going to be put to work and make area that’s not good into a good area, and move the person that’s living there into a better place — now, I know it might not be their choice — but move the person to a better place and yet create thousands upon thousands of jobs and beautification and lots of other things, I think it happens to be good.”
But the reality is, Trump did try to use the power of eminent domain to seize private property. He did this in Altlantic City, and it wasn’t to build an elementy school or even a “tremendous economic development.” He wanted to knock down an old lady’s home so he could build a parking lot for limousines near his casino.
Full disclosure: I used to work for the Institute for Justice, which successfully defended Vera Coking against Trump’s land grab in Atlantic City. More details about that case can be found here.
The Right’s love fest with Donald Trump is coming to an end. But will the media’s love affair with him ever end? The MSM isn’t known for vetting their own, so they’re likely to only give Trump the harry eyeball if he wins the nomination. Don’t forget, John McCain was the MSM’s second favorite candidate out of the entire 2008 field. And we know how well that ended.
-
Woof,
I think we can shut this thread down. The way it looks right now the fix is in for another 4 years of B.O. The Repubs and the Dem's seem to me to be the same party, the Politician Party. They are like two con men playing a mark between them. They act like they don't know eachother and one of them convinces you that you can make some big bucks off the other guy with just a small investment but in the end they're splitting your money and you are left holding a empty bag. I don't see anyone on the republican side that can beat Obama even as weak as he is right now and I don't think that is by accident. It's going to be like last time with McCain even if we get someone with a R by their name they'll be just as bad as B.O.
It really is time to start a third Party but it's almost impossible to get anywhere with one. It reminds me of how a local cab company keeps the competition out by having three differently named cab companies; the same guy owns all three. When an outside competitor looks at how small the market is and sees three cab companies already there then they just don't bother to try and get a piece.
P.C.
-
"They act like they don't know eachother and one of them convinces you that you can make some big bucks off the other guy with just a small investment but in the end they're splitting your money and you are left holding a empty bag."
Can you explain a little more what you mean? I think this is my point. The republicans are making a big mistake again. They will have trouble gaining market share with the present message that voting for them is going to help the average Joe more than voting crat.
The people left in the middle wind up endlessly going back from one side to the other picking the least of two evils. Tax steal and transfer wealth for votes just ruins our country. On the other hand letting the wealthy make their own rules to allow them to get filthy rich with the sales pitch they will bring us all along for the ride, I can assure you is NOT SELLING with with middle class America or with Independents.
I agree with Newt for example who was on radio yesterday saying we need an investigation of where all the bailout monies went from the Treasury to bankers. We also need to hold bankers who rigged the system, bribed extorted all over the place and many of whom certainly did steal monies. We need to hold rich AND the dole class accountable. Not one side or the other. We need to get rid of all deductions and make taxation truly fair. I am for cutting taxes big. But everone from the guy on the street to the big shots all must pay a fair share.
I hope this explains what I am saying. I know this is a winner strategy at least for middle or independents. The rich will always want the system rigged. And the growing class on the bottom will always wnat handouts and others to pay up . But this has got to stop on both ends.
-
Thanks to GM for Trumps view on Kelo, the 'right' to have your property taken for preferred private uses.
a) It means he shares no respect for founding or limiting principles on government, as I see them,
b) unscrupulous past business practices
c) Could not trust him to appoint Supreme Court Justices, in fact the opposite. I would trust him to appoint justices opposed to my own view of the constitution
d) and in keeping with nearly all liberal argument, he rests his rationalization on a false premise:
"...wants to build a tremendous economic development, where a lot of people are going to be put to work and make area that’s not good into a good area, and move the person that’s living there into a better place..."
'area that's not good' - Kelo was specifically NOT about removing blight which is already recognized as public purpose.
'move the person that’s living there into a better place' - NO! It is the opposite. A consensual, private purchase of the property is what moves a person into a better place. The Kelo decision along with a willing city council removes that requirement. Valuation law in taking prohibits putting a person in a better place. It puts you only in the same circumstance and worse because it takes away the real value of what you had which was ownership of a demanded location. Trump says he is smart so I say he knows this. As one who has been a victim of a private taking, I say as politely as I know how, he is a G*d d*amned f*cking liar and I will sit out or cast a third party vote rather than vote for a leading advocate of big, all-knowing government taking away private properties for their donors and constituents' preferred private purposes. What limits on government would you recognize if you couldn't see this one in front of your face?
-
I remember going to Resort International. The first Jersey casino that opened in the 70s. The firist legal csino outside Nevada. I remember seeing this tiny house in the middle of all these giant buildings. Someone told me it was some little old lady who refused to leave/sell her house so the big shots built towers all around her house leaving her with just tiny strip of land and driveway.
The message? You don't want to sell. So screw you. We'll just build it all up around you and drive you out.
It was sickening to look at. I guess it was better than today where the city can force someone to leave their home for the "public" good.
-
The purpose of Obama re-election fundraising is to scare away other Democrats, not Republicans. It is having no effect on Republicans, another one, Gary Johnson R-NM, jumped in today.
The early fund raising focus is designed as a war chest message to intimidate any/all challenges from within his own party.
Without listing out his problems again for re-election (unemployment? gas prices? debt?), would anyone like to predict if, who and when Dems will see a challenger from within his own party?
I say the first serious challenger in will change the dynamic of the race. Many thought leaders on the left have already spoken up against aspects of the Obama Presidency. Why wouldn't one serious potential candidate step up in defiance to the odds and throw his/her hat into the ring?
Obama could be out with his next big blunder and may very well lose the general election for what he has already done. Whoever is in the race with a credible candidacy could have a significant chance to be the next President of the United States when this one falls completely off the track.
Recall the audacity of Obama entering the race in 2007 against 'the incumbent' Hillary Clinton. It worked for him.
-
Clinton was supposed to be the dem's sacrificial lamb against the "sure to win a second term" Bush the elder.
-
That's right and he used his long shot status as a strength. That was from the opposing party, but still, how do you love your country, believe you have what it takes to be President, watch what is happening across the country and around the world right now, and conclude that this is not the time?
-----
Besides my endorsement of Tim Pawlenty who with about 4% support keeps getting mentioned with the serious contenders, I like the idea of Herman Cain and Allen West as a ticket, one served at the Fed, one in Afghanistan and in congress, one a business man and one a military man. With the older at the top of the ticket, I am looking for the potential of 16 years of continuity leading the country and the free world. Looking for articulation of unapologetic liberty and conservatism and looking for skill and confidence that will hold up through the campaign and shine through in the debates. They won't have to fake their tea party or outsider status. And enough clarity with the agenda that if they win they will know what to do.
I recall that Reagan in 1976 picked his running mate for balance while still contesting the nomination.
-
I like Cain and West. Hell, randomly picking names out of a phone book beats much of the 'pub front runners right now.
-
Most evenings I watch the Brett Baier Report on FOX especially the 20 minutes or so of conversation at the end of the hour. Charles Krauthammer is there most nights.
Recently the conversation has touched on Donald Trump and CK has mocked his candidacy. So tonight, prompted by BB, CK told that Trump called him earlier today! CK said DT handled himself well and seriously and assured CK that he was a serious man and that he is running.
We live in interesting times , , ,
The Adventure continues!
-
Don't be fooled by The Donald. Take it from one who knows: I'm a South Jersey gal who was raised on the outskirts of Atlantic City in the looming shadow of Trump's towers. All through my childhood, casino developers and government bureaucrats joined hands, raised taxes and made dazzling promises of urban renewal. Then we wised up to the eminent-domain thievery championed by our hometown faux free-marketeers.
America, it's time you wised up to Donald Trump's property redistribution racket, too.
Trump has been wooing conservative activists for months and flirting with a GOP presidential run -- first at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington and most recently at a tea party event in South Florida. He touts his business experience, "high aptitude" and "bragadocious" deal-making abilities. But he's no more a standard-bearer of conservative values, limited government and constitutional principles than the cast of "Jersey Shore."
Too many mega-developers like Trump have achieved success by using and abusing the government's ability to commandeer private property for purported "public use." Invoking the Fifth Amendment takings clause, real estate moguls, parking garage builders, mall developers and sports palace architects have colluded with elected officials to pull off legalized theft in the name of reducing "blight." Under eminent domain, the definition of "public purpose" has been stretched like Silly Putty to cover everything from roads and bridges to high-end retail stores, baseball stadiums and casinos.
While casting himself as America's new constitutional savior, Trump has shown reckless disregard for fundamental private property rights. In the 1990s, he waged a notorious war on elderly homeowner Vera Coking, who owned a little home in Atlantic City that stood in the way of Trump's manifest land development. The real estate mogul was determined to expand his Trump Plaza and build a limo parking lot -- Coking's private property be damned. The nonprofit Institute for Justice, which successfully saved Coking's home, explained the confiscatory scheme:
"Unlike most developers, Donald Trump doesn't have to negotiate with a private owner when he wants to buy a piece of property, because a governmental agency -- the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority or CRDA -- will get it for him at a fraction of the market value, even if the current owner refuses to sell. Here is how the process works.
"After a developer identifies the parcels of land he wants to acquire and a city planning board approves a casino project, CRDA attempts to confiscate these properties using a process called 'eminent domain,' which allows the government to condemn properties 'for public use.' Increasingly, though, CRDA and other government entities exercise the power of eminent domain to take property from one private person and give it to another. At the same time, governments give less and less consideration to the necessity of taking property and also ignore the personal loss to the individuals being evicted."
Trump has attempted to use the same tactics in Connecticut and has championed the reviled Kelo vs. City of New London Supreme Court ruling upholding expansive use of eminent domain. He told Fox News anchor Neil Cavuto that he agreed with the ruling "100 percent" and defended the chilling power of government to kick people out of their homes and businesses based on arbitrary determinations:
"The fact is, if you have a person living in an area that's not even necessarily a good area, and government, whether it's local or whatever, government wants to build a tremendous economic development, where a lot of people are going to be put to work and make (an) area that's not good into a good area, and move the person that's living there into a better place -- now, I know it might not be their choice -- but move the person to a better place and yet create thousands upon thousands of jobs and beautification and lots of other things, I think it happens to be good."
Like most statist promises of bountiful job creation, government-engineered redevelopment math rarely adds up. Trump's corporations have backed casino industry bailouts and wealth-redistributing "tax-increment financing" schemes -- the very kind of taxpayer-subsidized interventions we've seen on a grand scale under the Obama administration.
Championing liberty begins at the local level. There is nothing more fundamental than the principle that a man's home is his castle. Donald Trump's career-long willingness to trample this right tells you everything you need to know about his bogus tea party sideshow.
-
Yup.
-
"Championing liberty begins at the local level."
The problem with this is eminent domain is usually a local issue.
There are no more politics that are corrupt as those on the local, state level which is all nepotism, who you know, and totally corrupt deal making.
As for Trump, there was something on cable one time wherein a whole bunch of investors lost a ton investing with Trump in Mexico.
They lost their money and he was literally no where to be found.
-
Quite a feud going on between Mike Huckabee and Glen Beck, Beck was addressing it on the radio this morning. I was going to put it on the Beck thread but Huck is presumably a candidate.
Seemed to begin over Beck criticizing Huck's support for Michelle Obama's campaign against child obesity, a worthy cause, and expanded to calling out Huck's record as progressive. Huck says he has thus called him a cancer and a Nazi because Beck has used those terms to describe progressive tactics.
Beck explained and responding back with Huck's record as a progressive / non-conservative, this is a fight within the right that for sure Huckabee does not need. Both have radio shows with unlimited opportunity to respond to each other.
Beck exposes Huck's claim of cutting taxes as Governor. One of those was to exclude private lawn mowing from the sales tax and another was to exclude symphony tickets from the sales tax. Overall Huck raised taxes in Arkansas 47% according to Beck. Then he exposed Huck's illegal immigration stands and then the pardons.
Huck is a Christian and a pastor and giving people a second chance is what they do. But releasing one criminal every 4 days as Governor didn't work out for him; it led to the slaughter of 4 police officers, as GM has posted here. He should not have interfered with the justice system in that respect.
Picking a fight with Beck especially while he is down shows bad judgment for Huckabee IMO if he is a candidate. Support for the obesity program could have been easily defended and he could have drawn a distinction with Michelle Obama's position which calls for a complete federal takeover of all school nutrition including vending machines - if other means are unsuccessful.
Huckabee, attacking the Beck progressive conspiracy theory, should read Crafty's post today about spending drifting recently from 18% of GDP to 24.4% just or take a closer look at the advisers and czars that Beck has been attacking and exposing and point out where he is wrong.
-
If Huckabee is the Rep candidate I might just stay at home.
I don't know why he is on Fox so much.
He is the biggest bore on TV>
-
The Return of Dogs Against Romney
Ilya Somin • April 16, 2011 2:38 am
Dogs Against Romney is back for the 2012 campaign, and has established a website and twitter page (HT: Steve Bainbridge). The group is devoted to publicizing the notorious incident where Mitt Romney strapped the family dog Seamus in a dog carrier attached to the roof of his car, and then kept him there for a twelve hour-long trip until the dog relieved himself and ended up covered in excrement.
I am no great fan of Romney’s, largely because of his poor record on government spending and regulation while he was governor of Massachusetts. At the same time, I’m not sure that Romney was being deliberately cruel to his dog in this case or “torturing” it, as some claim. I think it’s more likely that his behavior was simply thoughtless and foolish.
That said, it’s surprising that this anecdote came to light because Romney himself proudly recounted it to the Boston Globe as an example of his skill at “crisis management.” I would not expect a prominent politician and leading presidential contender to have such a tin ear for how a story like this will play in the court of public opinion.
http://volokh.com/2011/04/16/the-return-of-dogs-against-romney/
-
(from Media Issues - coverage of birth certificate)
"Doug, you're too nice" - CCP, don't believe everything you read on the internet. :-)
His personal likability is higher than the support for his policies. Hard to say how that translates into votes in Nov 2012. If things are still bad, people may equate his personal shortcomings with his performance as President. Or still like him but vote for someone else.
"...we do need the politics of personal destruction (if we 'pardon' this phrase made famous by BJ bill jefferson Clinton), as well as beating him on the issues."
He deserves what he gets but it could easily backfire. Let's say he was covering up a big secret of his mother. I'm sure his damage control people are working full force, ready to spin it all by the time it comes out to make him the victim. Meanwhile unemployment is 12% in Calif, gas unaffordable, drilling outlawed, states bankrupt, debt downgraded, dollar imploding, economy stagnated, health care costs worse than ever with choices disappearing and waivers exploding, wars breaking out, etc.
"We need to dig and dig and dig. The more this guy gets exposed as a serial liar the better." - Yes, but there is plenty of material there based on policy alone. Again he deserve all the scrutiny. OTOH if it looks like that is the main strategy, it cheapens the political-economic-freedom arguments and could give him a way out. Best for the personal stuff to be done by fringe kooks- thank you Trump!
"illegals will be pardoned on January 19th!!!"
- Pardon is not a grant of citizenship. I think that has to go through the congress first for his signature. But your larger point is well-taken. Pardons, executive orders, recess appointments, agency and czar directives like the EPA action against fossil fuels and Dept. of Commerce against a free internet, plenty is being done outside of congressional approval.
Even if half or all of our current mess was George Bush's fault, we should know by now that a sharp left turn with Obama was not the right answer. As IMF points out, we will be overtaken by China on our current path during Obama's second term. OTOH, during the 50 consecutive months of job growth following the bush tax cuts, the growth in our economy was greater than the entire economy of China. The US economy is still capable of this kind of surge, greater than we have ever seen.
I would add that 'we' need to also carry the House and make serious gain in the Senate and achieve a mandate for policy change which will come mainly from tying Obama and those Dems to failed policies, not ineligibility claims.
-
"Meanwhile unemployment is 12% in Calif, gas unaffordable, drilling outlawed, states bankrupt, debt downgraded, dollar imploding, economy stagnated, health care costs worse than ever with choices disappearing and waivers exploding, wars breaking out, etc."
Everything a radical like Obama has dreamed for. How better to transform this nation then to encourage it to implode first.
Well Soros is getting richer by the minute while he Gates, and Buffet and little facebook and google squirts, all chime in about how the rich should pay more taxes.
We live in such illogical times.
-
Woof,
Like I said, the fix is in.
P.C.
-
I saw fomer Senator Rick Santorum interviewed by Bret Baier the other night and must admit I liked what I saw heard I don't think he has what it takes to win.
-
We need what we have not seen so far. Someone with the persuasive ability of Trump but the more trustworthiness, and gravitas (if you will) of a Santorum, Ryan, etc.
I don't know if one would call what Trump has as charisma per se, rather than just interesting and showmanship, but whatever it is it works.
I love what he says. He really sounds like he will fight to keep America numero uno.
Next to Trump, Boehner sounds like a total loser - even a joke. He is the House leadership?
He sounds wishy washy fitting for the crier of the House.
I don't want a nice sweet man. I want a dog fighter!
-
Trump is a skilled self promoter, and it's nice to see someone taking the fight to Obarry, but he's not who we want or need.
-
First, secure and maintain the Black vote. Make it about racism. White man is coming to get you if you don't support the One:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/04/26/tavis_smiley_2012_will_be_the_most_racist_election_ever.html
-
Trump is an alpha male, Obama , , , what's this phrase his people have been using recently? Obama "leads from (or is it "with his") behind."
Trump has what it takes temperamentally to spank a Meredith Veira and the rest of the Pravda press and to speak up FOR the United States. Its just that he stands for himself more than anything else and as expression thereof has a long history of positions whose only principle seems to be his own self-interest.
I saw Pawlenty interviewed last night on Bret Baier Report. Good job.
-
http://www.mediaite.com/online/donald-trump-drops-f-bomb-during-speech-at-las-vegas-casino/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+mediaite%2FClHj+%28Mediaite%29
Very presidential.
-
Then again, excluding the f-bomb it's kind of refreshing to hear blunt truthful talk.
“We build a school, we build a road, they blow up the school, we build another school, we build another road they blow them up, we build again, in the meantime we can’t get a f***ing school in Brooklyn,” Trump says.
-
I saw , , , what's his name, the black businessman/radio commentator , , , on Bret Baier last night. Good interview, also the footage of him showed him tactfully getting in President Bill Clinton's face about Hillary Care-- which shows he has been politically involved for quite some time now. I look forward to some excellent contributions in the debates from him.
-
If I recall correctly, The Donald promised to release his tax records when Obarry released his birth certificate.
Although it appears there is some controversy as to the released cert, I guess.....
-
I saw , , , what's his name, the black businessman/radio commentator , , , on Bret Baier last night. Good interview, also the footage of him showed him tactfully getting in President Bill Clinton's face about Hillary Care-- which shows he has been politically involved for quite some time now. I look forward to some excellent contributions in the debates from him.
Herman Cain?
-
Yes, thank you.
-
Then again, excluding the f-bomb it's kind of refreshing to hear blunt truthful talk.
“We build a school, we build a road, they blow up the school, we build another school, we build another road they blow them up, we build again, in the meantime we can’t get a f***ing school in Brooklyn,” Trump says.
I would point out to the Donald that the democrats he's supported in NY are a big part of the reason for the dysfunction in schools in Brooklyn and elsewhere in NYC.
-
Crafty wrote: "I saw Pawlenty interviewed last night on Bret Baier Report. Good job."
- With Churchill and Reagan unavailable, we need to check these candidates out and see who will step up, win and preside over a real reform of government. Jay Cost narrows it down to the Governors.
------------------
Jay Cost has given good political analysis at real clear politics, now at weekly standard. His take on the field is definitely against the grain:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/morning-jay-gop-looks-strong_558450.html (Excerpted)
The conventional wisdom is that the emerging Republican field for 2012 is a very weak one. However, like so much else in the topsy-turvy age of Obama, the conventional wisdom on this one is completely upside down. The idea of a weak GOP field is almost as ridiculous as a debate about a fifty-year-old birth certificate just as the economic recovery comes grinding to a halt. Almost.
In fact, Obama and the Democrats have good reason to worry about the emerging Republican field. Here are four big reasons why.
1. ...there are at least four serious contenders either in the field or looking likely to enter it: Mitch Daniels, Jon Huntsman, Tim Pawlenty, and Mitt Romney all bring a few qualities to the table that would serve them well in the general election. For starters, they’re all governors, meaning their résumés involve running state governments rather than getting bogged down in the ideological divisiveness of Congress. Daniels, Pawlenty, and Romney have all demonstrated crossover appeal – with Pawlenty and Romney winning in historically Democratic states, and Daniels winning reelection in 2008 in Indiana even as Obama carried the state. As for Huntsman’s appeal, Obama was worried enough about it to ship him off to China in 2009.
Republicans should be pleased about this. Evaluating candidates is a subjective process, of course, but a cycle in which the party can point to four serious contenders who would be formidable in a general election battle is a good one.
2. ...The GOP has no such class-based divisions, dominated as it is by the married, white, churchgoing middle class. Really, the major dividing line in the Republican party is between moderately and very conservative voters. This means that the nominee is usually the one who can convince Republicans that he’s conservative, but not so much so that he can’t win a general election.
3. A “fringe” nominee is unlikely... In all likelihood, the nominee in 2012 will be similar to the ones we’ve seen over the last 30 years.
4. An “enthusiasm gap” should not be a problem. Suppose that the GOP does nominate another candidate in line with the Bush-Dole-Bush-McCain tradition. Won’t enthusiasm be a trouble spot for the party base in 2012? Probably not. The conservative base's intense dissatisfaction with the Obama tenure should be more than enough to make up for the fact that the party is not in love with the nominee (and it is possible, by the way, that the party could fall in love with somebody). On top of that, there are enough very serious figures out there who make the base swoon – perfect for the vice presidential nomination. Marco Rubio is the first that comes to mind. Team the junior senator from Florida up with one of those serious would-be presidential nominees, set that ticket against Obama-Biden next year, and you’ll have a great recipe for the most enthusiastic GOP base in decades.
Bottom line: Democrats who are counting on the GOP giving this election away with a weak nominee need to find something else to pin their hopes on. In all likelihood, it isn’t going to happen, and Barack Obama will have to stand for reelection against a serious Republican ticket next year.
-
It's nice to see that my guy Huntsman is one of the four. :-D
-
"It's nice to see that my guy Huntsman is one of the four."
- I enjoyed the previous piece on Huntsman with his self reporting to wikipedia on what a deep and serious guy he is. Once he decides what he stands for, please share... :-)
Does he support the Ryan plan? Action in Libya, Syria? The EPA ruling on CO2? Entitlement reform? Healthcare repeal? What federal functions would he turn back to the states? What is his constitutional philosophy on judicial appointments? Moderate interpretation??
Where is he on that debate between Keynes and Hayek?
Would he open drilling? ANWR? Offshore? Deepwater?? Does he favor or oppose higher gas prices?
Did he differ with Obama on China and stand up to him? I think he did but I don't have any details. Did he question Obama on foreign policy before joining his team? What is our China policy if he is Pres.? What about North Korea?
I actually think a moderate Republican President serving with a conservative House and Senate could accomplish a great deal. Pawlenty is certainly more centrist than me. Daniels worked for Bush as budget director while spending escalated. Romney has questionable conservative credentials.
A lot is left to shake out.
-
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/04/15/why-is-huntsman-running-for-president/
Why is Huntsman running for President?
posted at 1:36 pm on April 15, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
Everyone agrees that Jon Huntsman is returning from China to seek the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. What may be more difficult to determine is why. The Daily Caller reprints two letters from Ambassador Huntsman to his former boss extolling the executive’s virtues, including his status as “a remarkable leader,” his “experience,” and “brilliant analysis of world events.” With a President like the one Huntsman describes already in office, why bother challenging him?
Jon Huntsman, President Obama’s outgoing ambassador to China, is considering running against his boss in 2012 as a Republican.
But two handwritten letters from Huntsman obtained by The Daily Caller raise the question of why he’s not campaigning for Obama instead.
“You are a remarkable leader,” Huntsman wrote to Obama in an Aug. 16, 2009 note, underlining the word “remarkable,” “and it has been a great honor getting to know you.”
Click over to read the letters in their entirety to get a sense of just how obsequious Huntsman got in buttering up the boss. His efforts at blowing sunshine even got directed to Bill Clinton’s skirt in a missives addressed to the former President. Huntsman wrote that Hillary Clinton is “well-read, personable, and has even more charisma than her husband!” And yes, the exclamation point is a direct quote.
Hunstman’s team told the Daily Caller that the leaked letters show just how much the administration fears a Huntsman bid, but I suspect that Huntsman might have guessed wrong about the source. If Huntsman does run for the nomination, he’ll probably focus on attacking Obama’s foreign policy, which means attacking Hillary either directly or indirectly. This looks like an attempt to blunt the impact of Huntsman’s criticisms, as well as some payback for laying the groundwork of a presidential bid while still serving in the Obama administration. If they really feared Huntsman, they would have leaked this in December, not April.
Huntsman doesn’t have much of a chance in this cycle anyway, but the letters don’t add up to a boost in confidence that Huntsman would provide any sharp change in direction from his boss.
-
The Huntsman letters are interesting. I give him the 'remarkable leader' part if you are his appointee, Obama did run a remarkable campaign and that letter was early in the Presidency. A 'great honor getting to know you' as well, it is a level of respect anyone should have for a new President - before you get to know him.
But Hillary is 'charismatic'? :oops: And for Obama: “experience,” what experience? And “brilliant analysis of world events” - who knew? I'm sure he will have the opportunity explain and clarify. Maybe something was going on behind the scenes that we missed. :-) I take these to mean that Huntsman's skill is all about schmoozing and BSing, which is maybe or maybe not the same skill set that one would use to solve the Palestinian question or balance the budget. Personally I don't think next year will be the year of the schmoozer.
Huntsman would fit pretty well on the short list for taking Biden's place whether he runs in the Republican primaries or not. It would be one more way for Obama to appear more centrist without moving an inch.
-----
Developments in my prediction that Obama will not be nominee of his own party... two polls have him at 40% approval (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/31/usobama-approval-40-appro_2_n_843052.html http://maristpoll.marist.edu/428-obamas-handling-of-the-economy-at-all-time-low/); Gallup and Zogby have him at 41%. (That means 30s by the end of the summer IMO.) Quinnipiac has him 10 points upside down in Pennsylvania, a state he won by 11 points! Try to chart a path to victory for him that involves losing Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
I am not saying it is over; I am saying that by the end of a summer of high unemployment and higher gas prices, Dems will need to at least explore their options.
Today Dems seem lost and just hoping for a weak opponent. They keep hoping he will get his magic back, but the Greek columns were fake. Dems have lost the independents who thought he didn't mean what he said and they lost the energy of the base who thought he did mean what he said. They lost the 2010 elections. They are losing the budget fight. (http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/americans-favor-republicans-handling-of-budget--poll) They are losing crucial states and have no idea which direction to turn.
Right now Obama has all party insiders and donors locked up and on board with nowhere else to turn - just like Hillary did 4 years ago.
-
Doug, you asked about Huntsman on a different posting, but I agree, time will tell after he explains his position of numerous issues.
But I like the fact, perhaps unlike many on this forum, that he seems to be right/center rather than extreme anything. Obama is too left,
others are too right for my taste.
Also, in our shrinking world, like it or not, foreign policy is up front and center. This too is Huntsman's strong point. Not to mention his
knowledge of China which I think is a huge plus. Plus he was governor of Utah and from all accounts he did a good job.
Frankly, I think he is electable. Ideology is important, but you need to win the election to make a difference. Better than Obama don't you think? :-D
And for you in particular Doug, I would think you would like the fact that he is strong Pro-Life.
-
Huntsman should challenge Obama for the primary then.
"Bootlicking America back to greatness!" Huntsman-2012
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/04/29/black_chamber_of_commerce_president_blasts_marxist_brownshirt_obama.html
Obviously racist.
-
http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/15/jon-huntsmans-love-letters/2/
Don't click if you are diabetic or prone to projectile vomiting.
-
Thank you JDN, nice post. We come at this from slightly different directions. Where you would like more centrism, I look for a principled conservative that is competent and draws centrists toward conservatism. (Although no one has drawn more people toward conservatism than Obama.)
Looking at Huntsman I find he touts more his skills than his principles, somewhat Clintonesque (without the blue dress), and the 6 years of Clinton serving with a conservative House and Senate were not bad times at all by today's standards.
On foreign policy I don't know if his experience representing the Obama administration in China will be helpful or any clue what the Huntsman Doctrine will be. I honestly don't know what our policy is. Our relationship with China seems fairly neutral right now with two giant countries screwed up in different ways.
"I would think you would like the fact that he is strong Pro-Life."
- So was John Kerry, lol and Clinton - safe legal and rare (at a million a year). In my view, if he (or any candidate/President) is able to read and comprehend the constitution I wouldn't think his personal view of that as a federal official should be of any concern to me. I wonder which article authorizes federal funding of abortion or prohibits the state regulation of it? The relevance there as President will come down to Supreme Court appointments and again I will look to his principles and convictions to predict that.
I like some of Huntsman's ideas, just not the part of them being government-centric. I expect to vote for him if it is he vs. Obama. If he turns out to be another wishy washy McCain-like candidate (and McCain had far more national experience than any of these candidates), and has to reach back to the right during the final stretch - that is not the best strategy to win. Also there are times where winning is not winning IMO, when it leaves my side endorsing the wrong policies and principles.
He is certainly as qualified as any and like him or not he would widen the choices and sharpen the debates. Like GM says, now he needs to decide which side to join. After all, he is a centrist.
I would love to see a moderate Dem or competent centrist of any kind contest the Dem side. Everyone wants to capture the middle. If a true centrist won the Dem and ran against someone too far to the right (whatever that means :-))... that would be a nice win-win situation.
-
"My only regret is that we were unable to find time for a China discussion before next week’s departure for Beijing." - Huntsman to Obama
Unf*kcingBelievable.
A Nobel ceremony, 65 rounds of golf, NCAA picks, beer summit, fund raisers, date night in NYC, but no time for a "China discussion" before sending your representative to a third world nuclear power oppressive regime, biggest polluter on the planet, with a seat on the security council and the world's second largest economy. What's to talk about?
Hard to believe the Obama camp leaked that letter. And who takes that job without first having "a China discussion" with the boss??
I don't feel so bad not knowing what our China policy is.
They stood together at the appointment photo-opp and did NOT have a China discussion, but there is no indication in these letters or anything else published that Obama has ever directly spoken with Huntsman. The letter thanked him for his 'note'. Searching google, it looks like Rahm set up the hiring. http://www.ksl.com/?sid=6506779&nid=148 He met with the transition team before the announcement. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22589.html Huntsman came to the White House for the Hu state dinner and sat in the front row. How close is that??
Or as current chief of staff Daley puts it with a smile: "the closeness in which he worked with the president is most appreciated."
-
You'd have to have a China policy first. I don't think "PLeeeeeeeeeeze keep buying our debt!!!!!" counts as a policy.
-
I think everyone is happy to see Bin Laden gone, burt what impact will this have on the election?
Well, it can only help Obama.
"Yet it is already clear that assuming the facts hold as we know them now, President Barack Obama and his national security team have been enormously strengthened in the near term. The outpouring of joyous crowds on the streets of New York and Washington -- where people were chanting "USA! USA!" -- show that the news not only electrified Americans but brought us together as a people in a way we haven't seen since 9/11."
"Sunday night was the best of the Obama presidency, injecting a much needed boost into his credibility as a leader."
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/05/02/gergen.obama.osama/index.html
-
http://articles.latimes.com/1991-01-31/news/mn-457_1_gulf-war
THE GULF WAR: The Home Front : Poll: High Marks for Bush
January 31, 1991
Two weeks into the Persian Gulf War, Californians overwhelmingly approve of President Bush's decision to attack Iraq and of his handling of the crisis in the Middle East, A NEW LOS ANGELES TIMES POLL FOUND. The poll also revealed that 80% of those surveyed across the state give high marks to Bush's performance as president, which is in line with a nationwide survey conducted shortly after the fighting began. Surprisingly, there were no regional differences reflected in the survey, with 70% of those surveyed in both Los Angeles and San Francisco, for example, agreeing with the President's decision to go to war. Only 44% of blacks agreed with Bush's decision to launch hostilities, compared with 80% of whites.
-
So, from memory, Bush 41 had a national 90% polling the year before he lost re-election to Clinton, yes?
-
A little different; so much can and did go wrong with the war.
Hard to see any negative for finding and killing Bin Laden. Something Bush tried and failed to do.
I'm not saying this guarantees him being re-elected, but this is a huge foreign policy boost for Obama, one that he will be able to point to through the elections in 2012.
-
No doubt there will be props to Bush too , , ,
"Detainees at the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, had given the courier’s pseudonym to American interrogators and said that the man was a protégé of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the confessed mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks. American intelligence officials said Sunday night that they finally learned the courier’s real name four years ago, but that it took another two years for them to learn the general region where he operated."
Returning to the point in question: We need to remember the roll of Perot in derailing Bush 1.
And yes, the kill of OBL will help BO.
-
"Something Bush tried and failed to do."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42853221/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/
Senior White House officials said early Monday that the trail that led to Osama bin Laden began before 9/11, before the terror attacks that brought bin Laden to prominence. The trail warmed up last fall, when it discovered an elaborate compound in Pakistan.
"From the time that we first recognized bin Laden as a threat, the U.S. gathered information on people in bin Laden's circle, including his personal couriers," a senior official in the Obama administration said in a background briefing from the White House.
After the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, "detainees gave us information on couriers. One courier in particular had our constant attention. Detainees gave us his nom de guerre, his pseudonym, and also identified this man as one of the few couriers trusted by bin Laden." (Detainees, like in the Gitmo facility Obama was going to close within the first year of his presidency? Were these detainees waterboarded?-GM)In 2007, the U.S. learned the man's name.
In 2009, "we identified areas in Pakistan where the courier and his brother operated. They were very careful, reinforcing belief we were on the right track."
In August 2010, "we found their home in Abbottabad," not in a cave, not right along the Afghanistan border, but in an affluent suburb less than 40 miles from the capital.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/04/us/the-1992-elections-news-analysis-the-economy-s-casualty.html
THE 1992 ELECTIONS: NEWS ANALYSIS; The Economy's Casualty
By R. W. APPLE Jr
Published: November 04, 1992
In the end it was the faltering economy, which had bedeviled him all year, that did George Bush in.
From the New Hampshire primary in February, through the party conventions this summer, to the start of the general-election campaign on Labor Day, public opinion held remarkably steady: three-quarters of the American people, according to New York Times/CBS News polls, disapproved of the way the President was handling the economy.
Mr. Bush failed to change their minds with his furious closing onslaught against Bill Clinton's character. More than 7 voters in 10 said in interviews as they left their polling places yesterday that they considered the economy not so good or poor, and a big majority opted for giving the Arkansas Governor a chance to turn it around. Though many had doubts about a man untried on the national stage, they had lost faith in Mr. Bush's ability to do the job, and they found Ross Perot too much of a gamble.
--------Snip--
It was not just the hard economic statistics that dogged the President, not just the shuttered shops and lost jobs from Alameda, Calif., to Zanesville, Ohio, that cost him dear. It was also a pervasive if less quantifiable sense of economic foreboding, a fear that the United States was losing its manufacturing base and economic leadership to Germany and Japan.
The current recession had an extra political cost that earlier ones did not, because it hit not only manual laborers but also large numbers of white-collar, and highly skilled, highly paid blue-collar workers who suspected that their jobs were gone forever.
If there was a leitmotif to the 1992 campaign, it was the comment heard on a thousand doorsteps and a hundred bar stools: "I'm worried my kids will never have it as good as I do."
Such economic worries easily overcame the social concerns that had dominated most of the last six Presidential elections, all but one of them won by the Republicans. Concern about jobs -- and about the closely allied subjects of health care and education -- trumped racial tensions, fears about crime and even fervent appeals to patriotism.
That was especially true among the urban, socially conservative, largely Catholic Democrats who have been voting for Republican Presidential candidates in recent decades -- a pivotal block this year. Exit polling by Voter Research and Surveys, a consortium of the leading television networks, showed that half the Democrats who voted for Ronald Reagan and half those who backed Mr. Bush four years ago came back to Mr. Clinton in yesterday's balloting.
So George Bush suffered the fate of William Howard Taft and Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter, the only other elected Presidents in this century to be turned out of the Oval Office.
In one important sense, his defeat was the most ignominious of all, because he had held such a commanding position, with a stratospheric 88 percent approval rating in March of last year, and allowed it to disintegrate so quickly.
"He was the king of the mountain after the Persian Gulf War," said J. Robinson West, a Republican who served in both the Ford and Reagan Administrations. "He could have achieved almost anything. He was so popular that if he had drawn up a program, gone to Capitol Hill and battled for it, Congress would not have dared defy him. But he didn't do anything at all."
-
Here it comes. He is now the greatest leader of all time and all questions about his commitment to America as we knew it are suddenly not valid. I thought the mention that he instructed Panetta to make the getting of Osama a top priority was rather shameless. As though it wasn't already a top priority? Narcissist aside, it is a great day for America. BTW it is no coincidence it was announced the same day as Hitler's death.
***US President Barack Obama announces the death of Osama Bin Laden at The White ouse in Washington DC on … By Slate slate – Mon May 2, 6:21 am ET
By John Dickerson
Slate
At approximately 11:30 p.m. Sunday, President Obama announced to the nation that on his orders U.S forces had killed Osama Bin Laden. His reputation for lawyerly inaction may never recover.
Obama's critics have said that he is a weak leader in general and in particular does not understand what must be done to combat terrorism. "They are very much giving up that center of attention and focus that's required," said former Vice President Dick Cheney in March 2009, in a typical remark. Yet what emerges from the details of Bin Laden's killing (offered, like the heroic accounts of the Bush years, entirely by officials who work for the sitting president) is that from early in his administration Obama was focused on killing Osama Bin Laden and that he was involved in the process throughout.
In June 2009, Obama directed his CIA director to "provide me within 30 days a detailed operation plan for locating and bringing to justice" Osama Bin Laden. By August 2010 intelligence officials had identified the suspicious compound where Osama lived. Thirty-five minutes outside Islamabad, the walls were up to 18 feet high and topped with barbed wire. The largest structure, a three-story building, had very few windows. Though the house was valued at $1 million, it had no Internet or phone service. Its residents, unlike their neighbors, burned their trash.
Detainees being held at Guantanamo provided some of the strongest information about those who were trusted by Bin Laden. They identified a courier and his brother who lived inAbbottabad, Pakistan, an affluent suburb where a lot of retired Pakistani military officers live.
[ For complete coverage of politics and policy, go to Yahoo! Politics ]
The final phase of the painstaking process started in mid-February. Intelligence officials started to get good information on the compound. A series of meetings were held in the White House to develop aggressive intelligence gathering operations. A family lived at the compound that matched the description of the Bin Laden family. By mid-March the president was chairing the national security meetings on the operation. (In all he would chair five such meetings, including the ones on the day the operation took place.)
(Commentary and analysis on killing Osama bin Laden)
Early Friday morning before departing to view tornado damage in Alabama, the president gave the order to initiate the operation to kill Bin Laden. On Sunday, he met throughout the day in the Situation Room, making final preparations and receiving updates.
The assault team arrived by helicopter. Administration officials were vague about what happened next. Bin Laden "did resist the assault force" and he was killed in a firefight, which leaves plenty of room for details to come out in the screenplay. Bin Laden's oldest son and the two couriers were also killed. One woman, whom a senior administration official said was used as a shield by one of the men, was killed. Two other women were injured.
At about 4 p.m., the president received first word that his orders had very likely led to the successful assassination of the architect of the greatest attack ever on America.
No other country, including Pakistan, knew of the attack, but the president in his remarks was clear that the operation couldn't have taken place without the help of the Pakistani government. "Our counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan helped lead us to Bin Laden and the compound where he was hiding."
The president went to sleep to the sound of cheering outside the White House. At Ground Zero in New York and towns across the country, people gathered to sing the national anthem and chant "USA! USA!" It was a flicker of the post-9/11 unity that the president had referenced in his remarks earlier in the evening.
In his remarks announcing the operation, the president sought to rekindle that feeling, but he went further. He made the latest in a series of paeans to the American spirit. Under assault from conservatives who say he does not believe in the idea of American exceptionalism, Obama took the opportunity to reiterate his belief in the unique qualities of his countrymen:
Today's achievement is a testament to the greatness of our country and the determination of the American people. … Tonight, we are once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our mind to. That is the story of our history, whether it's the pursuit of prosperity for our people, or the struggle for equality for all our citizens; our commitment to stand up for our values abroad, and our sacrifices to make the world a safer place. Let us remember that we can do these things not just because of wealth or power, but because of who we are: one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Thus did the president both answer his conservative critics and rise above them. Yes, he was saying, I do believe in American exceptionalism—and so should any terrorist who would wish America ill. All in all, it was a good night to be president.***
-
"But he didn't do anything at all"
That is exactly right. The economy was faltering and he said, and did nothing ( some words about just giving it sometime.)
If he had just done anything at all. At least made some effort as though he even cared. Hhe would have won. The silence was deafening, maddening and indeed at the time - astounding! I recall thinking why doesn't this guy say something. Anything. It was like he was in la la land and his lose finally woke him up to reality. But by then it was too late.
-
ccp,
You talking about Bush 41, 43 or both?
-
Bush 41 broke his "Read my lips, no new taxes!" pledge.
-
Good thing Obama has been so diligent in keeping all his pledges.
-
"You talking about Bush 41, 43 or both?"
Oops. I said W but I meant HW (41).
My take was the read my lips no new taxes pledge was more a rallying point from the left than a real reason he lost.
Sort of like Dukakis lost because he was ambushed by the guy he released from prison who went out and commited another rape.
The MSM went out of their way to turn it into a racial thing by highlighting the guy was Black. Most of us didn't know or care otherwise. It was a rally cry from the liberal media more than a real issue.
Or that Kerry was "swift boated" aka a dirty low down Republican trick. Another figment of the liberal media to deamonize the right.
As for 1991-2 -
My opinion is we were in a recession during the end of HW tenure and he just ignored it. If only he showed he was paying attention to it and at least trying to fix it. I think he would have won in '92.
Then again in those days it was believed that the economy was more out of the President's control and it would right itself with the usual ebbs and flows of the economic cycle. HW appeared to believe this and thought a laissez faire approach made sense, I guess.
I kind of think that was the beginning of the trend towards it is the job of the President to respond to every single crises and fix it immediately and if he doesn't respond to polls he is no good.
Now we have polls on everything several times a day and constant barrage of the politicians to respond immediately.
-
http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=27305
“Cheney’s assassination squad just killed bin Laden”
Mark Hemingway:
Under Bush, JSOC was routinely smeared by the left and placed at the center of many Bush/Cheney conspiracy theories. Specifically, New Yorker reporter Seymour Hersh alleged it was Dick Cheney’s personal assassination squad:
"After 9/11, I haven't written about this yet, but the Central Intelligence Agency was very deeply involved in domestic activities against people they thought to be enemies of the state. Without any legal authority for it. They haven't been called on it yet."
Hersh then went on to describe a second area of extra-legal operations: the Joint Special Operations Command. "It is a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently," he explained. "They do not report to anybody, except in the Bush-Cheney days, they reported directly to the Cheney office. ... Congress has no oversight of it."
"It's an executive assassination ring essentially, and it's been going on and on and on," Hersh stated. "Under President Bush's authority, they've been going into countries, not talking to the ambassador or the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving. That's been going on, in the name of all of us."
And yet today, many on the left seem to think this all just fine and dandy, now that their guy is in office.
Which is cool with me, so long as they continue to miss the bigger picture. Namely, that we notice all this.
And bin Laden’s death won’t make a speck of difference for Democrats come November of 2012. When $5 gas, $12 coffee, and $4 bread loaves, and a dying economy take center stage. The President can take credit for military operations whose methods in other contexts (and under different leadership) he’s condemned; he can play with the unemployment numbers to show a decline when we all know the numbers are actually growing; he can pretend that the economy is bouncing back — and the media will dutifully repeat this absurdity.
But what he can’t do is hide the inflation; or tell the real unemployed and underemployed that their situation is bettering.
And that means it’s too bad for those beating their chests today that the next election isn’t going to be held this afternoon. And even if it were, I suspect Obama’d lose in a landslide.
So we got that going for us.
-
http://www.cnbc.com/id/42872032
The euphoric scenes that met the death of Osama Bin Laden will not boost President Barack Obama’s re-election hopes, according to Alastair Newton, a political analyst at Nomura in London.
“The immediate reaction in the US notwithstanding, 'normal business' will soon be resumed in US politics. There will be no change on the fiscal/debt polarization and contrary to some commentators' reaction, definitely no election boost for Obama,” said Newton in an interview with CNBC on Tuesday.
With little or no operational control over al-Qaeda in recent years, Newton believes Osama’s death will have little impact on the terror group’s ability to mount attacks.
“Bin Laden’s role as head of al-Qaeda seems to have been largely symbolic for some years now, he was not responsible for operational planning and decision-making,” he added.
Following the brief rally on news of Bin Laden’s death, stocks gave up gains and Newton told CNBC that he agrees with the market reaction.
“There is no readily identifiable substantive reason for the market rally which the announcement of his bin Laden’s death triggered,” he said.
-
I think everyone here agrees or should agree; Thank you Mr. President, that was a job well done!
This will give Obama a short term pop in the polls. And if the election was next week, I would expect him to win.
I mean who is going to beat him? Trump? :-)
However the election is a long way off. People have short memories. While this event may fortify his right to
say he is a "strong" President, deflecting the naysayers accusing him of being "weak" and will boost his National Security standing,
I too think the next election will be about the economy. And it should be.
-
"This will give Obama a short term pop in the polls."
Well no bounce short term :-D
Comparing Bamster's "leadership" to WH Bushes as some liberal media are wont to do, is like comparing Joe Biden to Winston Chruchill.
****Tuesday, May 03, 2011 The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 26% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Thirty-six percent (36%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -10 (see trends).
The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates are also available on Twitter and Facebook
Overall, 49% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. Fifty percent (50%) disapprove.
Daily updates are based upon nightly telephone interviews and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. As a result, two-thirds of the interviews for today’s update were conducted before news was released about the death of Osama bin Laden. Thursday will be the first update based entirely upon interviews conducted after that event. Results from the single night of data collected on Monday shows a modest improvement in the president’s Approval Index rating. However, there was no improvement in the president’s overall approval rating. Caution should always be used when interpreting a single night sample from a tracking poll.
The president’s job approval ratings have been remarkably stable over the past year-and-a-half when viewed on a month-by-month basis.
During the month of April, the number of voters unaffiliated with either major party grew for the fourth straight month.
Republicans continue to hold a modest advantage on the Generic Congressional Ballot.
The Rasmussen Employment Index gained some ground last month but is still down from the start of 2011. Nineteen percent (19%) of workers report that the employers are hiring while 24% still see lay-offs. It has been nearly three years since the number reporting hiring topped the number with lay-offs.
Rasmussen Reports is pleased to announce that we now have more than 100,000 Twitter followers. Sign up at twitter.com/RasmussenPoll.
(More Below)
A Wall Street Journal profile called Scott "America's Insurgent Pollster." The Washington Post calls him "a driving force in American politics." If you'd like Scott to speak at your conference or event, contact Premiere Speakers Bureau. Follow Scott on Facebook.
In a book released last year, Scott observed that, "The gap between Americans who want to govern themselves and politicians who want to rule over them may be as big today as the gap between the colonies and England during the 18th century." He added that "The American people don't want to be governed from the left, the right, or the center. They want to govern themselves." In Search of Self-Governance is available at Amazon.com.
MAD AS HELL: How the Tea Party Movement is Fundamentally Remaking Our Two-Party System, by Scott Rasmussen and Doug Schoen, can be ordered atAmazon.com, Barnes and Noble, Borders and other outlets. It's also available in bookstores everywhere.
It is important to remember that the Rasmussen Reports job approval ratings are based upon a sample of likely voters. Some other firms base their approval ratings on samples of all adults. President Obama's numbers are always several points higher in a poll of adults rather than likely voters. That's because some of the president's most enthusiastic supporters, such as young adults, are less likely to turn out to vote. It is also important to check the details of question wording when comparing approval ratings from different firms.*****
-
"For the first time in my adult life.....I am proud of Buraq H. Obama".
-
Seriously, he only played 9 holes of golf that day. Probably the most focused he's ever been on the job. The definite high point of his time as president.
Now, if there is a late night press conference to announce that he's killed the nat'l debt, or 0bamacare at the least.....
-
As for the "pop in the polls" I didn't say how big a pop. :-D And overall, it can only be good for him.
As for the referenced daily polls, let's wait before we reach a conclusion.
"Daily updates are based upon nightly telephone interviews and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. As a result, two-thirds of the interviews for today’s update were conducted before news was released about the death of Osama bin Laden. Thursday will be the first update based entirely upon interviews conducted after that event."
-
Will Obama seize the advantage and press the war with the treasure trove of intel we now have?
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/02/jackpot-u-s-finds-huge-amount-of-data-on-bin-ladens-computers/
-
"Will Obama seize the advantage and press the war with the treasure trove of intel we now have?"
I dunno. But he is already playing the lets use this moment to all get along card. Like he did with Gabby.
Which is code for do what I want or you are not compromising.
A Bamster is a Bamster is a Bamster.
Did anyone notice the similarity of Bamster mocking Trump at the Press dinner (which is in itself and elitist joke) to how he had the Supreme Coutr Justices, and Ryan sitting in front of him will he towers on the podium and mock them.
Mock and belittle your oponents. Isn't that the strategy when logic no longer works?
-
Pulling the trigger on Bin Laden was a no brainer. Anyone in the seat would have done it, even Biden, once they explained who he was and how he presented a threat to Amtrak.
Will Obama press the fight, meaning "kinetic military activity" against Pakistani intel/military/political figures?
-
The discussion yesterday about how the failed Bush 1 reelection parallels to today was excellent. He got a well deserved war bump in popularity and then later lost for other reasons. The Perot factor was big, the recession was exaggerated but real as was his inability to acknowledge it. And the broken 'no new taxes' pledge was used ruthlessly against him.
The strangest part of that episode to me was that the opponents of Bush who ripped him the worst for raising taxes would themselves have raised taxes further! What it exposed was weakness.
It was the 'centrists' Treasury Sec. Brady and Budget Director Darmon that pushed him hard and publicly, with all the leaks, into raising taxes. He would have had to oppose his own highest advisers, oppose an emboldened Dem congress (and have a backbone) in order to not break his pledge. He had no Paul Ryan or anyone else writing or pushing an alternative. It wasn't opposition to the 'revenue enhancers' that energized his opponents, it was just that it exposed a flaw. This guy wasn't a 3rd term of Reagan, he is at least on this key issue a spineless centrist that leans with the wind, whose word means nothing. Much like today.
Lesson learned, caving on principle, being a Dem-lite / RINO in this case in order to win favor with moderates and liberals and the press and the people, gained him nothing. All those same people turned on him instantly once the deal was inked. Just like they did after George W Bush teamed with Ted Kennedy on a federal education expansion, a new drug entitlement, campaign finance reform and a failed amnesty initiative. They was no political gain for compromising or selling out on principles.
-
"They was no political gain for compromising or selling out on principles."
Great post and on this point you are exactly correct. I though compromise was a good idea vis avis Bush W and Rove etc.
But I now realize that there is no compromise with the left. It is never enough. Every compromise will be met with more of a fanatic progressive agenda. There is no end to their agenda until they have destroyed the USA as we know it. One world government, no carbon fuels, one class, no personal responsibility, complete control.
Compromise from the right is met with being taken advantage of and being one step closer toward their vision of nirvana.
I say no more compromise.
-
Pulling the trigger on Bin Laden was a no brainer.
I guess I spoke too soon. It wasn't a no-brainer for our Peter Principle community organizer in chief. :roll:
Obama took SIXTEEN HOURS to make up his mind about Bin Laden mission
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 7:20 PM on 3rd May 2011
President 'slept on it' as tense military chiefs awaited decision
Action started the next morning when Obama declared 'it's a go'
Mission delayed by one day after heavy cloud cover on Saturday night
Navy seals dodged Pakistani security to reach Bin Laden's lair
Outpouring of emotion on streets down to 'the same sense of unity that prevailed on 9/11' Obama told members of Congress
Barack Obama kept military commanders hanging by declaring he would 'sleep on it' before taking 16 hours to give the go-ahead to raid Bin Laden's compound.
Hit squads of specialist Navy Seals - who were not even told who they were preparing to capture - had practised the mission at two reconstructions of the terror chiefs sprawling compound.
The mission looked set to be given the all clear last Thursday when analysts confirmed beyond doubt that Bin Laden was in busy town of Abbottabad in northern Pakistan.
All smiles: President Barack Obama beamed broadly as he presents Michelle Shearer at the National Teacher Of The Year awards at the White House in Washington today
But the president stunned officials when he told a national security meeting that he wanted more time to think - and disappeared out of the room.
'I'm not going to tell you what my decision is now - I'm going to go back and think about it some more,' said Obama, according to the New York Times. He then added 'I'm going to make a decision soon.'
The head of the CIA and other senior intelligence officers who were keen to proceed were left tense as they waited for the president's decision.
But the next morning after 16 hours, Obama summoned four top aides to the White House Diplomatic Room. Before they could speak, the president put his fist on the table and declared 'It's a go'.
With those three words, the greatest military operation in recent history began. Had it not been for heavy cloud cover on Saturday, troops would have been deployed then.
But they waited another day, and reached Pakistan just before midnight on Sunday evening. Obama refused to tell Pakistan about the mission in case it was leaked by jihadist sympathisers within the administration and Bin Laden took flight.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1383010/Osama-Bin-Laden-dead-Obama-took-16-hours-make-mind.html
-
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/315658.php
7 Minutes Vs. 16 Hours: How The Media Reports Delay
George Bush was relentlessly mocked for waiting seven minutes (actually waiting for his security detail to ready the exit and for his vehicle to be readied) before leaving the school he was visiting. He calmly finished reading My Pet Goat for the kids before going to his now-ready helicopter.
On the other hand, after Obama was told (most likely for the fifteenth time) that the CIA was really, really, really quite confident that Osama bin Ladin was at that compound in Abbottabad, he decided he needed to sleep on it.
Sixteen hours later (hours during which Osama might have fled-- bear in mind, his courier's name had just been outed by WikiLeaks), he made up his mind.
How does the media report this? Well, relying upon those in Obama's inner circle (that is to say, his political flunkies and spinners), we're told this:
"But the next morning after 16 hours, Obama summoned four top aides to the White House Diplomatic Room. Before they could speak, the president put his fist on the table and declared 'It's a go'."
Why does it matter that he did this "before they could speak"? They had spoken already yesterday when they strongly, strongly urged the president to give the order, and he had decided to sleep on it.
They were only waiting on him, after all.
So, after 16 hours of vacillation, during which the operation might have been rendered a failure by intervening invents, he fist-bumps a piece of furniture and finally makes up his mind.
This is something to brag about? This is, in Howard Fineman's words, "almost Biblical"?
Seems like a very cautious, feckless, indecisive individual delaying and delaying on critical decisions and then attempting to sound heroic when he finally does what he's being paid to do.
Thanks to OCBill. This is from the Daily Mail, via Drudge.
To Be Honest: I don't begrudge a president some thinking time before a big decision.
But the media still hasn't explained to me which of the previous presidents and which of the potential/hypothetical future presidents wouldn't have ordered this.
If everyone including Jimmy Carter would have ordered this, then I'm afraid I don't see why President Made a Poopie should be so praised for doing what everyone else would have done. That is, why praise him for being ordinary?
And yes, even Jimmy Carter probably would have ordered this. At least the 1970s version Bear in mind: He did order a failed hostage rescue attempt -- also fraught with peril, obviously, since the choppers crashed in the desert.
A commando hostage rescue is a lot trickier than a hit, of course. A lot more moving pieces, and you have to get all those people safely away.
So why should I praise Obama for a choice that every single one of his predecessors and every plausible successor would also make?
And probably not requiring 16 hours to do so, either.
-
Sleep on it? That's one hell of a sleep for a Commander in Chief. It tells me that whoever he wanted to run this past, a crucial foreign policy question, was not in the room of most trusted foreign policy advisers. When he left, he didn't know. When he returned, he knew his answer. No follow up questions, no He also knew that OBL had eluded capture/kill many times before.
--------
Another question is VP Biden. He didn't know, did he? He is Mr. foreign policy to the President, but someone in the inner circle, maybe the President, knew not to trust his foot in mouth habit while this progressed since last August. Just conjecture on my part, but I am curious.
Here is Biden's first statement about the event, 2 days later. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/05/bidens-first-remarks-on-death-of-obl-breathtaking-staggering-undertaking.html No mention of being part of the planning or the team. Unlike the President. For Obama, it was all about him: "I assembled the team." "I directed the operation".
-
You raise very good points, Doug.
-
It really was a "no brainer".
First of all he didn't just decide.
The powers to be had TEN yrs to figure these moments out.
OK look at the choice:
Bomb the smithireens out of a compound and not know who is killed hurt or maimed. Not know for sure if he is there, if he is killed and have no evidence or proof of anything vs the ground mission which could risk the lives of the Seals, backfire or fail. But then one could get proof OBL is there and captured or killed. As to the relations with Pakistan nothing different either way.
Isn't the choice really a no brainer? If it isn't enough, the liberal media is making this out to be the great commander in chief decision of the new millineum - which it isn't - they are now:
1) this dispells all doubt that he is relentless about the war on terror and is a great commander in chief
2) he was right all along to pursue OBL wherein Bush is replayed to say it is not a top priority (as thought the hunt of OBL started when he "directed Panetta to make this a priority" which by the way wasn't that well past the start of his reign as king?
3) of course if he is right about this he is right about the rest of his policies
4) O'Donnel was shamelessly saying Bush put us all through this for "ten years" by not getting OBL at Tora Tora - he conveninetly left out the next logical conclusion (since he is going that route) is that Clinton put us through 911 by not letting Sudan turn over OBL to us in the 90's when he had the chance. (BTW O'Donnel is definitely the new Oberman.)
5) shopping around those convenient pictures showing the tense Bamster biting his nails etc as something to behold. I don't recall the immediate release ever before of such pictures of a President.
6) To prove the greatness of the one he will now speak at ground zero? At least Bush has the class to decline cashing in on this and has gracefully declined to be present. Probably because he knows it will be a set up. Him sitting in the front row while the king towers above him on the podium. We all know what that means - remember Trump, Ryan, Supreme Court.
Now they say he is up several percent in the polls. Well as Lincoln pointed out - you can fool all of the people some of the time. Clinton certainly proved that with one speech.
Now all that said Bamster deserves some credit but lets not turn this into a success akin to WW2 invasion of Europe.
Except for the military the planned and carried out the operation.
-
Sorry, I should reread my comments before my post;
Correction
You can fool some of the people all of the time
-
CCP, It seems to me the celebrations of this, like 'mission accomplished' for a returning ship and crew, should be held in private. A victory parade at ground zero sounds highly inappropriate to me. Bringing OBL to justice / room temperature doesn't reverse any of the destruction he caused. Risking our best people and equipment to kill him was a job we did not ask or wish for.
We should act like winning battles and wars is what we do when attacked, not gloat, taunt for more or act surprised. If extracting ourselves from the Middle East is what we seek, the President's next trip should be to ANWR.
What is to celebrate for closure when KSM is still held, fed and being presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Later I expect it to be a point of historic trivia that it was Obama not Bush who presided over the actual OBL kill operation.
-
George W Bush had a 7 week bounce after the capture of Saddam Hussein. This will be smaller and shorter. Obama deserves permanent credit for what he did right. Hopefully he won't waste that by overplaying his hand.
JDN: "...overall, it can only be good for him."
My teenage daughter (non-political) watched the Sunday night speech separately and commented to me the next day that he was very 'I' and 'me' oriented. I took Obama's side for the moment and explained that he needed to make clear to Pakistan that the mission was authorized by the President of the United States. When it turns out that he was not 'the director' nor the one who 'assembled the team' and later touts this as one of his big foreign policy achievements when in fact all the pieces of the puzzle were put in place by his predecessor (http://swampland.time.com/2011/05/04/bushs-torture-lawyer-claims-credit-for-bin-laden-death-criticizes-seals/), yes it could backfire politically, just as the mission accomplished banner certainly did.
-
"My teenage daughter (non-political) watched the Sunday night speech separately and commented to me the next day that he was very 'I' and 'me' oriented."
She has her father's brains. She is in the group that Lincoln would have said cannot be fooled all of the time or even most of the time! :-D
Rusmussan poll shows no bounce unlike the NYTimes.
"We should act like winning battles and wars is what we do when attacked, not gloat, taunt for more or act surprised."
Well said.
-
:-D I am glad he is running as per recent rumours.
http://newtexplore2012.com/
-
It is better to be in than to wonder forever if he should have been in. He is the best thinker and visionary in some ways and will elevate the debate. I don't predict he will go far. There are some negative points already discussed I don't think he can overcome, but we will see.
-----
No commentary here from the candidate debate last week. I didn't see it, did anyone? Many say Herman Cain won it. Rush L. said that Tim Pawlenty looked presidential and spoke highly of all of them. With Obama below 50%, there is no one holding back on criticism. They need to all quit participating in the show of hands questioning. Raising your hand without opportunity to explain your view is not Presidential. Juan Williams for balance asked some idiotic questions, do you believe in creationism, for example. Do we have a religious litmus test in this country? Does the President set policy in that area? What we should be arguing is what can we all agree on, not just find the differences.
-
At least Trump has fallen to 5th place in polling.
-
I didn't see it, did anyone?
I saw parts of it. Pawlenty sounded good and Cain also did.
Both Pawlenty and Cain were very good to me.
Cain is so articulate and does indeed have the charisma.
Pawlenty to me sounded good. One of the interviewers tried to trap him on his early support for cap and trade.
I believe he answered that well. The interviewer kind of did rightfully say that he may as well ask it because it will certainly be a knock against him later in the campaign.
If Tim is a good learner and practices and works at it I think he has a good shot at being a very good candidate. He doesn't have to show all his cards now but if he can take on the Phoney One like trump he will win.
This race is the Republicans race to lose. Obama has a dismal record and has done his best to worsen this country. I don't see how he could win other than by default.
I still think a key to winning is addressing middle class concerns. Repubs can ignore the squeeze on the middle class at their own peril. The libs are already turning this into one of their big issues.
-
Anyone have a URL for the debate?
Anyway, Newt has officially announced , , ,
===============
Trust me, when it comes to the 2012 race for the Republican presidential nomination, I am going to be fair in assessing the candidates. Already I have polled for NewsMax, and my early polls placed former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich in fourth place among announced or potential candidates.
But before I go into my harsh analyst mode -- which once in a while leads to an "I'm hurt" email from Newt -- let me share my personal feelings about the man who has just announced that he will seek the presidency.
Other than the man most call my "other father," former U.S. Sen. Mack Mattingly, no political figure in my adult life has been as close to me or had more moments of importance in my life than Newt Gingrich. For over 33 years, we have laughed and cried together, argued incessantly, shared countless moments of happiness, known each other's family members, and run campaigns together. And after all that, I'm still constantly amazed at the new facets of Newt's life and politics that continue to surface.
But one thing I do know about Newt: Never underestimate him.
I still remember one day in 1980. We had just eaten lunch during a busy day of working on his re-election campaign for Congress. Newt asked me what my ultimate ambition was in politics. I'm sure my answer was something that would read embarrassingly grand if I recalled it today. But when I turned the tables and asked Newt what he planned to achieve, he said without missing a beat that he aspired to be speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.
At that time, no Republican in my lifetime had ever served as speaker. I thought he was nuts.
I was wrong. And little did I know that I would have an inside, front-row view of that dream as it unfolded. Looking back, it was all worth it -- the many hours in cars, on planes, in meetings, pleading for money, battling for votes, fighting recounts.
So now my friend begins the voyage for the presidency. It will be an uphill climb. Mitt Romney has a full campaign team in place from his 2008 run. Potential candidate Donald Trump could self-finance his early campaign. Mike Huckabee, should he enter the race, starts out, based on the polls, as the frontrunner. Sarah Palin has a huge following, as does the often-overlooked Ron Paul.
Then there are the new faces, Tim Pawlenty, Herman Cain and Mitch Daniels -- the favorite of the "Bush team."
And even if Gingrich wins the nomination, he must face an incumbent president whose fortunes appear to be on the rise. President Obama displayed decisive leadership and considerable political savvy in ordering the commando raid that, in essence, "executed" Osama bin Laden.
Still, the latest bad news on housing and the overall unemployment figures suggest that Barack Obama is vulnerable.
As for Newt, we all know his plusses and minuses. All agree he is brilliant.
He must harness his desire to address every new issue and every new policy solution, and instead stick to the message that half of the current GOP electorate was too young to pay attention to in the mid-1990s: his accomplishments as speaker.
It is a fact that Gingrich went toe-to-toe with then-President Clinton to force a reduction in the deficit and balanced budgets. He also successfully pressured Clinton to embrace a cut in the capital gains tax and to approve welfare reform.
Yes, I have heard about Newt's "political baggage" -- endlessly. But compared to someone like Donald Trump, whom I find to be a far more serious candidate than most pundits do -- Newt's personal history seems to pale in comparison. And polling confirms that no one really cares about ancient mistakes and misery.
Trust me, I will bust Newt in a minute if he makes a mistake. I've done it privately with him for years. We have had many a knockdown fight in our many years of friendship. So, he will get no free passes from this point forward.
But for a moment, imagine a skinny, overly ambitious kid working with a fairly slender Newt, our eyes both open and optimistic, and our whole lives ahead of us. I would have no heart and soul if I did not feel a special sense of pride in Gingrich's announcement Wednesday night.
Win or lose, Gingrich is owed much by the Republican Party. He is also owed much by me.
Good luck, old friend. I'll see you on the other side of the 2012 presidential race, whatever it may bring.
-
F. Scott Fitzgerald famously wrote that "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." If we may judge by his health-care speech at the University of Michigan yesterday, Mitt Romney is a very smart man.
The likely Republican Presidential candidate fulfilled the White House's fondest wishes, defending the mandate-subsidize-overregulate program he enacted as Massachusetts Governor in 2006 even as he denounced President Obama's national reprise. He then proposed his own U.S. reform that is sensible and might do so some actual good, but which also runs against the other two plans. These are unbridgeable policy and philosophical differences, though Mr. Romney is nonetheless trying to leap over them like Evel Knievel heading for the Snake River Canyon.
.Mr. Romney says that Massachusetts was "a state solution to a state problem" and that the other laboratories of democracy should also be allowed to run their own experiments free of ObamaCare's controls. But if Massachusetts is the triumph that Mr. Romney claimed yesterday, well, what's the problem with Washington exporting the same successful model? If an individual mandate to purchase health insurance was indispensable in the Bay State, as Mr. Romney argued, why isn't it necessary in every other state too?
The former Governor outlined a national approach like the one he ran on in 2008. Its core virtue is that it would equalize the tax treatment of health insurance, ending the destructive federal bias for employer-provided insurance over the individual market and encouraging a consumer market for competitive insurance and more efficient medicine. Health economists across the political spectrum have recognized this distortion for decades.
Mr. Romney also tried to draw a contrast between his new campaign plan and Mr. Obama's reform, saying, for instance, that it would create no new health-care bureaucracies. He neglected to mention that his state plan did precisely that. Mr. Romney's political appointees converted the architecture of the "connector" that was supposed to support individual and small-business insurance choice into a regulatory body dedicated to stamping it out.
The political tragedy is that Mr. Romney could have emerged as one of ObamaCare's most potent critics had he made different choices two years ago amid one of the country's most consequential debates in generations. He might have said that as Governor he made a good-faith effort to resolve some of health care's long-running dysfunctions, but that it hadn't worked out and that's why state experiments are valuable.
Mr. Romney also sold his plan using the same theories and language as Mr. Obama, and he might have rebutted the President from experience and evidence. Instead, he has lashed himself to the contradiction of attacking Mr. Obama's plan while claiming his own is different.
Many people have tried to talk Mr. Romney down from this daredevil campaign act, but Mr. Romney privately says he doesn't want to reinforce the rap he had in 2008 that he had reinvented himself too often. As a political matter, however, we think it's better to change positions than to try to defend the intellectually indefensible.
Mr. Romney is not taking our advice, as his nearby letter shows. He even said yesterday that he would do it all over again in Massachusetts, which means he is in for a year in which Republicans attack him on policy while Democrats defend him on policy but attack him as a hypocrite. Who knows what GOP voters will make of all this, but we won't be surprised if Mr. Romney's campaign suffers as many broken bones (433) as Knievel.
-
I confess to considerable sympathy for RP's willingness to get seriously radical with regard to the size and reach of our government in our lives, to abolish the Fed and restore responsible monetary policy, and for his respect for our Constitution.
OTOH sometimes he is just a fg nut,
I heard tonight on the Bret Baier report that he would not have approved the raid that killed OBL without prior approval from Pakistan.
-
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/13/paul-declares-candidacy-in-2012-gop-presidential-primary/
Paul declares candidacy in 2012 GOP presidential primary
posted at 9:30 am on May 13, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
Go ahead. Act surprised:
It’s official: Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, will seek the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, he announced Friday on Good Morning America.
“At this moment I am officially announcing that I am a candidate for president in the Republican primary,” Paul said. “Time has come around to the point where the people are agreeing with much of what I’ve been saying for 30 years, so I think the time is right.”
Paul, a mouthpiece for all things small-government, has made the presidential leap of faith twice before: In 1988, as the Libertarian Party nominee, and in 2008, as a dark horse Republican with incomparable niche appeal and formidable fundraising prowess.
Hey, it’s the first time that I can recall that someone announced their bid the day after they effectively killed it. Insisting that he would have asked the same Pakistani government that won’t cut ties with Mullah Omar and the terrorist network that conducted the Mumbai massacre to, pretty please, arrest Osama bin Laden reduced Paul’s level of seriousness as a candidate to, er, the same level it’s always been. Only the true believers will support that kind of befuddled thinking in a Commander in Chief, and even some of those might have second thoughts — although not in the comments section to this post, I’ll boldly predict.
The former record, by the way, was held by Joe Biden, who managed to wait for a few minutes after the announcement to kill his candidacy in 2007.
But even putting that aside, and putting aside the issue of his flirtations with white supremacists and anti-Semites for almost two decades in his subscription newsletter (and a donation scandal in 2007, too), why would anyone take him seriously anyway? MSNBC calls him the “the Tea Party godfather,” which is ludicrous. Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin did far more for the Tea Party than Paul ever did, and Bachmann is also exploring a Presidential bid. Paul is a crank that routinely ends up on the wrong end of lopsided votes and has had zero success building coalitions in Congress. And let’s not forget that the last time America elected a President from the House of Representatives was over 130 years ago, and that in his mid-70s, Paul would be the oldest major-party candidate if he somehow managed to win the primary.
And wouldn’t that campaign look glorious indeed? The DNC would have a field day running quotes from Paul’s past newsletter gems in a campaign against the nation’s first African-American President.
So, go ahead and act surprised — and then have yourself a good laugh.
Update: Changed “Congress” to “the House of Representatives” for better clarity.
-
Paul: Killing OBL “absolutely was not necessary”
posted at 8:48 am on May 12, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
Ron Paul’s supporters plan on another run for the presidency from the Texas Congressman, and some are saying that the mainstream has finally begun to embrace his ideas on economics and the Fed. On foreign policy and national defense, though, perhaps Paul is farther out than ever. In a radio interview on Tuesday, reported this morning in Politico, Paul said he would not have greenlighted the mission that killed Osama bin Laden, and would have worked with Pakistan to arrest him instead:
“I think things could have been done somewhat differently,” Paul said this week. “I would suggest the way they got Khalid [Sheikh] Mohammed. We went and cooperated with Pakistan. They arrested him, actually, and turned him over to us, and he’s been in prison. Why can’t we work with the government?”
Paul also told WHO’s Simon Conway that the mission “absolutely was not necessary”:
“I don’t think it was necessary, no. It absolutely was not necessary,” Paul said during his Tuesday comments. “I think respect for the rule of law and world law and international law. What if he’d been in a hotel in London? We wanted to keep it secret, so would we have sent the airplane, you know the helicopters into London, because they were afraid the information would get out?”
For one thing, had we found him holed up in London, we would have been able to trust the British intelligence service to cooperate. MI-5 didn’t spend more than a decade helping to build up the Taliban and playing footsie with radical Islamists the way Pakistan’s ISI did, primarily as a bulwark against India. Moreover, as Paul should know, we tried trusting Pakistan once before on an opportunity to target bin Laden when Bill Clinton had a chance to target his compound. The ISI warned bin Laden, and to paraphrase President George Bush, we wound up sending a $10 million rocket into a ten-dollar tent to hit a camel’s butt.
I would have had no problem with capturing Osama bin Laden, or with killing him. He declared war on the United States and continued to pursue it until his last breath. Furthermore, I have no problem with us conducting a military mission in Pakistan to get him. Pakistan has proven themselves unreliable on high-level intelligence matters in the past, specifically on OBL, and we have had little cause to put any more trust in the Pakistani ISI ever since.
Paul has a few good ideas on fiscal policy, but is otherwise a nut. Insisting that we should have asked the Pakistanis to arrest bin Laden proves rather clearly that Paul lives in a fantasy world.
Update: I forgot to hat-tip Jammie Wearing Fool — my apologies.
-
I was aware of the anti-Semitic stuff. Got any convenient URLs on it and/or the race-tinged stuff?
-
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/02/17/ron-paul-is-a-vicious-anti-semite-and-anti-american-and-conservatives-need-to-wash-their-hands-of-him/
Ron Paul Is A Vicious Anti-Semite and Anti-American and Conservatives Need To Wash Their Hands of Him
by David Horowitz
Posted on February 17 2011 1:25 pm
David Horowitz is the editor-in-chief of NewsReal Blog and FrontPage Magazine. He is the President and CEO of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. His most recent book is Reforming Our Universities
Long ago Bill Buckley drummed the anti-Semites out of the conservative movement, and the movement thrived as a result. But the Jew-haters have returned. For years the Texas crackpot, Ron Paul, has been attacking America and Israel as imperialist powers — the Great Satan and the Little Satan, and calling for America’s retreat from the battle against our totalitarian enemies. At the recent CPAC conference Paul’s Jew-hating storm-troopers swarmed the Freedom Center’s table to vent their spleen against Israel as a Nazi state. Now Paul is making a priority of withdrawing aid for Israel — the only democracy in the Middle East and the only reliable ally of the United States. Here is an alert from Gary Bauer about the amendment Ron Paul is proposing which may be voted on today.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
To: Friends & Supporters
From: Gary L. Bauer
Special Alert
Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) has just introduced an amendment to end all U.S. aid to Israel. The amendment could be voted on before the day is over. I need your help right now to stop this ill-conceived proposal!
Please click here to quickly and easily send a message to your elected representative urging them to stand with Israel.
Don’t be deceived. This Ron Paul proposal would not lower our budget deficit. By abandoning Israel while its enemies are gaining strength, the risk of a major war in the Middle East would increase. A major war would cost the U.S. billions and billions of dollars as we have already seen in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The U.S. gives billions of dollars a year to foreign countries that hate us and regularly vote against us at the United Nations. But, Israel votes with the U.S. 97% of the time. They are a loyal ally that shares our values. The aid they receive is used to buy military equipment from U.S. companies so the money comes back to us. Ron Paul’s proposal makes no sense.
Please right now go to www.cwfpac.com to tell your congressman to stand with Israel.
You may also call the Capitol Hill Switchboard at 202-224-3121 and ask for your representative’s office. If you don’t know his or her name, give the operator your zip code and they will transfer you. Tell them to stand with our most reliable ally Israel by opposing the Paul amendment to end all foreign aid. Please take action now!
-
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html
November 14, 2007
The Ron Paul Campaign and its Neo-Nazi Supporters
By Andrew Walden
When some in a crowd of anti-war activists meeting at Democrat National Committee HQ in June, 2005 suggested Israel was behind the 9-11 attacks, DNC Chair Howard Dean was quick to get behind the microphones and denounce them saying: "such statements are nothing but vile, anti-Semitic rhetoric."
When KKK leader David Duke switched parties to run for Louisiana governor as a Republican in 1991, then-President George H W Bush responded sharply, saying, "When someone asserts the Holocaust never took place, then I don't believe that person ever deserves one iota of public trust. When someone has so recently endorsed Nazism, it is inconceivable that someone can reasonably aspire to a leadership role in a free society."
Ron Paul is different.
Rep Ron Paul (R-TX) is the only Republican candidate to demand immediate withdrawal from Iraq and blame US policy for creating Islamic terrorism. He has risen from obscurity and is beginning to raise millions of dollars in campaign contributions. Paul has no traction in the polls -- 7% of the vote in New Hampshire -- but he at one point had more cash on hand than John McCain. And now he is planning a $1.1 million New Hampshire media blitz just in time for the primary.
Ron Paul set an internet campaigning record raising more than $4 million in small on-line donations in one day, on November 5, 2007. But there are many questions about Paul's apparent unwillingness to reject extremist groups' public participation in his campaign and financial support of his November 5 "patriot money-bomb plot."
On October 26 nationally syndicated radio talk show host Michael Medved posted an "Open Letter to Rep. Ron Paul" on TownHall.com. It reads:
Dear Congressman Paul:
Your Presidential campaign has drawn the enthusiastic support of an imposing collection of Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, Holocaust Deniers, 9/11 "Truthers" and other paranoid and discredited conspiracists.
Do you welcome- or repudiate - the support of such factions?
More specifically, your columns have been featured for several years in the American Free Press -a publication of the nation's leading Holocaust Denier and anti-Semitic agitator, Willis Carto. His book club even recommends works that glorify the Nazi SS, and glowingly describe the "comforts and amenities" provided for inmates of Auschwitz.
Have your columns appeared in the American Free Press with your knowledge and approval?
As a Presidential candidate, will you now disassociate yourself, clearly and publicly, from the poisonous propaganda promoted in such publications?
As a guest on my syndicated radio show, you answered my questions directly and fearlessly.
Will you now answer these pressing questions, and eliminate all associations between your campaign and some of the most loathsome fringe groups in American society?
Along with my listeners (and many of your own supporters), I eagerly await your response.
Respectfully, Michael Medved
Medved has received no official response from the Paul campaign.
There is more. The Texas-based Lone Star Times October 25 publicly requested a response to questions about whether the Paul campaign would repudiate and reject a $500 donation from white supremacist Stormfront.org founder Don Black and end the Stormfront website fundraising for Paul. The Times article lit up the conservative blogosphere for the next week. Paul supporters packed internet comment boards alternately denouncing or excusing the charges. Most politicians are quick to distance themselves from such disreputable donations when they are discovered. Not Paul.
Daniel Siederaski of the Jewish Telegraph Agency tried to get an interview with Paul, calling him repeatedly but not receiving any return calls. Wrote Siederaski November 9: "Ron Paul will take money from Nazis. But he won’t take telephone calls from Jews." [Update] Finally on November 13 the Paul campaign responded. In a short interview JTA quotes Jim Perry, head of Jews for Paul describing his work on the Paul campaign along side a self-described white supremacist which Perry says he has reformed.
Racist ties exposed in the Times article go far beyond a single donation. Just below links to information about the "BOK KKK Ohio State Meeting", and the "BOK KKK Pennsylvania State Meeting", Stormfront.org website announced: "Ron Paul for President" and "Countdown to the 5th of November". The links take readers directly to a Ron Paul fundraising site from which they can click into the official Ron Paul 2008 donation page on the official campaign site. Like many white supremacists, Stormfront has ties to white prison gangs.
Finally on October 30 Paul's campaign came back with a non-response. In a phone interview with the Lone Star Times, Ron Paul national communications director Jesse Benton was non-committal about removing the donations link from Stormfront.org. After a week of internet controversy, the best Benton could come up with is:
"We hadn't thought of these options but I'll bring up these ideas with the campaign director. Blocking the IP address sounds like a simple and practical step that could be taken. I doubt there is anything we can do legally. Tracking donations that came from Stormfront's site sounds more complicated. I'm concerned about setting a precedent for the campaign having to screen and vet everyone who makes a donation. It is important to keep in mind is (sic) that we didn't solicit this support, and we aren't interested in spending al of our time and resources focused on this issue. We want to focus on Dr. Paul's positive agenda for freedom."
Perhaps frustrated by the weasel words, Lone Star Times asked Benton: "Bottom line- Will the Ron Paul campaign be rejecting the $500 contribution made by neo-Nazi Don Black?"
Benton's response:
"At this time, I cannot say that we will be rejecting Mr. Black's contribution, but I will bring the matter to the attention of our campaign director again, and expect some sort of decision to be made in coming days."
On October 11 Stormfront Radio endorsed Ron Paul for President saying:
"Whatever organization you belong to, remember first and foremost that you're a white nationalist, then put aside your differences with one another and work together. Work together to strive to get someone in the Oval Office who agrees with much of what we want for our future. Look at the man, look at the issues, look at our future. Vote for Ron Paul, 2008."
As of November 11--the Ron Paul donation link is still up and active on Stormfront. No IP address has been blocked. Stormfront's would-be stormtroopers are still encouraged to contribute to Paul's campaign.
The white supremacists do more than raise funds. Blogger Adam Holland reports:
"one of Rep. Paul's top internet organizers in Tennessee is a neo-Nazi leader named Will Williams (aka ‘White Will'). Williams was the southern coordinator for William Pierce's National Alliance Party, the largest neo-Nazi party in the U.S."
Pierce is author of the racist "Turner Diaries". When the Lone Star Times exposed the $500 Don Black donation, Williams responded on the national Ron Paul meetup site,
"Must Dr. Paul capitulate to our Jewish masters' demands?"
The mild responses to Williams' MeetUp post make a sharp contrast to the hatred and invective with which Paul supporters respond to Medved or any other writer questioning Paul's refusal to disassociate himself from his racist supporters. Any other campaign would presume Williams' expression of anti-Semitism was a dirty trick by an opposing campaign. Williams would have been hurriedly denounced and booted out of the campaign. Not Ron Paul.
Williams has also organized at least one other discussion, "the Israel factor revisited" on the national Ron Paul MeetUp site. Again the measured tone of the remarks by Ron Paul supporters in the comments section contrasts sharply with the invective Paul supporters rain down upon bloggers who oppose him. Paul's campaign relies heavily on MeetUp sites to organize. Over 61,000 Paul supporters are registered on MeetUp as compared to 3,400 for Barack Obama, 1,000 for Hillary Clinton, 1,800 for Dennis Kucinich and only a couple of dozen members for most other candidates.
On the white-supremacist Vanguard News Network, Williams links to Paul's "grassroots" fundraising site and organizes other racists to "game You Tube" to advance a specific Ron Paul video to the top of You Tube's rankings. Writes Williams, "Everybody here can do this, except bjb w/his niggerberry." Holland points out, "BJB" stands for "burn Jew burn". BJB's internet signature is, "Nothing says lovin' like a Jew in the oven."
Williams is not Paul's only supremacist supporter. "Former" KKK leader (and convicted fraudster) David Duke's website http://www.whitecivilrights.com/, calls Ron Paul "our king" and cheers while "Ron Paul Hits a Home Run on Jay Leno Show." Duke also includes a "Ron Paul campaign update" and plugs Ron Paul fundraising efforts. These articles are posted right next to articles such as "Ten reasons why the Holocaust is a fraud" and "Germans Still Remember their Historical Greatness"-featuring a map of Hitler's Third Reich at its 1942 military height, just in case anybody doesn't get the point. Apparently "Dr. Paul's positive agenda for freedom" is attractive to those who ape the world's worst tyrants and genocidaires.
There are others. In a You Tube video circulating the internet, Ron Paul is endorsed by Hutton Gibson, a leading Holocaust denier and father of controversial actor and director Mel Gibson.
Ron Paul is supported by Patrick Buchanan, whose website carries videos and articles such as: "Ron Paul epiphany" and "Ron Paul a new hope." Buchanan has a long history of remarks some call anti-Semitic (see link). Ron Unz, editor of Buchanan's American Conservative magazine, is a Paul contributor and may have helped raise money from Silicon Valley sources.
Ron Paul's American Free Press supporters run literally from one end of the country to the other:
•A Maine Ron Paul MeetUp activist who once ran for US Senate describes himself as, "a 911 truth researcher & video documentarian, & a writer for The Barnes Review." The Barnes Review is a Holocaust-denier magazine founded by Willis Carto.
•A Hawaii Ron Paul MeetUp organizer is pictured here pumping the Paul campaign and selling copies of Willis Carto's American Free Press at a farmers market.
There is more to the Paul campaign than racists. The mis-named 9-11 "truth" movement has also been a big source of Paul support. The Detroit Free Press describes the scene as Republican Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani shared the ferry ride back from a Mackinac Island Michigan Republican caucus September 21.
"According to one eyewitness, Giuliani was beset by dozens of Paul enthusiasts as he was leaving the island, some of whom shouted taunts about 9/11, including: ‘9/11 was an inside job' and ‘Rudy, Rudy, what did you do with the gold?' -- an apparent reference to rumors about $200 million in gold alleged to have disappeared in the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. Ed Wyszynski, a longtime party activist from Eagle, (MI) said the Paul supporters threatened to throw Giuliani overboard and harassed him as he took shelter in the ferry's pilothouse for the 15-minute journey back to Mackinaw City."
Paul campaign spokesman Jesse Benton told the Detroit Free Press "Ron Paul does not think that 9/11 was an inside job." But the "truthers" aren't fooled. Paul's committee paid 9-11 conspiracy nut and talk-show host Alex Jones $1300. Jones claims the payment is a partial refund after he over paid August 27 when giving Paul a $2300 contribution. Aaron Dykes of Alex Jones' company Magnolia Management and Alex Jones' Infowars website gave Ron Paul $1600.
Jones has been pumping Paul's campaign on his nationally syndicated radio show for months. Alex Jones got Paul's first radio interview January 17 after announcing his Presidential campaign. LINK: http://prisonplanet.tv/audio/170107paul.mp3. In a lengthy October 5 interview -- apparently Paul's fourth with Jones -- Paul thanks Jones for his support saying: "You and the others have always said run, run, run." Alex Jones' websites are piled with Ron Paul articles and campaign paraphernalia for sale.
Other Paul donations and activists come from leftists and Muslims. Singer and Democrat contributor Barry Manilow is also a Ron Paul contributor and possibly a fundraiser. There are close ties (but no endorsements) between Ron Paul's San Francisco Bay Area campaign and Cindy Sheehan's long-shot Congressional campaign.
An Austin, TX MeetUp site shows Paul supporters also involved in leftist groups such as Howard Dean's "Democracy for America." MeetUp lists other sites popular with members of the Ron Paul national MeetUp group. The number one choice is "9/11 questions" another leading choice is "conspiracy."
MuslimVoterOnPaul.com chimes in writing:
"Brothers and Sisters, please vote for Ron Paul in the Republican Primaries. It's our obligation to come together and try to stand up for not only our best interests, but the best interests of the entire Ummah."
A Ron Paul flyer directed at Muslims reads: "Who is Ron Paul and why does the Jerusalem Post call him crazy?" A "Muslims for Paul" bumper sticker puts the Islamic crescent in Paul's name.
The ugly mishmash of hate groups backing Paul has a Sheehan connection as well. David Duke is a big Cindy Sheehan supporter eagerly proclaiming "Cindy Sheehan is right" after Sheehan said, "My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel." Stormfront.org members joined Sheehan at her protest campout in Crawford, TX and posed with her for photos. Sheehan is also intimately associated with the Lew Rockwell libertarian website which has posted over 200 articles by Ron Paul as well as some "scholarly" 9-11 conspiracy theories.
The white supremacist American Nationalist Union also backed Sheehan's Crawford protests and endorsed David Duke for president of the United States in 1988. Now they are backing Ron Paul-linking to numerous Pro-Paul articles posted on LewRockwell.com.
Medved's questions surprise many, but they shouldn't. Paul's links the anti-Semites and white supremacists continue a trend which has been developing since the 9-11 attacks. Barely six weeks after 9-11, Paul was already busy blaming America. On October 27, 2001 Paul wrote on LewRockwell.com, "Some sincere Americans have suggested that our modern interventionist policy set the stage for the attacks of 9-11". Paul complained: "often the ones who suggest how our policies may have played a role in evoking the attacks are demonized as unpatriotic." He says the US is "bombing Afghanistan" and is upset nobody is interested in his solution:
"It is certainly disappointing that our congressional leaders and administration have not considered using letters of marque and reprisal as an additional tool to root out those who participated in the 9-11 attacks."
Paul is quick to blame the victim when the issue is Islamist violence. But when it comes to ordinary criminal violence, Paul once blamed "95% of black males." During Paul's 1996 Congressional campaign a Houston Chronicle article raised questions about a 1992 Ron Paul newsletter article. Under Ron Paul's name was written: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.' Paul added: "I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city (Washington, D.C.) are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
Texas Monthly later interviewed Paul. He claims:
"They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'"
Adds Texas Monthly:
"It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time."
Paul defenders often point to a December 24, 2002 Paul essay, "What really divides us?" Wrote Paul,
"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups."
What his supporters don't often mention is that Paul deployed this fine rhetoric only in defense of Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS). Lott was pilloried in the press for his flattering words about the segregationist 1948 Presidential run of South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond.
Responding to rioting in Los Angeles under the heading "Terrorist Updates", Paul's 1992 article exposes a double standard. Substitute the words "Islamist terrorism" for "riots" and try to imagine Paul using this language:
"The cause of the riots is plain: barbarism. If the barbarians cannot loot sufficiently through legal channels (i.e., the riots being the welfare-state minus the middleman), they resort to illegal ones, to terrorism. Trouble is, few seem willing to do anything to stop them. The cops have been handcuffed. And property owners are not allowed to defend themselves. The mayor of Los Angeles, for example, ordered the Korean storekeepers who defended themselves arrested for "discharging a firearm within city limits." Perhaps the most scandalous aspect of the Los Angeles riots was the response by the mayors, the media, and the Washington politicians. They all came together as one to excuse the violence and to tell white America that it is guilty, although the guilt can be assuaged by handing over more cash. It would be reactionary, racist, and fascist, said the media, to have less welfare or tougher law enforcement. America's number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks.
"Rather than helping, all this will ensure that guerrilla violence will escalate. There will be more occasional eruptions such as we saw in Los Angeles, but just as terrifying are the daily muggings, robberies, burglaries, rapes, and killings that make our cities terror zones."
If one forgets the implication that the US treasury is a "white checking account" or the suggestion that all "underclass blacks" are thugs, it seems that Paul believes that appeasing street criminals "will ensure that guerrilla violence will escalate." But when it comes to the Islamist terror, Paul's message, now the theme of his Presidential campaign is: "our policies may have played a role in evoking the attacks."
The double standard raises questions. Paul's real motivation for appeasing Islamists may be underlined in quotes from a May 24, 1996 Congress Daily article:
"Stating that lobbying groups who seek special favors and handouts are evil, Paul wrote, ‘By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government' and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism."
"Ron Paul-America's Last Chance", a January, 2007 article by Ted Lang on the anti-Semitic site Rense.com, makes a familiar argument for supporting Paul. Lang claims,
"Dr. Paul's best credentials are those identifying him as a true libertarian, meaning a ‘classical liberal' of the anti-Federalist genre of libertarians that helped found this country, true liberals such as Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams...."
Paul himself writing on antiwar.com says:
"Thomas Jefferson spoke for the founders and all our early presidents when he stated: ‘peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none...' which is, ‘one of the essential principles of our government'. The question is: Whatever happened to this principle and should it be restored?"
Perhaps Paul forgets America's 1801-05 war with the Islamic terrorists known as the Barbary Pirates? Paul's interpretation of American history is false. This writer explained in "The Colonial War against Islam":
"In 1786, Thomas Jefferson, then U.S. ambassador to France, and John Adams, then American Ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Dey's ambassador to Britain, in an attempt to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress' vote of funding. To Congress, these two future presidents later reported the reasons for the Muslims' hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.
"‘...that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.'"
Apparently Paul chooses to remember only the parts of American history which benefit his arguments. As part of the War on Terror Paul wants the US to abandon, the US Navy is on duty fighting Islamic pirates off the coast of Somalia, in the Persian Gulf, and Southeast Asia.
In spite of official silence from the Paul Campaign, hordes of Paul supporters lit up the comments section of Michael Medved's open letter on TownHall.com. In a phenomenon familiar to any blogger who posts information negative to Paul, the 500-plus comments include several which indicate that Medved has got Paul's supporters dead to rights:
•"Your own Zionism is slipping, Medved! Why should anyone disassociate from 9/11 Truthers?"
•"I suggest you take off the tin-foil yamika (sic), your brain is fried."
•"You will do anything to smear this good man to try and safeguard US policy in Israel."
•"Hey Medved. Tell your AIPAC handlers to be nervous. You are failing miserably."
•"It's patently obvious why you don't support Dr. Paul: He's not hand-picked by AIPAC and the Likud Party."
Over at Liberty Post, a self-described "Christian Zionist" identifying himself as ‘David Ben-Ariel' adds this response:
"If discredited and paranoid Michael Medved is so concerned about it, let him actually follow his Judaism to the Jewish Homeland of Israel and take the treacherous ACLU and its liberal ilk, and every other self-hating, defeatist, godless group and loathsome organization with him. What's he got to lose, especially if he fails to believe the Israeli oligarchy is under German-Jesuit control and guilty of murdering Yitzhak Rabin? ... I'm voting for Ron Paul."
Besides the Paul backers whose words seem to provide backing to Medved's case, others complain that it is wrong to question the sources of Paul's support. Writing on the "Daily Paul", Mike Bergmaier complains it is "unfair" for Medved to demand Paul renounce the support of anti-Semites, white supremacists, and neo-Nazis. Really? Why?
Lew Rockwell attempts to respond to Medved's question by echoing leftist themes equating Nazis with mainstream conservatives. Rockwell argues Medved should renounce Cheney and Bush. In a weak effort at verbal judo, Rockwell calls Medved's letter a "neocon libel." Rockwell continues:
"Mr. Medved, will you repudiate belligerent nationalists, drooling torturers, scheming warmongers, redistributing pressure groups, foreign aid thieves... (etc)"
and then without even pausing to catch his breath accuses Medved of practicing "guilt by association."
Perhaps Rockwell hopes weak-minded readers will not notice that associating Medved with "drooling torturers" is itself "guilt by association." No "drooling torturers" have been identified among Medved's financial backers but actual neo-Nazis have been identified by name amongst Paul's. Is this what passes for scholarship at the Ludwig von Mises Institute headed by Rockwell? Judging from many of the comments Paul supporters have flooded the internet with, it apparently is good enough for them.
Meanwhile, elsewhere on the Daily Paul, Paul's "fair" supporters are organizing to call radio stations and demand they yank Medved's show, thus demonstrating that censorship is a Libertarian value.
Neither Paul nor his campaign has officially responded to the questions raised by Medved. But then perhaps these types of comments are the official response.
Paul supporters complain endlessly that the "mainstream media" is censoring or ignoring their candidate. They should be careful what they ask for. If Paul wants to be taken seriously, he must stop cowering behind the internet and face these questions. Until then it is only reasonable to presume that Paul is happy to wallow in well-financed obscurity accepting the support of some of the worst enemies of freedom and liberty within American society.
-
Pawlenty is looking better and better....
-
Despite all the money Paul has raised before and the endless obsession of the Ronulan cultists, this is all they got in 2008:
2008 Republican National Convention (Presidential tally):
John McCain – 2,343 (99.28%)
Ron Paul – 15 (0.64%)
Mitt Romney – 2 (0.09%)
-
GM, that's the sort of thing I was looking for; thank you.
-
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/161217-paul-says-he-would-have-opposed-civil-rights-act
Senile dementia or pandering to his stormfront base?
-
Actually, although I have no idea as to his motivations, IMHO it is a principled distinction he is making here;. Those wanting to discuss this point further, please take it to the Race thread on the SCH forum.
-
I am humbled and heartened by JDN's move to the right, from Huntsman to Pawlenty. In that spirit, I will match and raise you one by moving myself further to the right, from Tim Pawlenty to Herman Cain. :wink:
-----
No offense meant to BBG's post, but to those who always say there are no good choices, I say: jump in.
-----
Pawlenty has been the beneficiary of mostly great press for a second tier candidate. Real Clear Politics found an obscure liberal site (Washington Post) today that compares him with Dukakis http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/is-pawlenty-the-dukakis-of-2012/2011/03/28/AFe4Su2G_blog.html competing with me to be the master of botched analogies.
Yes, similarities and Dukakis did win his endorsement. Small differences. Dukakis was running to end the Reagan era of economic growth on a Mondale-lite anti-growth platform. Pawlenty is running to end the stagnation of Carter-Mondale-Obama with a pro-growth agenda. Just stay on message.
Pawlenty needs to avoid jumping in the Dukakis tank, whatever the equivalent is for him. He is not Reagan, so don't try to be Reagan, or anyone or anything else. My favorite line, posted elsewhere and adapted here: In a world where you can be anything ... even President of the United States ... Be yourself.
-
I like Cain.
-
In that spirit, I will match and raise you one by moving myself further to the right, from Tim Pawlenty to Herman Cain. :wink:
-----
Don't. Cain is an inexperienced blowhard and will soon be gone from the race. Stay will class like Pawlenty. And someone who might win.
-
Inexperienced how? You mean by business success in the real world? As opposed to the wafer-thin resume of Buraq Obama?
-
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/why-not-herman-cain/?singlepage=true
Why Not Herman Cain?
Here's why he knocks 'em dead wherever he goes. Plus: The Tatler/PJTV meets Herman Cain in Texas Friday morning.
May 12, 2011 - 12:00 am - by Kyle-Anne Shiver
The word on the street among the right’s intelligentsia and punditocracy is that Herman Cain cannot, should not, and will not be the Republican nominee for president in 2012.
Hmmm.
Now, dear readers, those “never-will-happen,” 100%-certain predictions made by mere mortals — and there seem to be more and more of them these days — just remind me of weatherman goofs.
You know what I’m talking about. “There’s a 0% chance of rain here today”; it’s raining cats and dogs right out your window. “There’s a 100% ‘probability’ that this hurricane will hit the east coast of Florida by evening tomorrow”; hurricane fill-in-the-blank hits west coast of Florida where all the east coast residents have been moved during evacuations.
Weather is a far more exact science, however, than predicting human behavior.
And one would really need to be a ninny living under a rock in the San Fran Bay not to know by now that we have entered a new era in American politics, where the unpredictable, unlikely, unforeseen anomaly is becoming a new rule of sorts.
The triumph of Barack Obama against one of the most far-reaching, most powerful political machines in American history — the Clintons — ought to have awoken political insiders to the new reality. But if they were sound sleepers, then the rise of the middle-class, grassroots tea party movement ought to have been like a million roosters crowing at dawn, enough to awaken all but the dead-as-doornails beltway folks. Nothing — absolutely nothing — in American politics is predictable using the old rule book. Not anymore.
So when a proven American businessman like Herman Cain arises and runs for president, dissing his chances is downright dimwitted. If the politicos are right and 2012 will be all “It’s the economy stupid,” then the voice of exemplary free-enterprise success might be the most appealing one in a room full of nothing else but polished, professional, mealy-mouthed politicians.
In the first Republican presidential debate last week, Cain blasted out the response that should have been headline news from coast to coast. When asked about his nonexistent public-office resume — and how he might win the presidency having never won an election — Cain quickly and authoritatively parried: “Everyone in Washington has held public office before. How’s that working out for you?” A slam dunk, if there ever was one.
I would not ever want to be caught in a woodshed facing off against Herman Cain.
Herman Cain speaks, and people who’ve never even heard of him stand up spontaneously and applaud. Many actually cry in gratitude for the authoritative voice of experience Herman brings to every audience. There was good reason for Ed Morrissey to report on Cain’s CPAC speech as the one that “stole the show.”
So why not Herman Cain for president?
Before I go further down this road, some full disclosure. No, I don’t work for Herman Cain. I don’t know him personally either. However, I have loved Herman Cain since the first time I heard him on radio, many years ago now. I have heard Cain verbally eviscerate “African-American” poor-mouth callers in a way that surely made them hope no one they knew was listening.
Herman Cain is an Atlanta guy; I’m an Atlanta gal. Herman Cain has been married to the same woman his entire adult life and is a family man if there ever was one. I’m Cain’s lifelong-married female societal counterpart. I relate to Herman Cain as though he were my next door neighbor in the other America — where monogamy still thrives and kids still mind their manners and the adults still stick together and raise future citizens who don’t end up costing their neighbors a wad in legal and welfare expenses.
Herman Cain is — through and through — the kind of guy you would trust with your last dollar. He’s so honest and so courageous that he has referred to himself as “the dark-horse candidate” — with a smile that could charm the hide off an ornery gator.
Cain’s outspoken love for America is so scary to the left that they’ve already hurled vicious racist epithets at him. There’s nothing for which the Marxists have less tolerance than a black man not willing to remain on the Democrats’ plantation. I daresay that a black man, courageously standing publicly for American free enterprise and individual meritocracy, is even scarier to the left than a rising Mama Grizzly.
But the Marxist, racialist-solidarity card played against Herman Cain is like putty in this man’s hands. I’ve seen him fight back against this leftist canard with a vengeance. Calling Herman Cain a “garbage pail kid” or a “monkey in the window” disgraces the writers, not Cain. And Cain does not — thank God! — take this sitting down or by returning to the back of the bus. (Please do yourself a favor and follow that link to Herman Cain’s pitch-perfect response.)
Eric “justice for my people only” Holder won’t find a “coward” on race in Herman Cain. Cain has not only more melanin in his skin than either Holder or Obama. He has the genuine black American experience in spades, no racist pun intended. While Obama and Holder were attending posh schools and being fawned over by white liberals, taking advantage of affirmative action programs every step of the way, Herman Cain was moving up and out the hard way, the all-American way.
Herman Cain was born in Atlanta in 1945. Think about that for a minute, dear readers. 1945. I was born in Atlanta in 1951. I know a whole lot about what life was like down South under Jim Crow. I’m six years younger than Herman Cain and I still remember vividly the “White” and “Colored” signs that adorned water fountains in the parks and restrooms in every town south of the Mason-Dixon line. I still remember segregated movie theaters, where black audiences were consigned to balcony seating with a back-door entrance, and where “Whites Only” everything, from lunch counters to hotels to Laundromats, reigned supreme.
If a white woman like me remembers these things with shame, how do you suppose Herman Cain remembers them? With justified pride — that’s how. Cain took injustice lemons and turned them into more sweet-tasting, entrepreneurial lemonade — for himself, his family, his community, and more American workers — than you could shake a stick at. And, all the while, he was smiling and singing God Bless America! Fundamentally change America? Not while Herman Cain is standing watch. He knows hard work still pays in America. And he will fight to preserve that opportunity for our posterity.
Herman Cain came from a solid, middle-class black family of the kind that once made up the vast majority of black American families. Even under Jim Crow, families like Cain’s (and Condoleezza Rice’s) flowered in segregated enclaves identical to their white counterparts. Black moms, dads and kids living under the same roof, all working hard under an unfair, completely lopsided system that was in place long before they were born. But unlike their modern set of racialist peers, these exemplary black Americans did not become resentful, angry, or vengeful. Instead, they used their newly attained civil rights to rise to the top — like the cream they always were.
Cain has literally wowed every single audience in every single venue where he has appeared. Cain has personally spoken at more than 40 tea party rallies. He comes across as the embodiment of American spirit. Perhaps, this love-America attitude in a modern black man is so rare that when it emanates from Herman Cain, it literally knocks people off their feet.
Or perhaps Herman Cain has the kind of fire in his belly which can only come from God? Who knows. What mortal among us can accurately define a person’s resonance with masses of other human beings, at a split moment in history’s march?
One thing I do know for sure. I would pay huge bucks for the privilege of seeing Herman Cain face off — mano a mano — with the adolescent “first black president.” Cain vs. Obama? Whoa. Now, that would be something. My intuition tells me that this historical face-off would be Obama’s first woodshed experience.
Obama could continue to call himself the “first black president” — and Herman Cain could take the title of “first genuine American black president.”
Sounds pretty good to this old Atlanta white gal.
Go Herman!! Knock their everlivin’ socks off, honey!
-
GM posted, "One thing I do know for sure. I would pay huge bucks for the privilege of seeing Herman Cain face off — mano a mano — with the adolescent “first black president.”
:? It's not going to happen. A waste of Obama's time. Cain is not even a contender. He's a joke. But he says the right things; that's what radio announcer's do.
The guy got his butt whipped running for senator 7 years ago; he only got 26% of the vote. He never ran again! What does that tell you? :-o
His "experience" is that he ran a chain of Pizza Parlors. And even that was 15 years ago. For the most recent years, he's been a radio commentator. Gee,
why not run Rush for President. Or you seem to like GB; he's equally as qualified. :-D
Hey, Cain is not a bad guy. He's entertaining. I like the bluntness, but that's not the real world. But no offense, this is all fun and games,
but if the Republicans want to win, they need to get serious. And start focusing soon. Don't underestimate Obama.
-
What was Obama's experience again?
-
Herman Cain: Why trivialize his amazing business career or post about it if you have no idea. Working his way to the top tier up of 2 large, prestigious, American companies. Arranging a buyout and turnaround of a major division. Who else do you know that has done that? Why list his experience and skip over the fact that he was also chair of the Kansas City Fed. (Did you really not know that?) So you call him a radio announcer... Why dwell on losing once? Who didn't? Maybe he fits more as an executive than as a legislator. Let's at least have an adult conversation. He is a serious man and has every right to run, even with very dark colored skin. Obama and all his administration lacked private sector experience to an extreme. Cain has it. Lacks other things. No one in this contest has a perfect resume, especially the incumbent.
GM: "What was Obama's experience again?"
Even with 4 years in office, what is his experience. That is answered something like this, I succeeded at ... and ... For the most part he had led us incompetently in the wrong direction. Thank God for the incompetent part or he would have led us further - in the wrong direction.
-
Obama was elected a U.S. Senator. And before that a State Legislator. Not to mention a Law Degree from Harvard, head of the Harvard Law Review, Professorship at Chicago, etc.
That said, I'm not saying it's an "amazing" resume.
As for Cain's "amazing business career" well I concede he was successful as head of the Pizza division, a subsidiary of Pillsbury but that is hardly "amazing". Still, it might be better than Palin! :-)
And yes, he was chair of the Kansas City Fed (do they make any decisions?); a political appointment and as chair, probably a position rotated around the table. He showed up, that's probably it.
And for the last 10+ years all he has done is be a radio announcer; that's entertainment, not "running a business". Sorry, that's it. Cain got his butt kicked in the only election he entered. Maybe he's now a radio announcer because he did get his butt kicked? Losing once is fine. Not trying again for 10 years, means, well, you are a loser (I use that term in the political sense only).
Of course he has every right to run. I'm the liberal here; I don't care about his skin color. But surely the Republicans can find someone better. Or if not, the Republicans will lose.
I'm trying to have a "serious conversation". Run someone who has the potential to win. Look at the polls. Cain couldn't/didn't beat a nobody/anybody from nowhere in a small town.
Now he is going to win a national election? Well you get the idea. He's amusing, he says the right things, you gotta love him, he will stir up the pot for the better, I like some of his ideas,
but his election will never happen so let's move on. Don't chase windmills.
-
Up from the memory hole-- BO's Senate win was against lst minute stand-in and carpetbagger to Illinois, Alan Keyes.
At the moment I am delighted to see Cain in there aggressively speaking Tea Party themes effectively and aggressively. It is very much to the good; amongst other things it will make it harder for the Dems to racebait the eventual Republican nominee I think. Cain might make a good VP candidate , , ,
-
At the moment I am delighted to see Cain in there aggressively speaking Tea Party themes effectively and aggressively. It is very much to the good; Cain might make a good VP candidate , , ,
I agree.
-
Also, something that caught my attention recently about Cain was some footage of President Clinton (not the current one, the one from the 90s) doing some "meet with and answer questions of real live citizens sort of thing" and there was Cain, questioning him about Hillary Care which was then a heated issue. (1993?) Cain was , , , drum roll please , , , abely , , , rim shot , , , questioning the President with some follow up questions that were pointed without being disrespectful.
-
Chosen head of the law review (school paper) counts (without ever writing). Chosen head of the Federal Reserve for a 7 state region doesn't. Losing one election makes you a loser (politically), having your opponent pulled off the ballot with information you learned working for your opponent, and winning unopposed makes you
slime, uh a winner.
I'll never get all these rules down.
McCain was unelectable, BTW, and he won about a dozen US Senate terms. Bush won the nomination and election twice but couldn't articulate what he stood for. A guy speaks out passionately from the heart for a decade on what this country needs to get going again and they call it - entertainment. Maybe they should have him on the black entertainment awards, I didn't see him there. You say his show ran 10 years. The Dick van Dyke show only ran for 5. 10 is a pretty good run in entertainment. Why was he canceled? (He wasn't) You still missed his career at Coca Cola, btw. They understand profits in business where elected officials understand taxes and contributions from business. He doesn't understand pizza, he understands business and he understands America and what needs to be brought back. Running a major market radio show is a business. Reagan came from an entertainment background and spoke out on the issues of the nation for decades. In hindsight at least, the serious presidential historians called it - preparation!
The biggest conservative convention - this year - for their keynote speaker chose Herman Cain.
We've had one debate. Most thought the winner was - Herman Cain. Is that still just entertainment, it doesn't matter who wins the debates?
"Don't chase windmills." ???
Let's go back to the old way. You get to choose who you like and say why. And we get to choose who we like. I am looking for a leader who says what he means and means what he(or she) says. Cain for one presents himself as a very serious man.
Did anyone mention a mathematics degree, masters at Purdue in computer science (11 years before MS-DOS 1.0), ballistics in the US Navy, head of the national restaurant association, 4 years at the fed, Coca cola, Pillsbury, Burger King, Godfathers. From big corporations to entrepreneur. From the most profitable companies to turning around one that was not, to public service to 10 years in communications, to running for President, to having some poster put you and your admirers down for chasing at windmills.
'Saying the right things' (and doing the right things), that is what I'm looking for. If you can show me evidence of insincerity, that is another matter. On the other side (Obama) I can show you plenty.
Unelectable is a term we can use after the election. Someone is going to set themselves apart from a very crowded field in the new majority party and he or she will be taken seriously, win or lose.
One thing both Pawlenty and Cain are doing right is stepping forward and running. Others are looking for someone who is not running, not forming the committees, not doing the groundwork, not at the debates, but come sweep them off their feet.
Funny that no one wrote off Trump because his experience was only private sector, and nothing close to the background described above. They finally wrote him off for being a nut.
-
Nothing wrong with losing one election, but never running again for anything says something. And now he wants to be President? :-o
Don Quixote has a better chance of winning the general election for President than does Cain.
I too think he is sincere; that's commendable. And I too enjoy Cain aggressively addressing pertinent themes. It livens up the debate. But...
If the Republican's don't win, that means get the vote from the majority of Americans, not just Tea Party Members, you will have Obama for four more years.
It's all about getting the votes.
You need in the end someone to sweep America off it's feet. And it will never be Cain.
Sorry, just my opinion.
-
On the 4th try or so, if we can't identify a position that is too extreme I will just assume it is a color that is too black.
-
JDN raises a fair point here, though he substantially understates Cain's track record as Doug points out.
I certainly have had nowhere near the exposure to Cain necessary for me to form any sort of opinion of substance, but I do admit to being chuckled at the idea of two black men running for the Presidency with one of them apparently a genuine sincere man of Tea Party proclivities. What a great way to neuter Democratoc race-baiting!!! :mrgreen:
-
Nobody gets more race-hatred from the left than minorities who dare to take conservative positions. Cain has already been compared to a monkey by some leftist blogger.
-
In the big picture and Cain's capable hands I think this sort of hateful nonsense will help the cause of Freedom.
-
Cain raises the bar for everyone.
Why didn't people say Obama was unelectable?
The flaw I have seen is his support for the Fair Tax which I think is a bad idea. I have just tried defend him against charges that are false. He is capable and plenty qualified. Zogby has him running first among those who are in the race: http://www.zogby.com/news/2011/05/10/ibope-zogby-poll-cain-now-second-christie-top-choice-gop-primary-voters-/
Huckebee is out and I think out Palin likely out. Huntsman probably in. Daniels? The field is almost set. There aren't many others hovering in superhero costumes that I can see.
-
Saw him over the weekend. I saw only a partial interview but he sounded great. This guy may very well be another one to watch if he can raise money. Agriculture and ethanol subsidies have to go. *F* Iowa if they don't like. I am not paying taxes up the wazoo so people who farm can get benefits. Additionally, there is a whole cottage industry of others taking advantage of the farm subsidies to get out of paying taxes.
****FILE: Former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer speaks at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition on March 7 at the Point of Grace Church in Waukee, Iowa.
WASHINGTON -- Former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer is running for president, but the challenge of getting Republican primary voters to recognize his name is harder for him than most since he can't campaign in Iowa.
"Iowa is a problem for me. I'd love to go," Roemer said.
The problem, Roemer told editorial staff during a 50-minute interview with Fox News on Monday, is he wants to get rid of ethanol subsidies -- and that doesn't play well in the Hawkeye State, where he had visited last month for the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition event.
In fact, the former congressman, who served seven years as a House Democrat during the Reagan administration, says he also wants to get rid of oil company subsidies and the recent bank overhaul law and the new health insurance law and most of the tax code, not to mention the influence of money in politics.
The long-shot candidate who's been out of elected office for nearly 20 years, says he's a "special kind of Republican" -- one who had to become a Republican in order to break one-party rule in his home state.
He rails against President Obama, calling him an "embarrassment" for starting his presidential campaign while still trying to develop an annual budget two years before the start of a would-be second term. But he doesn't question Obama's constitutional authority to serve.
"All the evidence I've seen is that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii," he said.
He's "not a fan" of the repeal of the military's don't ask, don't tell policy that allows gays to serve openly, but the "generals say that they thought they would make it work," and so he'll wait and see.
He would increase Social Security's solvency by raising the retirement age by one month per year over 24 years -- in other words, raise the age by two years over the next 24.
As a diabetic, he said he has a very real interest in health care reform, but blasts the new law because it does not include tort reform, offers no negotiating with pharmaceutical companies and doesn't allow insurance companies to compete across state lines.
He fought for the reduction of air pollution while governor of Louisiana, balanced the budget and increased teachers' pay by 30 percent in three years, "if they could teach."
Roemer said he will win people over by cutting through the corruption cash causes and getting back to relying on the free market.
That includes getting rid of oil subsidies and ethanol subsidies. Roemer called them "a gift" that the Big 3 oil companies, Monsanto and Archer Daniels Midland don't need.
At the same time, Roemer said he wants a tariff on oil from overseas. That does not include Mexico and Canada, which he would consider domestic oil production sources, but it definitely targets Russia, Libya and elsewhere in the Middle East.
"Venezuela's history," he added, though Brazil is a neighbor that could get an exception from a tariff.
Roemer said he will set a deadline to get off foreign oil by the end of the decade from the time he's inaugurated -- hypothetically, January 2013.
He said he would be interested in more oil drilling in North America, both onshore and offshore; favors new nuclear plant construction, especially those that count on gravity and not electricity for water supplies; clean coal, if it's actually a product; and alternative fuel sources.
"The market will determine the price of gas, but the tariff will determine the price of Middle East gas," he said, adding, "Natural gas is the big winner."
On taxes, Roemer said he'd like to slim down the 6,500-page tax code and lower the marginal rate. He would minimize deductions but leave in charitable and medical exemptions and widen the middle class and reduce the government's share of domestic product to 18.5 percent.
"That means everyone's paying a little, but the wealthy are paying a little more," Roemer said. And the tax code will be written so the "average, plain person can actually master" the system.
A banker himself, Roemer said he wants to get rid of "too big to fail" banks, which he claims brought this country to the brink once and are now positioning to do so again.
Roemer argued that the 19 banks on Wall Street all had a hand in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform legislation. It's obvious, he said, since according to the law, the larger the bank, the smaller the amount of capital is required.
"The next financial collapse is already in writing," said Roemer, who owns a bank that in the last five years has gone from zero to $688 million in earnings "one good loan at a time."
He's a long shot, to say the least, but Roemer says he has a plan to up his name ID, and it doesn't look like Newt Gingrich's or Mitt Romney's or former President George W. Bush's or Obama's, all whom he called out by name as being beholden to special interests.
His exploratory committee is betting on a retail campaign that targets New Hampshire, South Carolina and yes, Iowa, and thinks he can grab national headlines by asking one in every 100 Americans to give him $100.
That's $300 billion just for the primary. After that, if he gets the nomination, he'll ask two out of every 100 Americans to give him $100. That's $600 billion to compete for the presidency.
"It's about the money. I'm going to spend more money than any candidate but Barack Obama," he said.
The strategy, which Roemer says will enable him to avoid special interests like unions, corporations, political action committees, the Chamber of Commerce or any other group that wants to influence politics, means winning more than 3 million people during the primary, and another 6 million in the general election.****
-
I know no one here has much good to say about Obama, but I think Obama will be hard to beat. Recent polls show surprising strength. The economy is still the big issue.
"But the president seems — at least for now — surprisingly immune to economic fears, the poll shows. Fifty-two percent of those surveyed approve of Obama’s handling of his job, up 7 percentage points from the most recent Battleground Poll, conducted in October. Additionally, 72 percent approve of Obama personally, up 7 percentage points since October.
The president’s strong approval ratings are buttressed by the 59 percent who said they will either “definitely” vote for the president or “consider” reelecting him. Thirty-eight percent “definitely will not” vote for the president’s reelection — giving Obama a higher ceiling of support than his Republican rivals would hope to see."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54996.html
-
Well, I don't subscribe to the notion that Huckabee was such a champion of the middle class. Yet this article highlights what I see as the mainstream Republicans gigantic gap in the failure to explain how their politicies will help the middle class. They ignore this at their own peril. Without addressing this issue in a DIRECT way I continue to contend they will likely lose swing voters and the election. Big mistake. Rove's answer is to cave and pander. Wrong.
www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/05/16/frum.huckabee.gop/index.html
-
JDN,
Your source is Politico? They are totally biased. Any poll from them means little.
Yet your point is well taken. There is a segment of swing voters who will change their minds on a dime. Unfortunately, every election winds up being determined by this "cannot make up their minds" group.
The people who can be fooled all of the time are the ones who determine who our presidents are :cry:
-
The poll was conducted by Democratic firm Lake Research Partners and the Tarrance Group, a Republican polling firm.
I didn't know Politico was biased. It's really too early anyway to pay close attention. But I found it interesting the poll dumped on Trump. Good riddance.
YOUR point is well taken; it is a battle for the middle class. Convince them or fool them, but you need their vote.
-
"the poll dumped on Trump"
It seems Trump has become the whipping boy for the left and the right.
David Gregory asking Newt if he thinks Trump is a serious candidate. I wonder if ever asked a Dem candidate if he/she thought Al Sharpton a serious candidate?
-
Good Presidents persuade the middle and bad ones dupe them. Today one side is fixated on persuasion the other is re-sharpening their skills on the dupe.
-----
The capture of Saddam had a 7 week bump. OBL is bigger and the mission was more impressive. Let a couple months and a couple of new policy fights go by. Let's see what polls are saying at the end of the summer.
The one who "assembled the team" and "directed the mission" is the same one who hasn't even started to dither on Syria - or private sector U.S. investment and jobs. Even a Middle East on fire won't hit home like the new, record levels of the broader Misery Index measures.
HW Bush still had good likability when the voters decided they were done with him as President.
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/05/15/george_will_next_president_will_be_obama_daniels_or_pawlenty.html
“This is the most open scramble on the Republican side since 1940 when Wendell Willkie came out of the woodwork and swept the field,” Will said. “I think — people are complaining this is not off to a brisk start. I think that’s wrong. I think we know with reasonable certainty that standing up there on the West front of the Capitol on Jan. 20, 2013 will be one of three people: Obama, [former Minnesota Gov. Tim] Pawlenty and [Indiana Gov. Mitch] Daniels. I think that’s it.”
-
Bush 1 lost because of Perot.
-
"Good Presidents persuade the middle and bad ones dupe them"
Well, I haven't heard anyone yet who seems to be convincing the middle class or those in the middle - yet.
I haven't even heard a Republican even trying. That's the problem.
-
"[The President] is the dignified, but accountable magistrate of a free and great people. The tenure of his office, it is true, is not hereditary; nor is it for life: but still it is a tenure of the noblest kind: by being the man of the people, he is invested; by continuing to be the man of the people, his investiture will be voluntarily, and cheerfully, and honourably renewed." --James Wilson, Lectures on Law, 1791
-
"Good Presidents persuade the middle and bad ones dupe them"
Well, I haven't heard anyone yet who seems to be convincing the middle class or those in the middle - yet.
I haven't even heard a Republican even trying. That's the problem.
CCP seems to be leading the charge, but unfortunately, no one seems to be listening.
With no Huckabee, who in GOP will stand for jobs, middle class?
By David Frum, CNN Contributor
May 17, 2011 12:30 p.m. EDT
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
David Frum: Huckabee's announcement he won't run for president opens GOP void
Huckabee had his flaws, but got job and mobility concerns of the middle class
GOP candidates seem out of touch with Americans' worries on housing, jobs, economy
Frum: Democratic fixes mean taxes, regulation. Not great, but where are the fixes from GOP?
Editor's note: David Frum writes a weekly column for CNN.com. A special assistant to President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2002, he is the author of six books, including "Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again," and is the editor of FrumForum.
(CNN) -- The exit of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee from the 2012 presidential race opens a huge void in the Republican field.
Who now will speak to the concerns of middle-class American families?
There were many flaws in Huckabee's 2008 candidacy. His cultural message was too reactionary. His so-called Fair Tax was an ill-considered gimmick. His foreign policy background was too thin.
But of all the candidates in that year of economic crisis, Huckabee was unequaled in showing understanding and regard for those families getting by on incomes of five figures and not six, seven, eight or nine.
Now in 2011, the Republican candidates have wandered even further from middle-class concerns.
You hear more from this field about imaginary threats to the Constitution than about real threats to middle-class wages. More about the gold standard than about educational standards. More about eliminating Planned Parenthood than about improving health care coverage.
Meanwhile the American middle class faces its harshest challenge since the Great Depression.
From 2000 to 2007 -- before the onset of the recession -- the median wage actually declined and the average family's debt burden grew heavier.
Then came the economic crisis: 8 million jobs lost in half a year. Housing values collapsed. Savings disappeared.
While the unemployment numbers have improved a little recently, a cohort of young Americans risk losing half a decade of their lives to chronic under-employment -- even as workers 55 and older face prematurely and permanently reduced incomes.
And even as jobs return, it's not clear that incomes will recover.
There's accumulating evidence that upward mobility has broken down in this society. Poorer Americans find it harder to escape poverty than they did a generation ago. More bitter still, there is evidence that people born poor in America find it harder to escape poverty than do people born poor in many European societies, including those supposed backwaters of socialist stagnation, Germany and France.
The Democratic Party responds to those social challenges by offering more government, more regulation and more taxes. These are not Republican answers, obviously.
But what are the Republican answers? And who will offer them?
If Huckabee will not be that candidate, then who will?
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of David Frum.
-
Gee, might be good to have someone with an extensive business background as president.
-
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/17/huntsman-i-believe-in-climate-change-because-90-of-scientists-do/
Oh great. :roll:
-
"With no Huckabee, who in GOP will stand for jobs, middle class?
By David Frum,"
All of them do, just not in the class warfare manner he might like. He hits it right in the closing. If more government, more regulation and more taxes are what people want, it most certainly will be there for you on the ballot. Just hopefully not on the Republican side.
-
"But what are the Republican answers? And who will offer them?"
Well we have gigantic centralized government with confiscation and wealth transfer on the Dem side and on the Republican side with strict Reaganism we have the theory that we need just open the spigits and let the wealth concentrate at the top and trickle down. I know the wealthy pay the bulk of taxes already but I think most people think the game is too rigged in their favor.
(As a victim of organized crime I see first hand how it can work)
Now we can argue about how well Reaganomics works, and please don't get me wrong, I voted and loved Reagan but I fear and recognize there are a lot of people in the middle who are struggling more and more to pay bills, education, taxes etc. and skeptical that either the Dem or the Rep. theory is going to help them.
I really think if Republicans offer a philosophy that all classes get equal justice (I know this may be more idealistic more than realistic) and an equal playing field than maybe, just maybe, the Repubs can finally get that undecided group of voters to buy in rather than waffle back and forth from one party to the other with whatever sounds/feels good on a given day.
Doug, you rightly point out the disgrace that wealthy people can have bribing local governments to literally force people off their property for business deals. Well this is a local issue I guess but this has got to stop. This is one example of unfairness due to economic class.
-
"...if Republicans offer a philosophy that all classes get equal justice (I know this may be more idealistic more than realistic) and an equal playing field..."
- Yes, yes, yes! All the targeted goodies, takings and policies that require waivers are exactly the opposite.
"Doug, you rightly point out the disgrace that wealthy people can have bribing local governments to literally force people off their property for business deals. Well this is a local issue I guess but this has got to stop. This is one example of unfairness due to economic class."
------
No. Unfairness due to bad governing policies. I don't blame the rich for buying what was made legal and available to them. I blame the Justices on the court who fail to recognize liberty and oppose tyranny.
It starts with Presidents appointing justices who respect founding principles, and they have not. Then moves to the Senate confirm that we are continuing founding principles for a new justice's lifetime, and they have not. Choosing Justices is right above Commander in Chief in the importance of Presidential duties IMO. Also the most important vote of each Senator.
I wasted years studying the economic relationships of scarcity, demand, products, services, behavior of willing sellers and price theory only to now live in a country where transactions are decided by a politburo of elitists, who know best which private party is best suited to own which parcel. The Court approved the power of local government to change private ownership by coercion based on money and false promises - the land at Kelo v. New London CT is still bulldozed and vacant. They can declare my property no longer mine and your property no longer yours; decide it would be better used by someone else, then pay unjust compensation determined another panel of elitists who know better than a market what a life savings or a family home is worth. That isn't the fault of people who covet. It is the failure of the people sworn to uphold our guarantee against oppression and tyranny to do so.
Hard to say what these elitists who place no value on consent in transactions or privacy in our homes and businesses deserve. One thought is to have Governor Huckebee pardon some inmates to move into their homes and offices to enjoy some legalized, unconsensual activity. When they are done we can ask the inmates to send over what they think is 'just compensation'.
The deciding vote in Kelo was Justice Kennedy who sits in the seat President Reagan chose Robert Bork to serve. VP Biden was head of the Judiciary Committee that invented the process called 'Borking' a candidate, elevating judicial nomination discord and leading to legalized private takings. President Obama in his minute in the senate, besides voting against raising the debt ceiling, voted against both Supreme Court nominees of his predecessor. People say conservatives need to compromise more and reach to the middle to win. With wins like these, how will we know when we lose.
------
In comparison to Reagan's time, we have the opportunity next year to choose someone who will govern where Reagan would like to have governed instead of where he did. And they don't Reagan's charisma to pull it off. Just a clear and focused return to basic common sense and time tested principles.
-
"I blame the Justices on the court who fail to recognize liberty and oppose tyranny."
Thanks for clarifying. It has been more a travesty of the judicial branch. I see what you mean.
"VP Biden was head of the Judiciary Committee that invented the process called 'Borking'"
I didn't remember that. Don't hear that much from the VP gaf in chief. I guess they told him to stay shut and out of the news.
" People say conservatives need to compromise more and reach to the middle to win."
I no longer believe in this. I realize there essentially *is no* compromise with the liberals. No matter what, they relentlessly continue on their quest to control every aspect of the lives of the world's peoples. Compromise and they simply take credit for the compromise and begin shoving more of their agenda down our throats the next day. That is why I like Dick Morris better than Karl Rove. The former seems more willing to fight for principles and convince people they are right where the latter seems to find ways for the Republicans to pander. Just my impression. I would kind of like to see if Morris could hook up with Gingrich. I know most on this board don't like the Newt but want to give him a chance. I think Morris could help him along with others who would protect him - from himself. However, I don't know if Newt has the ego for constructive "management" so to speak.
FWIW my thinking is we don't compromise on principles. But the principles and rules are level for all - rich and poor. I am not against the rich. But I am against a system that allows famous wealthy celebrities paying 1/50th of the real estate tax in NJ than I pay for a property that is probably 1/100 the size of theirs. I think if Republicans can highlight this they may be able to shed the image of being just for the rich. They are for all of us. They are the gardians of the people - not a class.
-
From 'The Way Forward' April 21, 2010, Freki: "I am from Texas and I don't like Perry. He is a POLITICIAN = weasel. I do not trust him. I am a conservative and I did not vote for him in the primary. If he gets the Republican nomination for Pres he will be better than a liberal but I would classify him as a progressive republican. Voter beware. IMHO - Freki
-------
Commentators are observing that Rick Perry is saying he is out but acting like he is in. The weasel/politician comment is consistent with that. There aren't many big names or big state, multiple term Governors left to enter.
I wrote that I would support our former gov. Pawlenty as conservative enough and possibly electable, but many MN conservatives dislike him and say similar things to Freki's comments on Perry. I've also shared the story that I was wearing his conservative opponent's sticker on my lapel when I first met him. OTOH, Pawlenty was house majority leader at the time, won that election and reelection and got things done, like fighting off further moves to the left in the land of 10,000 taxes. His conservative primary opponent was an outsider, a common sense businessman who got painted early as the scary extremist in the race, not by Pawlenty but by the media and by association.
From Freki or anyone, looking for more details and examples on Perry. The politician thing is only partly a negative for this job, someone has to do it :wink: and the weasel is a clever and successful creature able to prey on animals larger than themselves...
Texas seems to be the leading state in the nation now after California fell off the edge. The deadline for a serious campaign I'm guessing is probably early Sept. If Perry gets in, it could be with a steamroller of momentum. The more informed we are when it happens, the better off we will be.
-
I listened with astonishment to hear Morris call Bachman "brilliant" on O'Reilly yesterday. Even Bill asked, "brilliant?"
Perhaps Morris sees more than I do. I certainly hope he is right. Perhaps she has more potential than I have see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWgTUIcY2Dk
OTOH is Morris just bucking for a job?
-
I listened with astonishment to hear Morris call Bachman "brilliant" on O'Reilly yesterday. Even Bill asked, "brilliant?"
Perhaps Morris sees more than I do. I certainly hope he is right. Perhaps she has more potential than I have see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWgTUIcY2Dk
OTOH is Morris just bucking for a job?
I'd like to see the evidence he'd cite to support that claim. I don't hate her by any means, but I don't have that word jumping out at me when I see her speak.
-
"I don't have that word jumping out at me when I see her speak"
My thought exactly. :lol:
Perhaps there is some sort of analogy with Nancy Pelosi here?
Everytime I ever heard Nancy Pelosi speak all I could think of is how in the world could this idiot become speaker of the House of Representatives. ONe could only conclude she has some genious talent to get things done behind the scenes that is not reflected in her public personna. :?
Perhaps Bachman is a real talent behind the scenes that we don't see. Morris points out SHE is the one running the Tea party movement in Congress. If she is really the genius he describes her as, we should, I think expect her to get better and better.
I hope he is right.
-
Dennis Miller had a funny line about Nanzi Pelosi. Something along the lines about how that permanent surprised look on her face was the result of her not being able to believe she was ever put in a position of power.
-
Based upon what I have seen and heard so far I like Michelle Bachman quite a bit. I wish she had executive experience and a sense of time and depth dedicated to thinking about foreign affairs. That said, I find her articulate, and respect what it takes to get a masters degree it tax law and what it takes to be a federal tax litigation attorney. These things bespeak a not common level of intellectual rigor and an ability to think mathematically as well as a certain level of killer instinct-- which I mean in a good way. The 5 children and 23 foster children partenting is quite an immunization shot against many forms of Dem demogoguery, as is being a woman. Morris's comment about a Bachman-Cain ticket is intriguing-- for Cain has formidable private sector executive experience, and is the immunization shot against Dem race-baiting.
-
"The 5 children and 23 foster children partenting is quite an immunization shot against many forms of Dem demogoguery, as is being a woman."
Ask Gov. Palin how that has has worked out for her.
-
"for Cain has formidable private sector executive experience, and is the immunization shot against Dem race-baiting."
Not so much. Remember, as far as the left is concerned, it's ok to be racist towards a minority who dares to hold a conservative political opinion, just ask Michelle Malkin.
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/15/the-strange-racist-attack-on-herman-cain/
-
One point IMO with Bachmann-Cain is that it is upset down. He is the executive.
I have defended Bachmann plenty, mostly because she is criticized so strongly. She is smart and conservative but a bit of a lightning rod for liberals and independents who hate and distrust anyone or anything far right. A few gaffes along the way, but has done plenty of good for the conservative cause. Her opponents for her congressional seat keep underestimating her as she keeps winning reelection against huge liberal money in Minnesota's most conservative district, the so-called x-urbs, a ring across the northern metro and outward.
GM is right on both counts. Cain somehow gets no credit for being black and hugely successful because he is a conservative. Bachmann, like Palin, is a freak to ordinary liberal to independent women for raising so many children and having conservative views especially in education.
She is somewhat self-appointed as a tea party leader. I like Marco Rubio's explanation of not joining that legislative group. Paraphrasing: the tea party by definition is the grass roots leading the elected officials, not the other way around. Taking that distinction further, I would say that Rubio with a million vote win in a key swing state is an example of attracting people to the movement, while Bachmann is well liked I think only by people who are already very conservative. Bachmann could not similarly be elected to the senate in Minnesota.
For Bachmann, not brilliant, but the smartest person in the room in this youtube committee hearing clip with Barney Frank presiding and Bachmann questions Bernanke and Geithner about the constitutionality of all the tarp funds and federal bailouts of non-financial institutions. Bernanke at least had an answer. Geithner is a blathering idiot and Barney Frank's talk at the end is beyond words.: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SXpGV1HLZk[/youtube]
-
Regarding race baiting of conservative blacks and sexism against conservative women: Yes of course this happens-- but my sense of things is that the rubber band on this sort of excrement is about to snap back-- people are getting fed up with this crap and Bachman and Cain are ideally suited to be the tip of the spear on this IMHO.
-
Regarding race baiting of conservative blacks and sexism against conservative women: Yes of course this happens-- but my sense of things is that the rubber band on this sort of excrement is about to snap back-- people are getting fed up with this crap and Bachman and Cain are ideally suited to be the tip of the spear on this IMHO.
You make a good point. Also for the next year Republicans will be judged by the field of candidates, not the nominee. Nothing looks more stereotypical than having 12-16 white guys on the stage for a year, all wearing the same suit, same tie, same age, same background, and saying the same things.
Obama's dual base of rich elitist whites along with the unproductive inner city vote of all colors is mostly not going to switch teams; they've just lost enthusiasm because the expectation of getting big results for doing nothing is gone. The ground game in the inner city is still ACORN, the anti-capitalism, pro-big-government and welfare rights organization but under a new name. They will be supporting leftism over color. Likewise for the ground game within academia, teachers union etc.
A ray of hope with young voters: http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailycaller/20110520/pl_dailycaller/recentcollegegradssouronobamasurveyssay;_ylt=Ase0UH_am0IDPFioAHCKdJSyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTNtaDU5ajA0BGFzc2V0A2RhaWx5Y2FsbGVyLzIwMTEwNTIwL3JlY2VudGNvbGxlZ2VncmFkc3NvdXJvbm9iYW1hc3VydmV5c3NheQRwb3MDMTUE
Recent college grads sour on Obama, surveys say
A very large proportion of recent university graduates have soured on President Barack Obama, and many will vote GOP or stay at home in the 2012 election, according to two new surveys of younger voters.
“These rock-solid Obama constituents are free-agents,” said Kellyanne Conway, president of The Polling Company, based in Washington, D.C. She recently completed a large survey of college grads, and “they’re shopping around, considering their options, [and] a fair number will say at home and sit it out,” she said.
The scope of this disengagement from Obama is suggested by an informal survey of 500 post-grads by Joe Maddalone, founder of Maddalone Global Strategies. Of his sample, 93 percent are aged between 22 and 28, 67 percent are male and 83 percent voted for Obama in 2008. But only 27 percent are committed to voting for Obama again, and 80 percent said they would consider voting for a Republican, said New York-based Maddalone.
That’s a drop of almost 60 points in support for Obama among this influential class of younger post-grad voters,
------
The challenge as posed in the first paragraph is to get a significant portion of these people who are tempted to sit out converted over to pro-growth, limited government conservatism. If they just sit out a cycle, Republicans could win this one by default, but the seesaw battle of stagnation, hating incumbents and getting nothing good accomplished continues.
-
"They will be supporting leftism over color"
Exactly. We must not conclude the Blacks are so overwhelmingly supporting Bama because he is black but because he is for liberalism and confiscation/redistribution of wealth.
Evidence speaking to this is their previous support for Clinton throughout the 90's.
Further evidence is their relative silence for any Black who happens to be conservative - Colin Powell (in the past), West, Cain, Condolezza Rice, etc. It is remarkable to see the adoration of Michelle Bama from the hoards of minorities yet we/I (at least) do not recall ever seeing one picture of them ever adulating any conservative Black with incredible achievements.
To them conservative Blacks are Uncle Toms. IMO they shoot themselves in the head by doing this. The progressive movement is destroying America JUST when the Blacks are finally achieving their due. Their support of illegals because illegals and their kids tend to support Democratic party issues is definitely suicidal. The people from overseas are not interested in American Blacks. Indeed they just want the money and the pie and many clearly are not interested in American values at all that I can see.
It is the money (economy) stupid.
-
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55424.html
-
I tuned in at the awkward moment described at the first link where Cain appeared to not know what Chris Wallace meant by 'right of return' in the Israel-Palestinian issue. Wallace jumped back in to elaborated as he was not looking for a gotcha moment to advance his career (unlike Gibson, Couric with Palin) and since there is more than one right of return issue possible. Cain still looked a bit lost for details.
On Afghanistan, I have previously appreciated his point about people without all the information second guessing the war effort and strategy. However... running for Commander in Chief, communicator in chief, he should have plenty to say about goals, decision criteria, etc. for a question about America's longest running war.
Did anyone see the entire interview?
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/herman-cain-i-would-offer-palestinians-nothing-for-peace-they-dont-want-peace/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/05/22/herman_cain_would_offer_palestinians_nothing_in_peace_deal.html
-
Tim Pawlenty announced he was turning against ethanol supports - in Iowa - yesterday, announcing support for raising the retirement age - in Florida - today, and unveiling his plans on financial reforms - on Wall Street - tomorrow.
Courage to Stand.
What did O'bama/Biden/Pelosi/Reid get done this week?
-
You mean aside from threatening Israel's survival? Let's give credit when it's due.
-
Doug: I recorded the Wallace interview of Cain and finally got to watch it. Not knowing the phrase "right of return" is pretty discouraging. I respect the point about not having intel on Afghanistan, but not to have something to say at all e.g. about basic thoughts concerning the Islamo-fascist threat is really discouraging. Also from a former Fed chairman I would have expected more articulate economic commentary.
Maybe as he gets a bit warmed up he will do better and become worthy of the VP slot , , ,
Viz Pawlenty: That sounds like a real good start!
-
I tuned in at the awkward moment described at the first link where Cain appeared to not know what Chris Wallace meant by 'right of return' in the Israel-Palestinian issue. Wallace jumped back in to elaborated as he was not looking for a gotcha moment to advance his career (unlike Gibson, Couric with Palin) and since there is more than one right of return issue possible. Cain still looked a bit lost for details.
On Afghanistan, I have previously appreciated his point about people without all the information second guessing the war effort and strategy. However... running for Commander in Chief, communicator in chief, he should have plenty to say about goals, decision criteria, etc. for a question about America's longest running war.
Did anyone see the entire interview?
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/herman-cain-i-would-offer-palestinians-nothing-for-peace-they-dont-want-peace/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/05/22/herman_cain_would_offer_palestinians_nothing_in_peace_deal.html
Oof. I'm starting to think the republican party is the new "Not Ready for Prime-Time Players". Cain should have learned from Palin, better be on your A-game at all times. I bet Cain could tell you that the US doesn't have 57 states, and knows the year he's in http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/24/the-obligatory-obama-thinks-its-still-2008-post/comment-page-1/#comments but the Obama state media won't cover that.
-
Many of the Republican presidential hopefuls should be able to beat President Obama in 2012. This president has a track record now and, thus, many vulnerabilities. If he is not our "worst president," as Donald Trump would have it, his sweeping domestic initiatives—especially his stimulus package and health-care reform—were so jerry-built and high-handed that they generated a virtual revolution in America's normally subdued middle class.
The president's success in having Osama bin Laden killed is an exception to a pattern of excruciatingly humble and hesitant leadership abroad. Mr. Obama has been deeply ambivalent about the application of American power, as if a shameful "neocolonialism" attends every U.S. action in the world. In Libya he seems actually to want American power to diminish altogether.
This formula of shrinking American power abroad while expanding government power at home confuses and disappoints many Americans. Before bin Laden, 69% of Americans believed the country was on the wrong track, according to an Ipsos survey. A recent Zogby poll found that only 38% of respondents believed Mr. Obama deserved a second term, while 55% said they wanted someone new.
And yet Republicans everywhere ask, "Who do we have to beat him?" In head-to-head matchups, Mr. Obama beats all of the Republican hopefuls in most polls.
The problem Mr. Obama poses for Republicans is that there has always been a disconnect between his actual performance and his appeal. If Hurricane Katrina irretrievably stained George W. Bush, the BP oil spill left no lasting mark on this president. Mr. Obama's utter confusion in the face of the "Arab spring" has nudged his job-approval numbers down, but not his likability numbers, which Gallup has at a respectable 47.6%. In the mainstream media there has been a willingness to forgive this president his mistakes, to see him as an innocent in an impossible world. Why?
There have really always been two Barack Obamas: the mortal man and the cultural icon. If the actual man is distinctly ordinary, even a little flat and humorless, the cultural icon is quite extraordinary. The problem for Republicans is that they must run against both the man and the myth. In 2008, few knew the man and Republicans were walloped by the myth. Today the man is much clearer, and yet the myth remains compelling.
What gives Mr. Obama a cultural charisma that most Republicans cannot have? First, he represents a truly inspiring American exceptionalism: He is the first black in the entire history of Western civilization to lead a Western nation—and the most powerful nation in the world at that. And so not only is he the most powerful black man in recorded history, but he reached this apex only through the good offices of the great American democracy.
Thus his presidency flatters America to a degree that no white Republican can hope to compete with. He literally validates the American democratic experiment, if not the broader Enlightenment that gave birth to it.
View Full Image
Getty Images
.He is also an extraordinary personification of the American Dream: Even someone from a race associated with slavery can rise to the presidency. Whatever disenchantment may surround the man, there is a distinct national pride in having elected him.
All of this adds up to a powerful racial impressionism that works against today's field of Republican candidates. This is the impressionism that framed Sen. John McCain in 2008 as a political and cultural redundancy—yet another older white male presuming to lead the nation.
The point is that anyone who runs against Mr. Obama will be seen through the filter of this racial impressionism, in which white skin is redundant and dark skin is fresh and exceptional. This is the new cultural charisma that the president has introduced into American politics.
Today this charisma is not as strong for Mr. Obama. The mere man and the actual president has not lived up to his billing as a historical breakthrough. Still, the Republican field is framed and—as the polls show—diminished by his mere presence in office, which makes America the most socially evolved nation in the world. Moreover, the mainstream media coddle Mr. Obama—the man—out of its identification with his exceptionalism.
Conversely, the media hold the president's exceptionalism against Republicans. Here is Barack Obama, evidence of a new and progressive America. Here are the Republicans, a cast of largely white males, looking peculiarly unevolved. Add to this the Republicans' quite laudable focus on deficit reduction and spending cuts, and they can be made to look like a gaggle of scolding accountants.
How can the GOP combat the president's cultural charisma? It will have to make vivid the yawning gulf between Obama the flattering icon and Obama the confused and often overwhelmed president. Applaud the exceptionalism he represents, but deny him the right to ride on it as a kind of affirmative action.
A president who is both Democratic and black effectively gives the infamous race card to the entire left: Attack our president and you are a racist. To thwart this, Republicans will have to break through the barrier of political correctness.
Mr. McCain let himself be intimidated by Obama's cultural charisma, threatening to fire any staff member who even used the candidate's middle name. Donald Trump shot to the head of the Republican line by focusing on Mr. Obama as a president, calling him our "worst" president. I carry no brief for Mr. Trump, but his sudden success makes a point: Another kind of charisma redounds to those willing to challenge political correctness—those unwilling to be in thrall to the president's cultural charisma.
Lastly, there must be a Republican message of social exceptionalism. America has more social mobility than any heterogeneous society in history. Isn't there a great Republican opportunity to be had in urging minorities to at last move out of their long era of protest—in which militancy toward the very society they struggled to join was the way ahead? Aren't Republicans uniquely positioned to offer minorities a liberation from both dependency and militancy?
In other words, isn't there a fresh new social idealism implicit in conservative principles? Why not articulate it and fight with it in the political arena? Such a message would show our president as unevolved in his social thinking—oh so 1965. The theme: Barack Obama believes in government; we believe in you.
Mr. Steele is a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. Among his books is "White Guilt" (Harper/Collins, 2007).
-
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/bachmann-reveals-plans-presidential-announcement-in-iowa-next-month/
-
Huntsman's ace up the sleeve is his ability to appeal to centrist and independent voters.
In a party where candidates try to out-"conservative" each other every day, Huntsman calls himself "a pragmatic problem solver."
Even his criticisms of Obama reek of common sense, as with his gentle rebuke of the president's Israel-Palestinian peace plan: "If you respect Israel," Huntsman said, "we probably ought to ask what they think is best."
"I believe in civility," he told CNN's John King. "I believe we ought to have a civil discourse in this country. You're not going to agree with people 100% of the time, but when they succeed and do things that are good, you can compliment them."
On fiscal issues, conservatives can look at Huntsman's record as governor with confidence. He supported a series of tax cuts that aimed to create a more business-friendly environment in Utah, improving its competitiveness in the global economy. During his tenure, Utah was named one of the best states to do business in and the "best managed state" by the Pew Center on the States.
This message will resonate with the overwhelming number of Americans who want to see an end to Washington's hyper-partisan infighting. Huntsman's approach could give swing voters who personally like Obama permission to vote against him in the fall of 2012. It's the politics of addition, not division: an affirmation of old American wisdom once articulated by Benjamin Franklin. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/05/24/avlon.huntsman/index.html
-
"Huntsman's ace up the sleeve is his ability to appeal to centrist and independent voters."
That's much of an ace when he first has to appeal to Republicans to win the primary.
-
"Huntsman's ace up the sleeve is his ability to appeal to centrist and independent voters."
That's much of an ace when he first has to appeal to Republicans to win the primary.
True! He needs to win the Republican nomination first; that could be more difficult
than winning the general election for him. :-)
The title of the Article is "Why Democrats don't want Huntsman to run"
-
I often use my wife as my own polling survey. Last night I showed her the Bret Baier interview of Paul Ryan from Thursday. She liked him a lot. Several of her comments indicated to me that women would respond well to him.
-
I watched the Bachmann video at Crafty's link (and have seen her many other times). Articulate, detailed about a national security issue (and monetary and constitutional issues), speaks mostly without notes or prompter. She is on the Intelligence committee with national security clearance and knowledge, also Financial Services Committee. Credible with conservatives to give cover for a difficult vote that could spark a tea party challenge. She appreciates the contention between the national security interest and general opposition to expanded powers. She explains with enough detail to show why we need these powers to track terrorists.
That said, is Bachmann best suited in a legislative or executive capacity? If it is executive, that would be without experience running in a room full of governors. But she is making quite an effective national firestorm right where she is.
Garfield was elected President from the House - so it is possible.
Bachmann's appeal is to conservatives. She has limited appeal to independents and none to Democrats IMO. Probably best suited IMHO right where she is, holding elected Republicans to their promises and their principles.
-
Asking the wrong question is a great way to get the wrong answer.
JDN wrote: "Huntsman's ace up the sleeve is his ability to appeal to centrist and independent voters."
BD clarified: " ... he first has to appeal to Republicans to win the primary."
- Absolutely correct.
------------------------
McCain is a centrist famous for his moderation. He actually won the primaries, got to run against the number one far leftist, least experienced senator and lost. Unique times certainly, but there is more to it.
The question for the Republicans is: Who can win the hearts minds and passions of the conservatives first, AND appeal to the sensible middle of the spectrum. JDN's ace point assumes (IMO) the conjunction right OR center, really right VERSUS center, when the question is who unites right AND center.
I've been to countless Republican nominating conventions where the contention is stated as conservative principles versus electable centrist and who wins depends on the year and the crowd. The best candidates of course start with all the core principles of their party or their movement and then take that appeal to the center with persuasion (or obfuscation) rather than abandonment of principles. Reagan on the right and the Obama 2008 campaign on the left are examples.
McCain won the endorsement without winning the hearts and minds of conservatives. He started the general campaign still needing to reach to the right before he could reach to the middle. Neat trick if you can do it. Obama left his convention with the left in his hip pocket and only needed to reach to the middle, with reassurances, good endorsements, billion dollar advertising and Greek column, music-filled obfuscation. When McCain reached back to the right, Obama took the middle and the prize money.
Reagan won by espousing nothing but core principles. In the general election, twice, all he needed to do was reach into his own heart and explain why he believes what he believes. When the going got tough coming into 1984, the opponents chose their most highly qualified opponent for him. Reagan didn't shift down to growth-economy-lite or cold-war-lite to solidify his appeal to the middle. He stuck with core principles, explained and explained them, and won 49 states.
The assumption from the far-centrists is that conservatives have no choice if the party goes RINO, where we all know centrists can jump ship at the first sign of trouble. Therefore the RINO is always preferable... Good luck with that centrist theory in 2012. After the McCain experience and the countless RINO positions of the 8 year W. Bush Presidency, don't think that people of tea party / fix-these-problems-now passion are going to hold their nose one more time. The candidate that abandons the right will lose a 2 party fight to this incumbent for certain and more likely would lose in a 3-way fight as their is no chance IMO that the movement we call tea party is going to sit still in '012.
-
Covering for a left gap of political thought on the board, I offer the view of Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos fame to tell us what he thinks of Obama's challengers:
http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/markos-moulitas/163049-the-gops-cast-of-clowns
The GOP’s cast of clowns
By Markos Moulitsas - 05/24/11 06:23 PM ET
On Sunday night, Tim Pawlenty released another of his oddball videos, reminding people yet again that he was running for president.
Such periodic reminders aren’t a bad idea, since it only takes 10 minutes for the average person to forget he exists. But at least give him props — he’s actually attempting to be the Bob Dole of 2012 in a year in which nearly all serious Republicans have decided they have better things to do than lose to President Obama.
So rather than a high-caliber presidential field, the Republicans have put together a cavalcade of clowns.
There’s Mitt Romney, granddaddy of Obama’s healthcare plan — the same healthcare plan that base Republicans now consider worse than Hitler. Flip-flopping on the individual mandate is familiar territory for Romney. Remember, he was for a woman’s right to choose before he was against it, he was for gay rights before he wanted them relegated to second-class citizens, he was for the assault-weapons ban before he was against it, he was for raising the minimum wage before he wanted it eliminated, he was for limits on carbon emissions that he now opposes, etc., etc., etc.
And all that flapping around is for naught. The GOP base holds grudges.
Newt Gingrich rolled out his presidential campaign by bashing Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) Medicare-killing budget. “I am against ObamaCare imposing radical change, and I would be against a conservative imposing radical change,” he proclaimed on a Sunday morning talk show. The resulting howl marked the birth of yet another GOP litmus test — you are either for destroying Medicare, or you are Republican In Name Only. Thus, the architect of the 1994 conservative revolution in the House was declared by Rush Limbaugh (among others) to be a RINO.
Now, after a week of trying to walk back the slam on the Ryan budget, questions about past support for an individual healthcare mandate and something about a $500,000 Tiffany’s bill, Gingrich declared that he will no longer answer “gotcha” questions about anything he’s said or written in the past. As one person quipped on Twitter, “Gingrich thinks his record has fallen ill & he can cleanly divorce it.”
How about Sarah Palin? True, the half-term governor is too lazy to finish anything, but she’s never too lazy to start something. While she’d suffer an epic double-digit loss to Obama in a Mondale-like shellacking, enough of the primary-deciding GOP base adores her. If she runs, she’s a real threat for the nomination. But she won’t. It’s that “lazy” thing.
Jon Huntsman mocked the birthers, has supported an individual mandate, served in the Obama administration, believes in climate change and is Mormon. Good luck with that.
Fox News loves cardboard pizza mogul Herman Cain. Rick Santorum still exists. Gary “Who?” Johnson thinks drug legalization is his ticket. And Ron Paul will collect millions from his fervent fans to win 15 percent of the vote.
Which leaves Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, who is (don’t snicker) a real threat to win the nomination if Palin stays out. She’ll raise a ton. Has real Tea Party cred. She gets to camp out in next-door Iowa, and will appeal to the kind of people who show up to caucuses. She might be the person who could lose even worse to Obama than Palin, but the GOP primary electorate doesn’t concern itself with “electability.”
Finally, as a reminder, there’s also Tim Pawlenty. Because I’m sure you’d forgotten already.
-
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2011/05/22/
-
http://www.youtube.com/thehermancain#p/u/0/MOFB-2yJzCY
-
Great Cain video! I hope that Perry, Bachmann and Palin jump in, along with Huntsman, to complete this field. Let's have some fun before we make our final decision.
--------------
Huntsman (or his writers) hits all the right notes in this piece. Doesn't sound like he thinks centrism is solving anything. I don't equate make "hard decisions now" with calls elsewhere for compromise on core fiscal principles.
Small point of fact check, Huntsman didn't get the memo that we aren't the second highest taxer of corporate profits in the developed world anymore. Japan's new, lower rate went into effect April 1, 2011.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303657404576357450908758760.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Our Current Time for Choosing
Anyone who disagrees with Paul Ryan's Medicare reforms has a moral obligation to propose an alternative.
By JON HUNTSMAN
This year marks the centennial anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birth—and America finds itself at a crossroads that brings to mind the title of that great man's famous speech in support of Barry Goldwater's presidential candidacy: "A Time for Choosing." We should not underestimate the seriousness of the responsibility. This is the moment when we will choose whether we are to become a declining power in the world, or a nation that again surpasses the great achievements of our history.
We are over $14 trillion in debt, $4 trillion more than we owed just two years ago. In 2008, the ratio of public debt to gross domestic product was 40%. Today it's 68%, and we are fast approaching the critical 90% threshold economists warn is unsustainable, causing dramatic spikes in inflation and interest rates, and corresponding declines in GDP and jobs.
Unless we make hard decisions now, in less than a decade every dollar of federal revenue will go to covering the costs of Medicare, Social Security and interest payments on our debt. We'll sink even deeper in debt to pay for everything else, from national security to disaster relief. American families will fall behind the economic security enjoyed by previous generations. Our country will fall behind the productivity of other countries. Our currency will be debased. Our influence in the world will wane. Our security will be more precarious.
Some argue for half-measures, or for delaying the inevitable because the politics are too hard. But delay is a decision to let America decline. The longer we wait, the harder our choices become.
The debt ceiling must be raised this summer to cover the government's massive borrowing, and we must make reductions in government spending a condition for increasing the debt ceiling. This will provide responsible leaders the opportunity to reduce, reform, and in some cases end government programs—including some popular but unaffordable subsidies for agriculture and energy—in order to save the trillions, not billions, necessary to make possible a future as bright as our past. It also means reforming entitlement programs that won't deliver promised benefits to retirees without changes that take account of the inescapable reality that we have too few workers supporting too many retirees.
I admire Congressman Paul Ryan's honest attempt to save Medicare. Those who disagree with his approach incur a moral responsibility to propose reforms that would ensure Medicare's ability to meet its responsibilities to retirees without imposing an unaffordable tax burden on future generations of Americans.
These aren't easy choices, and we must make them at a time of anemic economic growth and very high unemployment. That's why we must also make sweeping reforms of our tax code, regulatory policies and other government policies to improve our productivity, competitiveness and job creation.
The United States has the second-highest corporate tax rate in the world. We are losing out to countries that make it more attractive for businesses to invest there. Our tax code should encourage American businesses to invest and add new jobs here. We need a tax code that substitutes flatter and lower rates for the bewildering and often counterproductive array of deductions and loopholes, and that provides incentives to encourage savings, investment and growth.
We also need to pursue, as aggressively as other countries do, free trade agreements. Ninety-five percent of the world's customers live outside the U.S. We won't remain the most productive economy in the world if we embrace the mistaken belief that we can prosper by selling and buying only among ourselves, while other countries seize the extraordinary opportunities for economic growth that the global economy offers. Finally, we must reform public education, so that it prepares our children for the economic opportunities of this century, not the last one.
When I was the governor of Utah, we cut and flattened tax rates. We balanced budgets and grew our rainy-day fund. And when the economic crisis struck, we didn't raise taxes or rely on accounting gimmicks to hide obligations. We cut spending and made government more efficient. We increased revenues by facilitating a business environment in which innovators and job creators could expand our economic base. Utah maintained its AAA bond rating, and in 2008 it was named the best-managed state in the nation by the Pew Center on the States. We proved that government doesn't have to choose between fiscal responsibility and economic growth.
We should not accept that election-cycle politics make it too hard to make the decisions that are necessary to preserve the most productive and competitive economy in the world. This is not just a time for choosing new leaders. This is the hour when we choose our future.
Mr. Huntsman, a former Republican governor of Utah, served as U.S. ambassador to China from August 2009 to April 2011.
-
Well he has some explaining to do with regards to his support of cap and trade and some other issues noted in the following article but he should not and must not be written off. To do so we shoot ourselves in the foot. (Republicans).
The 2012 election is for the Republicans to lose. Obama should have NO chance unless the cans srew it up.
***Jon Huntsman
Picture perfect
But can Utah’s impressive ex-governor catch up with the front-runner for the Republican nomination, his fellow-Mormon Mitt Romney?
May 26th 2011 | DURHAM, NEW HAMPSHIRE | from the print edition
“I’M A margin-of-error guy,” Jon Huntsman cheerfully admits to an audience of a few dozen at a grand lakeside home in New Hampshire. Support for his putative presidential bid, he explains, registers in the low single digits in most polls—a level so low as to be meaningless. He and his family are “grateful that anyone would want to show up and shake our hands”.
Yet most pundits count Mr Huntsman as one of the leading contenders for the Republican nomination, alongside his fellow former governors Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty. In part, that is because the field is steadily narrowing: Mitch Daniels, another governor with a strong following among fiscal conservatives, bowed out of the race this week. Apart from Mr Huntsman himself, who says he will decide definitively whether to run next month, there are now only two possible entrants of any stature still on the sidelines: Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. There is talk that Mrs Bachmann, in particular, is about to join the fray, but both she and Mrs Palin are right-wing firebrands with a limited, albeit devoted, following.
The hype about Mr Huntsman also stems from his impressive résumé, including a term-and-a-bit as governor of Utah, a stint as ambassador to China (he speaks fluent Mandarin), various high-powered jobs in Washington and several spells in the family business. For all his self-deprecation, he appears on the verge of launching a determined campaign, having recruited staff, sounded out fund-raisers and tested the waters with a five-day tour of New Hampshire, which will hold the first Republican primary early next year.
Related topics
American conservative politics
American politics
World politics
Mitt Romney
Elections and voting
On his swing through the state, after the usual tropes about being a father first and foremost, saluting the service of veterans and relishing the give-and-take with the locals, Mr Huntsman spoke chiefly about his desire to revive the economy through a new “industrial revolution”. America could bring one about, he argues, by reducing its debt, lowering and simplifying taxes, cutting regulation and increasing the exploitation of domestic sources of energy. The alternative, he says, is a decade of stagnation and decline.
But unlike Mr Pawlenty, who officially launched his campaign this week, Mr Huntsman does not cite litanies of grim statistics, let alone blame Barack Obama for them. Indeed, Mr Huntsman usually mentions Mr Obama only to explain that when the president offered him the job of ambassador to China, he accepted out of a sense of duty. Politicians from both parties only want what is best for America, he says, and the country would be a better place if everyone acknowledged as much and kept political debate more civil.
Right-wing Republicans see all this as evidence of wishy-washiness. They complain that Mr Huntsman not only worked for Mr Obama, but also called him “a remarkable leader” in a gushing letter thanking him for the job. As governor, he defended lots of causes considered heretical by many conservatives, including Mr Obama’s economic stimulus, civil unions for gay couples and a cap-and-trade scheme to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. He has also advocated allowing illegal immigrants brought to America as children to attend state universities on the same basis as native-born locals.
Yet in most respects Mr Huntsman has an unimpeachably conservative record. He presided over the biggest tax cut in Utah’s history. He instituted health-care reforms of a much less meddling sort than those embraced by Mr Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts. He signed various bills designed to discourage abortion and encourage gun-ownership. He was re-elected in 2008 with 78% of the vote in one of the most fiercely Republican states in the nation, and left office with lofty approval ratings.
Whether Mr Huntsman can appeal to red-blooded Republicans in the primaries will depend in part on the quality of his campaign. Many of the staff he has lined up are veterans of the presidential bids of John McCain, who won the Republican nomination in 2008 despite his reputation as a relative liberal. Mr Huntsman seems quite relaxed on the hustings, taking up an impromptu pool game at a veterans’ club, for example (he lost), and teasing the locals about their accents. Unlike Mr Romney, he seems comfortable in a denim jacket, plaid shirt and corduroy trousers; his wife and two of his daughters accompanied him across New Hampshire in fashionable skinny jeans. His staff is happy to advertise that he dropped out of high school to play in a rock band, and is an avid motorcyclist.
But Mr Huntsman is not exactly the salt of the earth. His father made billions selling packaging to firms like McDonald’s, and worked in the Nixon administration. His stump speech can seem quite esoteric at times, with references to the inaugural speech of William Harrison, America’s ninth president, and to Japan’s “lost decade” of economic stagnation. He keeps banging on about the effects of the public debt on the exchange rate—natural enough for a former ambassador and trade negotiator, perhaps, but hardly the main concern in the eyes of most deficit hawks.
Moreover, Mr Huntsman, like Mr Romney, is a Mormon, a faith viewed with some suspicion by the evangelical Christians who make up a sizeable share of the Republican primary electorate. In fact, Mr Romney and Mr Huntsman are (distant) cousins, and have much in common. They are both sons of billionaire businessmen-turned-politicians; both have presidential looks and picture-perfect families; both are considered ideologically unreliable by many on the right.
Mr Huntsman, however, does not seem racked by doubts. Although he insists he is still “kicking the tyres” and needs to discuss it with his family, Mrs Huntsman says she does not foresee objections of the sort that caused Mr Daniels to pass. He has governed a state, he knows about foreign policy and he oozes confidence; it would be a pity if Mr Huntsman did not run.***
-
"The 2012 election is for the Republicans to lose. Obama should have NO chance unless the cans srew it up."
Well, we are talking about the republicans..... :roll:
-
And every night they see Boener and Mitchell on the evening news as the face of the Republican Party , , , :cry:
-
Whitewashing the Auto Bailouts
Posted by Daniel Ikenson
With his appearance at a Toledo factory today, President Obama seems to want to make the auto bailout a campaign issue. Let’s welcome that. Americans should understand what transpired.
Fancying himself “Savior of the Auto Industry,” the president deserves credit only for choosing to insulate two companies (and the UAW) from the consequences of their decisions. But with that credit he must accept responsibility for sluggish U.S. business investment, limited job creation, and the anemic economic recovery, which is due in no small measure to the regime uncertainty that descends from his intervention in the auto industry.
The administration suggests that the entire cost of the auto bailout is captured by the outlays that haven’t or won’t be returned. Despite much smaller claims from the administration, that figure will be about $5.5 billion in Chrysler’s case (the administration is overlooking $4 billion written off when New Chrysler emerged from bankruptcy), and somewhere from $7-$15 billion in GM’s case (depending on average share price for 500 million shares). Should that loss have to be reported to the FEC on a dollar-per-auto-worker-vote basis?
But the costs are much greater than these outlays.
The most compelling objections to the bailout were not rooted in the belief that the government couldn’t use its assumed power to help Chrysler and GM. On the contrary, the most compelling objections were over concerns that the government would do just that. It is the consequences of that intervention—the undermining of the rule of law, the confiscations, the politically driven decisions, and the distortion of market signals—that animated the most serious objections. Ford never publicly objected to the interventions to rescue its rivals. Do you think Ford may feel entitled to a future bailout if needed, having foregone the recent one? Does Ford think it has a pretty good insurance policy if it takes excessive risks that go awry? This is a cost that’s tough to measure, but an important cost nonetheless.
Any verdict on the outcome of the auto industry intervention must take into account, among other things, the billions of dollars in property confiscated from the auto companies’ debt-holders; the higher risk premium built into U.S. corporate debt as a result; the costs of denying the other more successful auto producers the spoils of competition (including additional market share and access to the resources misallocated at Chrysler and GM); the costs of rewarding irresponsible actors, like the UAW, by insulating them from the outcomes of what should have been an apolitical bankruptcy proceeding; the effects of GM’s nationalization on production, investment, and public policy decisions; the diminution of U.S. moral authority to counsel foreign governments against market interventions that can adversely affect U.S. businesses competing abroad, and; the corrosive impact on America’s institutions of the illegal diversion of TARP funds to achieve politically desirable outcomes.
Let’s make the auto bailout a campaign issue and see if we can’t reconcile all of its costs.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/whitewashing-the-auto-bailouts/
-
Please post this in Govt programs lest this thread become a repository for any and all issues.
-
Until Obama pardons the illegals:
***A Rasmussen poll released yesterday shows that 35.6 percent of Americans are now Republicans, compared to 34.0 percent who are Democrats. That’s a higher tally for Republicans, and the widest margin between the two parties, than at any time since the GOP took control of the House in January. A year ago, only 32.0 percent of Americans were Republicans, while 35.1 percent were Democrats. So that’s a swing of 4.7 percentage points — from a 3.1-point Democratic advantage to a 1.6-point Republican advantage — in the past year.
In March, before Paul Ryan and the House Republicans released their budget — which would reduce deficit spending by 46 percent and $1 billion a day versus President Obama’s budget — Democrats held a 1.3-point advantage over Republicans (35.3 percent Democrat to 34.0 percent Republican). That advantage has now swung the other way.
The current figure of 34.0 percent Democrats marks the 3rd-lowest tally for the party in the past seven years. When Obama was elected in November of 2008, 41.4 percent of Americans were Democrats, and only 33.8 percent were Republicans — a slightly larger margin (7.6 percent) than Obama’s margin over John McCain in the popular vote (7.3 percent). Party allegiance has since swung 9.2 points toward the GOP.***
-
Only 1 in 3 (in MN) say Pawlenty should have run for President and only 1 in 7 think Bachmann should run, it was reported on local news.
For translation, I figure a 50% error on Minnesota polls based on either media/polling bias and/or just that 50% of people polled aren't the same ones who vote. My conclusion: Rep. Michele Bachmann has absolutely no chance of winning Minnesota and former Gov. Tim Pawlenty would most certainly be the underdog in this very blue state.
Worse yet, Obama-clone Sen. Amy Klobuchar is considered a 'shoo-in for reelection in any matchup.
On the positive context side, no polls gave any indication whatsoever that Democrats would give up all of their 2-1 majorities and more in both the state house and senate last November.
I don't want to start some obsession with following every poll this early, just posting this to show relative strength and weakness. (The election will not be held today!)
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=be72dc6c-d8fe-4da2-ab5d-07ce56bc7bee
Favorable / Unfavorable
Tim Pawlenty: 35 / 38
Michele Bachmann: 23 / 51
2012 President
48% Obama (D), 43% Pawlenty (R)
57% Obama (D), 32% Bachmann (R)
------
The competitiveness of an Obama-Pawlenty matchup is IMO with the bin Laden bump is still in play and with the new, bad economy stories is just starting to set in. I believe Pawlenty can win MN but if he does it would already be a nationwide Republican sweep based on impatience with a bad economy, not as the deciding state in a Bush-Gore like contest.
One segment of Pawlenty's negatives come from conservative who will still show up for him, and no part of Bachmann's positives come from liberals or centrists.
-
Pawlenty sounds good when I hear him.
I think he will come on strong.
The liberals have been doing a great job destroying all the Repubs even before they get off the ground so to speak.
I would choose Palin before Bachman at this point. Bachman has not impressed me but hopefully she will get better with time.
I don't know why so many are pushing NJ governor Christie to run. I agree with Mark Levin he is a one trick pony.
All he ever talks about is the deficit and he appears to be doing a good job in a union/democrat controlled/strangled state but he avoids all other issues as far as I can tell. Levin thinks he is a closet liberal on some of the more national issues but he may be misreading him. I think he probably is mostly conservative but he is also a pragmatist. A real conservative could NEVER win in NJ. Nonetheless I don't recall ever hearing speak much about anything other than working on NJ's budget shortfalls and taking on some of the unions.
-
Agreed about Christie.
-
It is not Christie himself for 2012, but people are recognizing a quality in him that would be very helpful. In a very different way, same for Marco Rubio. After a nomination, the adoring national press would turn against him in the general election exactly as they will for any of the others.
"I think he probably is mostly conservative but he is also a pragmatist."
That is EXACTLY how Sarah Palin's governance was described - pragmatic - for half a term prior to being picked running mate. It is the perception that is extremist.
"Pawlenty sounds good when I hear him.(CCP) I think he will come on strong."
Pawlenty is fairly conservative guy sounding conservative themes, but his perception is more moderate and less threatening.
I hope he comes on very gradually, just like he is. He is not going to sweep people off their feet and is less genuine when he tries to be more exciting. He needs enough poll numbers (high single digits?)just to stay relevant before the hard choices start getting made.
I kind of hope that Palin and Bachmann get in. People are judging the field, not just looking for just one person right now. The field looks better with these two in! Likewise for Herman Cain and any other diversity we can find. But the nominee is going be one of the (full term or two term) governors. Republicans aren't going to put up no executive experience up against Obama with what is at stake right now.
Pawlenty is going to put out his economic plan this week in Chicago in answer to GM's question: ""Ok, [TP]. You are the new president to be sworn in 1/2013. What policies would you want to dig us out of our economic crisis."
Since I didn't get to help write it, I will be happy to help critique it.
-
http://www.factcheck.org/tag/michele-bachmann/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/michele-bachmann/
-
By PATRICK O'CONNOR
Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty proposed significant reductions in the corporate and individual tax rates on Tuesday while calling for deep spending cuts that could see the federal government abandon its role delivering the mail or backstopping home loans.
The proposals are part of an economic plan Mr. Pawlenty unveiled in remarks at the University of Chicago business school. The plan is tailored to the business community and fiscal conservatives as he seeks the Republican presidential nomination, but its impact on the deficit is unclear, given the potential drop in tax revenue.
Mr. Pawlenty wants to reduce the corporate tax rate to 15% from 35% and create just two tax brackets for individuals and families: a 10% rate on the first $50,000 of income for individuals, or $100,000 for married couples, and a 25% rate for all other income. In addition, he will call for the elimination of taxes on capital gains, dividends, interest income and inheritance.
One challenge for Mr. Pawlenty is to show that his plan would not explode a deficit that is expected to top $1.6 trillion, given that cutting rates so steeply could prompt a falloff in tax revenues.
The plan could expose Mr. Pawlenty to criticism from Democrats or even rivals for the Republican presidential nomination who have all made deficit-reduction a hallmark of the primary fight.
Indeed, Democrats quickly made just that claim. "No one should be surprised that a failed former governor who left his state with a massive projected budget deficit in the billions of dollars is now proposing to massively explode the deficit at the federal level," said Brad Woodhouse, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee.
In order to offset any lost tax revenue, and to tackle the deficit, Mr. Pawlenty referred to something called "The Google Test" to determine whether the government should be involved in a program.
"If you can find a good or service on the Internet, then the federal government probably doesn't need to be doing it," Mr. Pawlenty says. "The post office, the government printing office, Amtrak, Fannie [Mae] and Freddie [Mac], were all built in a time in our country when the private sector did not adequately provide those products. That's no longer the case."
He calls on Congress to freeze spending at current levels and impound 5% of spending until the budget is balanced. "If they won't do it…I will," he said.
The former governor called for terminating all federal regulations, unless Congress votes to keep them individually.
Mr. Pawlenty didn't address any reforms to federal entitlement programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security—a major sticking point in federal negotiations over paring the deficit.
The proposals included in this platform would put Mr. Pawlenty on a collision course with President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats over the vision for government, if Republican primary voters give him that opportunity.
"Regrettably, President Obama is a champion practitioner of class warfare," Mr. Pawlenty said. "Elected with a call for unity and hope, he has spent three years dividing our nation, fanning the flames of class envy and resentment to deflect attention from his own failures and the economic hardship they have visited on America."
-
Further coverage of what Crafty posted yesterday, Tim Pawlenty answers the challenge posed on the board - what would you do Jan 2013 to turn this around. I disagree on a few points of detail but this is the first that actually embraces the concept that economic growth is the answer.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304474804576371592713487096.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Among GOP Presidential contenders, Tim Pawlenty is offering the most ambitious reform agenda so far, and his economic address yesterday continued the trend. While details remain to be filled in, the former Minnesota Governor is rightly focusing on a growth revival that ought to define the 2012 campaign.
Most notable in symbolic political terms, Mr. Pawlenty proposed what he called the "big, positive goal" of growing the U.S. economy by 5% a year over the next decade. His policy mix is centered on building a durable expansion and boosting middle-class incomes, and his speech was notable for its optimism, avoiding the austerity temptation that traps many Republicans.
A Pawlenty spokesman told us the 5% target is realistic and achievable, and it's true that the economy grew 4.9% on average between 1983 and 1987, and nearly 4.7% between 1996 and 1999. Yet such long booms are rare in developed economies and we can't recall one that lasted 10 years.
The goal is still worthy as an aspiration, especially amid the current recovery that should be far stronger after a long and deep recession. The recovery has reached 5% only in the last quarter in 2009, and that was mostly the result of businesses rebuilding inventories that had been cut to the bone. Growth has since slowed to 2% or below, failing to reach cruising speed despite (or in our view because of) the entire liberal playbook of government spending, temporary and targeted tax incentives, new entitlements and regulation, and monetary reflation.
Mr. Pawlenty would extricate the economy from this government cul de sac by enhancing the incentives to work, invest and create jobs. He sketched out yesterday a Reagan-like tax reform of lower rates for individuals and businesses. The first $50,000 in individual income ($100,000 for couples) would be taxed at 10% and after that a top marginal rate of 25%. This would give a big lift to the small and medium-sized businesses that file under the individual tax code and create most new jobs. He'd also zero out taxes on capital gains, dividends and estates.
Mr. Pawlenty says that families earning under $50,000 would pay an effective income tax rate of 0%, because he would maintain tax benefits like those for mortgage interest or the child credit that use the tax code as social policy. Mr. Pawlenty is right not to buy into the liberal objection that tax reform must be revenue neutral according to scoring rules that assume no growth dividend, but minimizing tax credit carve-outs would raise revenue by making the tax code more efficient.
The Minnesotan is on firmer ground with his corporate tax overhaul, which would reduce the rate to 15% from the current 35% in return for cleaning out the warren of loopholes and special favors. Businesses will expand, enlarge their payrolls and repatriate overseas earnings. The added benefit is that most corporate welfare is dispensed through the tax code—so a flatter, simpler system will reduce political mediation of the economy and the resulting misallocation of capital. It is both a pro-growth tax policy and government reform.
Mr. Pawlenty would also limit Washington's damage by paring the regulatory overreach that has defined the last three years and by curbing spending over time to 18% of GDP (from 24% today), which is the historical revenue average and is also crucial for economic revival. One test for all of the candidates will be how they propose to reform Medicare and other entitlements that account for about three-fifths of federal expenditures. The economy won't improve until the political class restrains its appetites.
More problematic is Mr. Pawlenty's endorsement of a balanced budget amendment. Leave aside that changing the Constitution is (rightly) a very heavy political lift, and that short-term deficits can be useful, as in the 1980s to finance the defense buildup that helped to end the Cold War. The more fundamental problem is that a balanced budget rule can easily become an excuse to raise taxes, as it often has at the state level. Mr. Obama would gladly balance the budget at 24% of GDP, or more.
Mr. Pawlenty also touched on monetary policy, stressing "a strong dollar" as a proxy for stable prices. Inflation is the great thief of the middle class—even if it has so far showed up largely in food and energy—and Mr. Pawlenty wants to end the Federal Reserve's impossible dual political mandate for stable prices and maximum employment. The long-term effect of such engineering is often inflation and bubbles, and Mr. Pawlenty would be wise to educate voters about the Fed's role in fomenting the housing mania of the last decade.
The larger task for Mr. Pawlenty going forward is to put these policy choices into a larger economic narrative, explaining to voters why the prosperity of the 1980s and 1990s ended, how Mr. Obama's policies have damaged the recovery, and how his own policies will revive middle-class incomes. Now that Mr. Pawlenty has laid down his marker, what do his competitors have to offer?
-
Herman Cain had a fairly substantial amount of time on the Beck show today. Not flashy, but good to see him getting exposure.
-
After the shock poll showed Romney even with the Bamster I said to myself any day we will suddenly see another poll that attempts to show the first poll was all wrong. Without fail the MSM comes out with a response poll that has opposite results always in Bamster's favor. Despite another dip in the economy this poll suggests Bamster is untouchable. All I can say is thank God, again, for Fox and talk radio or we would be led to believe Bamster is perfect and adored by everyone person in the world except those on this board:
Reuters – President Barack Obama (R) and first lady Michelle Obama (L) walk out to greet German Chancellor Angela … By John Whitesides John Whitesides – Wed Jun 8, 1:58 pm ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama retains a big lead over possible Republican rivals in the 2012 election despite anxiety about the economy and the country's future, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll on Wednesday.
Obama's approval rating inched up 1 percentage point from May to 50 percent but the number of Americans who believe the country is on the wrong track also rose as pricier gasoline, persistently high unemployment and a weak housing market chipped away at public confidence.
Obama leads all potential Republican challengers by double-digit margins, the poll showed. He is ahead of his closest Republican rival, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, by 13 percentage points -- 51 percent to 38 percent.
"Obama's position has gotten a little stronger over the last couple of months as the public mood has evened out, and as an incumbent he has some big advantages over his rivals," Ipsos pollster Cliff Young said.
"Until Republicans go through a primary season and select a nominee, they are going to be at a disadvantage in the head-to-head matchups in name recognition."
[ For complete coverage of politics and policy, go to Yahoo! Politics ]
Obama, who got a boost in the polls last month with the killing of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, is amassing an election campaign warchest likely to be larger than the record $750 million he raised in 2008.
Sarah Palin and Romney lead the Republicans battling for the right to challenge Obama in the November 2012 election.
Palin, the party's vice presidential nominee in 2008, had the support of 22 percent of the Republicans surveyed. The former governor of Alaska has not said whether she will run for president next year.
Romney, who failed in a 2008 presidential bid, had 20 percent support.
Representative Ron Paul, a libertarian Republican from Texas, and former pizza executive Herman Cain were tied for third with 7 percent each.
REPUBLICAN RACE STILL FORMING
The Republican candidates are just starting to engage in their slow-starting nomination race. Young said Palin and Romney had a clear advantage at this stage over other challengers in name recognition among voters.
Other surveys have shown Romney in a stronger position. A Washington Post-ABC News poll earlier this week gave Romney a slight lead over Obama among registered voters.
In the Reuters/Ipsos poll, the other Republican contenders fared even worse than Romney's 13-point gap in a match-up with Obama. Palin trailed Obama by 23 points and former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty was behind by 19 points.
The survey was taken after weak jobs and housing figures released last week showed the U.S. economy is recovering slower than expected. Unemployment rose slightly to 9.1 percent for the month.
The poll found 60 percent of respondents said the country is on the wrong track, up from 56 percent in May but still below April's high of 69 percent. In the latest survey, 35 percent said the country is going in the right direction.
Obama's approval rating has drifted in a narrow range between 49 percent and 51 percent since January, with the exception of April when the first spike in gasoline prices drove his rating lower.
With Congress battling over a Republican budget plan that includes scaling back the federal Medicare health program for the elderly, the poll found a plurality of Americans, 43 percent, oppose the Medicare cuts and 37 percent support them.
The poll, conducted Friday through Monday, surveyed 1,132 adults nationwide by telephone, including 948 registered voters. The margin of error is 3 percentage points.
(Editing by John O'Callaghan)
-
The Reuters Ipsos poll is bizarre. They list how most (84%) of their respondents are registered voters, totally unverified I'm sure, but never use the term 'likely voter'. They are only claiming that they were reachable by telephone. Polls use the term margin of error to mean statistically sampling number error, but they make other errors as well IMO. They say unchanged in a month but everyone alive knows that during that month Obama earned and lost a huge bin Laden kill bump. I notice from the Ipsos website their main strength is 'global citizen' polling. Whatever that is,I can't think of anything less accurate.
I watch the RCP (Real Clear Politics) average of polls, also flawed. It still has net positive for Obama since the bin Laden operation but has been falling by about a point a day lately. The general rule is that an incumbent below 50% is vulnerable and as that falls significantly below 50% he becomes poison to the candidates in his party running in swing districts. At about 48-49% he is right on the edge - and falling. If the economy is still in the doldrums throughout the summer with no economic growth in sight, I would expect his real approval numbers to drop to low 40s/ high 30s, approaching where Bush was when he gave up leading.
My prediction that Obama won't be the Dem nominee still looks wrong today, but... that assumes that Obama still has 2 or 3 tricks up his sleeve of reasonably good governance in order to appear competitive through to the convention in Charlotte starting Labor Day 2012, nearly 15 months away. We shall see.
-
Krauthamamer hasn't changed his opinion on Cain, but gave him a nod of respect on Bret Baier yesterday for getting 7% in the poll.
======================
Gingrich’s Senior Campaign Aides Resign
Newt Gingrich’s campaign manager and a half-dozen senior advisers resigned on Thursday, two aides said, dealing a significant setback to his bid to seek the Republican presidential nomination and severely complicating his plan to make a political comeback.
The campaign manager, Rob Johnson, along with advisers in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, joined together to step down after a period of deep internal disagreements about the direction of the campaign.
Mr. Gingrich, a former House speaker who has been fighting to regain his political footing after a rough campaign announcement last month, had been absent from the campaign trail for about two weeks on what aides had described as a pre-planned vacation. He made his first return to the campaign trail on Wednesday in New Hampshire, one day before the resignations were announced.
Read More:
http://www.nytimes.com/?emc=na
-
I heard Huntsman on Hugh Hewitt yesterday for few minutes. FWIW, I liked what I heard in that limited amount of time.
-
'I heard Huntsman on Hugh Hewitt yesterday for few minutes. FWIW, I liked what I heard in that limited amount of time."
He is saying the right things. He knows he is running for the nomination first, not the Presidency. All the Governors have moments in the past of favoring the liberal or moderate side of issues like healthcare, climate change etc. but I think the nominee will be one of the Governors: Romney, Pawlenty, Huntsman, Perry? Palin? so people will have to sort it all out. Add Giuliani to that mix - I'm sure NYC is larger than many states.
Put me in the camp of Mrs. GM. Whichever one of these folks wins the R nomination will win my vote over Obama. Let's not lose sight here of the co-equal legislative branch. If Obama can win, Dems could also retake the House. If it is an R. year, they might win the House plus 51 or more senate seats, but not 60. Then the big fights over legislation will all be held in a divided senate no matter what RINO, Dem or conservative wins the White House.
That is why it matters to win a mandate, not just an office. 2008 was an election about vagueness, hope and change. This needs to be an election about clarity. This is shaping up to be a contest of ideas and diametrically opposed directions more so than ever before in our history - just like they say almost every 4 years.
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43281157/ns/politics-more_politics
-
This of course is ok.
But demanding any writing form Obama while a student is of course labeled as idiocy.
We mocked if we demand to see the long form of his birth certificate (which some wonder is a fraud), we are ignored if we want to see his thesis etc.
-
This of course is ok.
But demanding any writing form Obama while a student is of course labeled as idiocy.
We mocked if we demand to see the long form of his birth certificate (which some wonder is a fraud), we are ignored if we want to see his thesis etc.
Oh, and don't forget about this: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-stephenson/2008/10/25/la-times-witholds-video-obama-toasting-former-plo-operative-jew-bas
LA Times Withholds Video of Obama Toasting Former PLO Operative at Jew Bashing Dinner
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-stephenson/2008/10/25/la-times-witholds-video-obama-toasting-former-plo-operative-jew-bas
-
And she is running for... nothing.
Wouldn't it make sense to simultaneously release the emails of all politicians and elected officials over the last 10 years, instead of just one.
Equal protection under the law is a concept so lost I have to search my own posts to find it mentioned. Did Rahm, Axelrod and Obama use government email, send to government emails, while on government payroll? Where are those posted and searchable? How about the JFK files of the House Select Committee on Assassinations locked away until the year 2029. We can't handle the truth? It's too early? No one asked??
The targeting of Palin is based on one thing - hatred. So let's encourage it?
-
:? Palin's records while she was Governor? Versus an internal LA Times Video? Or Obama's School essays? Maybe you want Obama's homework assignments too? It's all Apples and Oranges - one is public information, one is not.
Further, did you read the article posted by bigdog? Read it. It wasn't kudos to Palin for her disclosure, rather is was a scathing criticism of her coverup of public records.
She took three years to merely release simple public records.
Further,
"Although Palin ran for governor on a platform of openness and transparency in government, it became clear when she was running for vice president that she and her aides had moved much of their email traffic on public matters to private Yahoo accounts, presumably out of reach of the state's public records law."
And still other papers remain undisclosed:
"Another 2,275 pages are being withheld by the state, under exemptions in the state law regarding privacy, attorney-client privilege, executive privilege, and a deliberative privilege exempting "work-product" discussions of public policies. These exemptions are not mandatory — the governor's office could release all of the records, but it has chosen to withhold the 2,275 pages. Many of the state employees making these decisions had worked in the Palin administration."
-
"one is public information, one is not"
JDN thank you. I knew this would be the response of the left.
One is also an active President of the United States and by golly we have every right to know what his school essays were as well as running around with his Panama hat snorting cocaine.
The other one is a citizen who is no longer an elected official though she certainly is a political figure and may run for office at some point.
"She took three years to merely release simple public records."
Oh, well who does that remind you of? How long did it take the Bamster to release a copy of his long form (if real) despite it being a valid constitutional issue worthy of a real reponse?
And what is he hiding about his past poltical affiliations that is such a secret?
-
Actually, you do NOT have every right to know what his school essays were....
He was a private citizen at that time.
Good grief, does he need to explain who he might of kissed on the playground in 5th grade?
As for Palin, frankly I don't care either way, but the records in question are those of when she was governor of Alaska.
Clearly PUBLIC records.
As for Obama, what other President ever had to release his long form birth certificate? There was no constitutional issue except
for fringe right wing idiotic birthers. Obama had the last laugh.
-
There most certainly WAS the C'l issue as to whether he was eligible to be President! Given how few tracks he left in his life, and the considerable sums he spent covering up those that were, it is completely understandable and rational that heightened suspicion would result from his failure to show the long form.
As for Pravda on the Beach (POTB a.k.a. the Left Angeles Times) holding back the video, the responsibility and shame for that fall squarely on POTB.
-
As for Obama, what other President ever had to release his long form birth certificate? There was no constitutional issue except
for fringe right wing idiotic birthers. Obama had the last laugh.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/01/AR2008050103224_pf.html
Jurists on both sides of the political divide, consulted by the McCain campaign, insist that the issue is clear-cut. They argue that McCain is a natural-born citizen because the United States held sovereignty over the Panama Canal Zone at the time of his birth, on Aug. 29, 1936; because he was born on a U.S. military base; and because his parents were U.S. citizens.
But Sarah H. Duggin, an associate law professor at Catholic University who has studied the "natural born" issue in detail, said the question is "not so simple." While she said McCain would probably prevail in a determined legal challenge to his eligibility to be president, she added that the matter can be fully resolved only by a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court decision.
"The Constitution is ambiguous," Duggin said. "The McCain side has some really good arguments, but ultimately there has never been any real resolution of this issue. Congress cannot legislatively change the meaning of the Constitution."
Senators sympathetic to McCain's position, including Democrats Claire McCaskill (Mo.) and Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), dropped an earlier attempt to quell the eligibility controversy with legislation. McCaskill acknowledged in an interview that there is "no way" to completely resolve the question short of a constitutional amendment, a cumbersome process which could not be concluded before November.
She described the nonbinding resolution, which she sponsored, as "the quickest, clearest and most efficient" way for the Senate to send a message to the courts that McCain has the right to be president.
One person who disagrees with that premise is New Hampshire resident Fred Hollander, who has filed a suit in U.S. District Court claiming that the Republican candidate is "not a natural born citizen." In an attempt to prove his argument, the 49-year-old computer programmer filed a subpoena last month seeking McCain's birth certificate.
The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees citizenship services, declined to hand over copies of the document, saying the subpoena was improperly served.
In his autobiography, "Faith of My Fathers," McCain writes that he was born "in the Canal Zone" at the U.S. Naval Air Station in Coco Solo, which was under the command of his grandfather, John S. McCain Sr. The senator's father, John S. McCain Jr., was an executive officer on a submarine, also based in Coco Solo. His mother, Roberta McCain, now 96, has vivid memories of lying in bed listening to raucous celebrations of her son's birth from the nearby officers' club.
The birth was announced two days later in the English-language Panamanian American newspaper. A senior official of the McCain campaign showed a reporter a copy of the senator's birth certificate issued by Canal Zone health authorities, recording his birth in the Coco Solo "family hospital."
Curiously enough, there is no record of McCain's birth in the Panama Canal Zone Health Department's bound birth registers, which are publicly available at the National Archives in College Park. A search of the "Child Born Abroad" records of the U.S. consular service for August 1936 included many U.S. citizens born in the Canal Zone but did not turn up any mention of John McCain.
-
So, If Obama is sooooo smart, as Obama supporters claimed, why are his grades a state secret? Given Obama's admitted cocaine use, why are his medical records secret? When Obama's term is up, will his presidential library be in a "undisclosed location"?
(AP) Sen. John F. Kerry's grade average at Yale University was virtually identical to President Bush's record there, despite repeated portrayals of Kerry as the more intellectual candidate during the 2004 presidential campaign.
Kerry had a cumulative average of 76 and got four Ds his freshman year - in geology, two history courses and political science, The Boston Globe reported Tuesday.
His grades improved with time, and he averaged an 81 his senior year and earned an 89 - his highest grade - in political science as a senior.
"I always told my dad that D stood for distinction," Kerry said in a written response to reporters' questions. He said he has previously acknowledged focusing more on learning to fly than studying.
Under Yale's grading system in effect at the time, grades between 90 and 100 equaled an A, 80-89 a B, 70-79 a C, 60 to 69 a D, and anything below that was a failing grade.
In 1999, The New Yorker magazine published a transcript showing Bush had a cumulative grade average of 77 his first three years at Yale, and a similar average under a non-numerical rating system his senior year.
Bush's highest grade at Yale was an 88 in anthropology, history and philosophy. He received one D in his four years, a 69 in astronomy, and improved his grades after his freshman year, the transcript showed.
Kerry, a Democrat, previously declined to release the transcript, which was included in his Navy records. He gave the Navy permission to release the documents last month, the Globe reported.
Kerry graduated from Yale in 1966, Bush in 1968.
Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/07/politics/main700170.shtml
-
President who sealed college transcripts blabs about daughter’s test scores
(http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/ocollege.jpg)
By Michelle Malkin • November 5, 2009 09:44 AM
Compare and contrast:
September 2008…
Senator Obama’s life story, from his humble roots, to his rise to Harvard Law School, to his passion as a community organizer in Chicago, has been at the center of his presidential campaign. But one chapter of the tale remains a blank — his education at Columbia College, a place he rarely speaks about and where few people seem to remember him.
Contributing to the mystery is the fact that nobody knows just how well Mr. Obama, unlike Senator McCain and most other major candidates for the past two elections, performed as a student.
The Obama campaign has refused to release his college transcript, despite an academic career that led him to Harvard Law School and, later, to a lecturing position at the University of Chicago. The shroud surrounding his experience at Columbia contrasts with that of other major party nominees since 2000, all whom have eventually released information about their college performance or seen it leaked to the public.
Today…
Obama Uses Malia’s Test Scores as a Teaching Example
President Obama marked the first anniversary of his election on Wednesday by calling on states to toughen their education standards – and wound up calling on parents to toughen theirs, too, as he confessed that his 11-year-old daughter, Malia, recently got a 73 on her science test.
(Note to parents: In Malia’s defense, the story has a happy ending: she studied hard and came home on Tuesday with a grade of 95.)
… Then, to a chorus of oooohs from the crowd, he said that Malia, a sixth-grader at Sidwell Friends School in Washington, had come home with a 73 on her science test not long ago. He recounted how, a few years ago, she had come home with a grade in the 80s, believing that she had ‘’done pretty well.’’ He and his wife corrected her, telling her that their goal was “90 percent and up.’’
“So here’s the interesting thing: she started internalizing that,’’ the president said, adding that when she came home with a 73 on the science test ‘’she was depressed.’’ He asked her what happened, and she said the study guide didn’t match up with the test. So she vowed to study harder.
“So she came home yesterday, she got a 95,’’ Mr. Obama said. “But here’ the point: She said, ‘You know , I just like having knowledge.’’
Obama Rule #1: Leave their kids out of the public square…except when the White House needs them to sell domestic policy.
Obama Rule #2: Keep academic details private…except when the White House needs them to sell domestic policy.
-
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/30/what-about-obamas-medical-records/
What about Obama’s medical records?
posted at 9:05 am on October 30, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
ABC goes after Sarah Palin for not releasing her medical records this week after less than two months on the campaign trail. Palin promised last week that she would release them “early” this week, and Kate Snow impatiently noted yesterday that Wednesday is the outer limit of “early”:
Governor Palin’s campaign still has not released any information regarding her medical records despite frequent requests from the news media and the campaign’s own assertion that they would release this information soon.
On Sunday morning, Palin spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt told ABC News that the campaign had planned to release information on her medical history early this week.
Today is Wednesday. …
Aides suggested privately that there was nothing to hide in the records, but that it was simply taking a while to call doctors and round up the appropriate information to release. But an entire week?
Kate, I have a suggestion. Call all of the physicians you’ve seen over the last 20 years (or even 5) and tell them you want copies of your medical records. Tell them you need them ASAP. See if you can get them in a week, in a releasable format for the press. Do that, report on it, and then see whether waiting one whole week is so difficult.
And while that investigation continues, check ABC’s reporting for the story on the release of Barack Obama’s comprehensive medical records. That will take Snow a little longer, because it never happened. In May, the campaign released a 276-word summary of Obama’s medical status, but that’s all. While the media hounded John McCain for detailed records last spring because of his skin cancer, they have shown no such curiosity over Obama, a lifelong smoker with at least a significantly elevated risk for cancer and heart disease. Obama also hasn’t had a checkup in over a year, which made the summary a little dated when it was released.
While ABC frets over the medical records of a non-smoking 44-year-old mother of five, where’s the concern over the smoker who’s running at the top of the Democratic ticket? Why hasn’t the national media shown the slightest interest in Obama’s health records?
-
"As for Obama, what other President ever had to release his long form birth certificate?"
Except for McCain I am not sure the issue was ever raised or for that matter was in question before. If it was I would think ANYONE else who had nothing to hide would have rapidly released the document.
And what do you mean ever had to release...
Like it was such a big F. deal??? What was so difficult about doing this?
What an ordeal it was. What the fringe right loons put the Bamster thru, huh? Worse than warter boarding.
-
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90781894
ADAMS: Now, we haven't seen a course any medical records from Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama on the Democratic side. They're younger than McCain. But still, why is McCain releasing these records on his own, do you think?
SILBERNER: Yeah, this is a precedent, to release this amount of medical data. He did it back in 1999, when he was first running for president. There was a whisper campaign back then. Because you know, as a prisoner of war for five and a half years he had a lot of things happen to him, physically and also mentally. And they were - there was this whisper campaign that he had left over problems, you know, psychological problem.
And most of the 1999 information, or a lot of it, was about his mental health and back then, the people who had seen him (unintelligible) said that he was fine. And this time around the campaign says he, you know, basically he wants to prove that he's able to serve.
ADAMS: Now, this release comes the Friday before Memorial Day. Only a few reporters are there getting to see all the records, his campaign trying to keep this relatively subdued, this release of the information, do you think?
SILBERNER: Well, you know, there's a lot of grumbling among the reporters there because everyone feels that the public doesn't pay much attention to news over a holiday weekend, and everybody is working hard to go through these 1200 pages of records in three hours, and thinking, well, who's going to see this. The record has been promised for a long time, and last year they were promised in April, and now they're coming out right now.
But both the campaign and his doctors at the Mayo Clinic say it was a matter of they knew he was going to be having appointments in May, they wanted to get that information out. They needed to get the doctors and the campaign together, so that's was it.
ADAMS: NPR's Joanne Silberner talking with us from Scottsdale, Arizona. Thank you, Joanne.
SILBERNER: Thank you, Noah.
-
"As for Obama, what other President ever had to release his long form birth certificate?"
Except for McCain I am not sure the issue was ever raised or for that matter was in question before. If it was I would think ANYONE else who had nothing to hide would have rapidly released the document.
And what do you mean ever had to release...
Like it was such a big F. deal??? What was so difficult about doing this?
What an ordeal it was. What the fringe right loons put the Bamster thru, huh? Worse than warter boarding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_clause_of_the_U.S._Constitution
Presidential candidates whose eligibility was questioned
While every President and Vice President to date is widely believed either to have been a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution in 1789 or to have been born in the United States, one U.S. President (Chester A. Arthur) and some presidential candidates either were not born or were suspected of not having been born in a U.S. state.[42] In addition, one U.S. Vice President (Albert Gore) was born in Washington, D.C. This does not necessarily mean that they were ineligible, only that there was some controversy (usually minor) about their eligibility, which may have been resolved in favor of eligibility.[43]
Chester A. Arthur (1829–1886), 21st president of the United States, was rumored to have been born in Canada.[44][45] This was never demonstrated by his Democratic opponents, although Arthur Hinman, an attorney who had investigated Arthur's family history, raised the objection during his vice-presidential campaign and after the end of his Presidency. Arthur was born in Vermont to a U.S. citizen mother and a father from Ireland, who was naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1843, 14 years after Chester was born. Despite the fact that his parents took up residence in the United States somewhere between 1822 and 1824,[46] Arthur additionally began to claim between 1870 and 1880[47] that he had been born in 1830, rather than in 1829, which only caused minor confusion and was even used in several publications.[48] Arthur was sworn in as president when President Garfield died after being shot.
Christopher Schürmann (born 1848 in New York) entered the Labor primaries during the 1896 presidential election. His eligibility was questioned in a New York Tribune article, because he was born to alien parents of German nationality. It was stated that "various Attorney-Generals of the United States have expressed the opinion that a child born in this country of alien parents, who have not been naturalized, is, by the fact of birth, a native-born citizen entitled to all rights and privileges as such". But due to a lack of any statute on the subject, Schürmann's eligibility was "at best an open question, and one which should have made [his] nomination under any circumstances an impossibility", because questions concerning his eligibility could have been raised after the election.[49]
The eligibility of Charles Evans Hughes (1862–1948) was questioned in an article written by Breckinridge Long, and published in the Chicago Legal News during the U.S. presidential election of 1916, in which Hughes was narrowly defeated by Woodrow Wilson. Long claimed that Hughes was ineligible because his father had not yet naturalized at the time of his birth and was still a British citizen. Observing that Hughes, although born in the United States, was also a British subject and therefore "enjoy[ed] a dual nationality and owe[d] a double allegiance", Long argued that a native born citizen was not natural born without a unity of U.S. citizenship and allegiance and stated: "Now if, by any possible construction, a person at the instant of birth, and for any period of time thereafter, owes, or may owe, allegiance to any sovereign but the United States, he is not a 'natural-born' citizen of the United States."[50]
Barry Goldwater (1909–1998) was born in Phoenix, in what was then the incorporated Arizona Territory of the United States. During his presidential campaign in 1964, there was a minor controversy over Goldwater's having been born in Arizona when it was not yet a state.[44]
George Romney (1907–1995), who ran for the Republican party nomination in 1968, was born in Mexico to U.S. parents. Romney's grandfather had emigrated to Mexico in 1886 with his three wives and children after Utah outlawed polygamy. Romney's monogamous parents retained their U.S. citizenship and returned to the United States with him in 1912. Romney never received Mexican citizenship, because the country's nationality laws had been restricted to jus sanguinis statutes due to prevailing politics aimed against American settlers.[51][52]
Lowell Weicker (born 1931), the former Connecticut Senator, Representative, and Governor, entered the race for the Republican party nomination of 1980 but dropped out before voting in the primaries began. He was born in Paris, France to parents who were U.S. citizens. His father was an executive for E. R. Squibb & Sons and his mother was the Indian-born daughter of a British general.[53][52]
John McCain (born 1936), who ran for the Republican party nomination in 2000 and was the Republican nominee in 2008, was born at Coco Solo Naval Air Station[42][54][55][56][57][58][59] in the Panama Canal Zone. McCain never released his birth certificate to the press or independent fact-checking organizations, but did show it to Washington Post reporter Michael Dobbs, who wrote "a senior official of the McCain campaign showed me a copy of [McCain's] birth certificate issued by the 'family hospital' in the Coco Solo submarine base".[56] A lawsuit filed by Fred Hollander in 2008 alleged that McCain was actually born in a civilian hospital in Colon City, Panama.[60][61] Dobbs wrote that in his autobiography, Faith of My Fathers, McCain wrote that he was born "in the Canal Zone" at the U.S. Naval Air Station in Coco Solo, which was under the command of his grandfather, John S. McCain Sr. "The senator's father, John S. McCain Jr., was an executive officer on a submarine, also based in Coco Solo. His mother, Roberta McCain, now 96, has vivid memories of lying in bed listening to raucous celebrations of her son's birth from the nearby officers' club. The birth was announced days later in the English-language Panamanian American newspaper."[62][63][64][65] The former unincorporated territory of the Panama Canal Zone and its related military facilities were not regarded as United States territory at the time,[66] but 8 U.S.C. § 1403, which became law in 1937, retroactively conferred citizenship on individuals born within the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and on individuals born in the Republic of Panama on or after that date who had at least one U.S. citizen parent employed by the U.S. government or the Panama Railway Company; 8 U.S.C. § 1403 was cited in Judge Alsup's 2008 ruling, described below. A March 2008 paper by former Solicitor General Ted Olson and Harvard Law Professor Laurence H. Tribe opined that McCain was eligible for the Presidency.[67] In April 2008, the U.S. Senate approved a non-binding resolution recognizing McCain's status as a natural-born citizen.[68] In September 2008, U.S. District Judge William Alsup stated obiter in his ruling that it is "highly probable" that McCain is a natural-born citizen from birth by virtue of 8 U.S.C. § 1401, although he acknowledged the alternative possibility that McCain became a natural-born citizen retroactively, by way of 8 U.S.C. § 1403.[69] These views have been criticized by Gabriel J. Chin, Professor of Law at the University of Arizona, who argues that McCain was at birth a citizen of Panama and was only retroactively declared a born citizen under 8 U.S.C. § 1403, because at the time of his birth and with regard to the Canal Zone the Supreme Court's Insular Cases overruled the Naturalization Act of 1795, which would otherwise have declared McCain a U.S. citizen immediately at birth.[70] The U.S. State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual states that children born in the Panama Canal Zone at certain times became U.S. nationals without citizenship.[71] It also states in general that "it has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen […]".[72] In Rogers v. Bellei the Supreme Court only ruled that "children born abroad of Americans are not citizens within the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment", and didn't elaborate on the natural-born status.[73][74] Similarly, legal scholar Lawrence Solum concluded in an article on the natural born citizen clause that the question of McCain's eligibility could not be answered with certainty, and that it would depend on the particular approach of "constitutional construction".[75] The urban legend fact checking website Snopes.com has examined the matter and cites numerous experts. It considers the matter "undetermined".[76]
Barack Obama (born 1961), 44th president of the United States, was born in Honolulu, Hawaii to a U.S. citizen mother and a British subject father from what was then the Kenya Colony of the United Kingdom (which became the independent country of Kenya in 1963). Before and after the 2008 presidential election, arguments were made that he is not a natural-born citizen. On June 12, 2008, the Obama presidential campaign launched a website to counter what it described as smears by his opponents, including conspiracy theories challenging his eligibility.[77] The most prominent issue raised against Obama was the claim made in several lawsuits that he was not actually born in Hawaii. In two other lawsuits, the plaintiffs argued that it was irrelevant whether he was born in Hawaii,[78] but argued instead that he was nevertheless not a natural-born citizen because his citizenship status at birth was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.[79] The relevant courts have either denied all applications or declined to render a judgment due to lack of jurisdiction. Some of the cases have been dismissed because of the plaintiff's lack of standing.[39] On July 28, 2009, Hawaii Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino issued a statement saying, "I ... have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen."[80] On April 27, 2011, the White House released a copy of President Obama's "long form" birth certificate.[81]
-
Remember how Clinton refused to release his urology records. The ones that documented his crooked penis?
Maybe Bamster's is crooked too - like his politics. Or he doesn't want anyone to know his past treatments for drugs,, or STDs???
-
Jon Huntsman's thorny path to the GOP nomination
By George Will
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Donald Trump’s pathological political exhibitionism has ended, Newt Gingrich has incinerated himself with an incoherent retraction tour, Mitt Romney has reaffirmed his enthusiasm for his Massachusetts health-care law, rendering himself incapable of articulating the case against Obamacare and the entitlement state generally, Haley Barbour, Mike Huckabee and Mitch Daniels, aware of the axiom that anyone who will do what must be done to become president should not be allowed to be president, are out.
Watching this from his new home in Washington’s tony Kalorama neighborhood and his office at 1455 Pennsylvania Ave., Jon Huntsman, 51, former Utah governor and recently resigned ambassador to China, contemplates moving his office two blocks west. The Republican contest may soon acquire a photogenic family and a distinctive foreign policy voice.
The independently wealthy Huntsmans have seven children, among them two adopted daughters from China and India, and a son at Annapolis aspiring to be a Navy SEAL. Huntsman’s economic policies are Republican orthodoxy. His national security policies may make him the neoconservatives’ nightmare but a welcome novelty for a larger constituency.
“Capital is a coward,” Huntsman says, meaning capital is rational — it flees risky environments, which Obama administration policies create. He favors tax reform to stimulate capital formation, including a corporate tax rate of 24 percent or lower. He thinks lower but more inclusive income tax rates would be good economics — and good civics, reducing the share of households (47 percent in 2009) that pay no income taxes. At first saying Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget “is worthy of consideration” and later endorsing it, he says: “If you’re frightened of Ryan’s road map, you have not looked at our accumulating debt.”
RECEIVE LIBERTY LOVING COLUMNISTS IN YOUR INBOX … FOR FREE!
Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.
Speaking in Washington this month, he will explain the need to “clean up the map” of foreign policy. He is among the sizable American majority disturbed that there is no discernible winning outcome in, or exit strategy from, Afghanistan, where, he says, there is now, and will be when we leave, a civil war that need not greatly concern us.
He believes significant savings can be found in the process of making the defense budget congruent with more judicious uses of U.S. military assets. This means more reliance on special operations, fewer interventions requiring large deployments — and no absent-minded interventions like that in Libya.
How will the Republican nominating electorate, preoccupied with questions about domestic policy and the role of government, respond to a candidate stressing national security and those national security positions? Huntsman replies: “I don’t know, but we’re about to find out.”
With one of his 2012 rivals, former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, Huntsman co-chaired John McCain’s 2008 campaign, from which he has drawn key advisers. Like McCain, Huntsman will bypass Iowa. “I don’t like subsidies,” he says, so he opposes the Church of Ethanol, the established religion out “where the tall corn grows.” New Hampshire, however, he says, “likes margin-of-error candidates with a message.” In South Carolina, his cadre of supporters includes Mike Campbell, Huckabee’s 2008 state chairman. Huntsman hopes for a respectable showing in Michigan, and he will also focus on Florida, where his wife is from and his campaign headquarters will be, in Orlando.
If Barack Obama wins a second term, this will be the first time there have been three consecutive two-term presidencies since Jefferson, Madison and Monroe between 1801 and 1825. The Republican nominee will be chosen by a relatively small cohort consisting of those Americans most determined that this not happen. Nominating electorates make up in intensity what they lack in size. They pay close attention to presidential politics early, and participate in cold-weather events, because they have a heat fueled by ideology. Cool-hand Huntsman, with his polished persona and the complementary fluencies of a governor and a diplomat, might find those virtues are, if not defects, of secondary importance in the competition to enkindle Republicans eager to feast on rhetorical red meat.
So it is difficult to chart Huntsman’s path to the Republicans’ Tampa convention through a nominating electorate that is understandably furious about Obama’s demonstrably imprudent and constitutionally dubious domestic policies. Even if that electorate approves Huntsman’s un-Obamalike health-care reforms in Utah and forgives his flirtation with a fanciful climate-change regime among Western states, he faces the worthy but daunting challenge of bringing Tea Party Republicans — disproportionately important in the nominating process — to a boil about foreign policy.
-
If I'm in, I'll be all in," says Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, artfully dodging my question of whether she's running for president. Given that she just hired campaign strategist Ed Rollins, whose past clients include Ross Perot and Mike Huckabee, rumors abound. "We're getting close," she says, "and if I do run, like all my races, I will work like a maniac."
That's pretty much how she does everything, and it helps explain how the relatively junior congresswoman has become a tea party superstar—and uniquely adept at driving liberals bonkers.
View Full Image
Terry Shoffner
After spending a good part of two days with her in Washington as she scurries from one appointment to another, I have no doubt that Ms. Bachmann will announce her presidential bid soon. And it would be a mistake to count her out: She's defied the prognosticators in nearly every race she's run since thrashing an 18-year incumbent in the Minnesota Senate by 20 points in 2000. Says Iowa Congressman Steve King, "No one has electrified Iowa crowds like Michelle has."
Ms. Bachmann is best known for her conservative activism on issues like abortion, but what I want to talk about today is economics. When I ask who she reads on the subject, she responds that she admires the late Milton Friedman as well as Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams. "I'm also an Art Laffer fiend—we're very close," she adds. "And [Ludwig] von Mises. I love von Mises," getting excited and rattling off some of his classics like "Human Action" and "Bureaucracy." "When I go on vacation and I lay on the beach, I bring von Mises."
As we rush from her first-floor digs in the Cannon House Office Building to the House floor so she can vote, I ask for her explanation of the 2008 financial meltdown. "There were a lot of bad actors involved, but it started with the Community Reinvestment Act under Jimmy Carter and then the enhanced amendments that Bill Clinton made to force, in effect, banks to make loans to people who lacked creditworthiness. If you want to come down to a bottom line of 'How did we get in the mess?' I think it was a reduction in standards."
She continues: "Nobody wanted to say, 'No.' The implicit and then the explicit guarantees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were sopping up the losses. Being on the Financial Services Committee, I can assure you, all roads lead to Freddie and Fannie."
Ms. Bachmann voted against the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) "both times," she boasts, and she has no regrets since Congress "just gave the Treasury a $700 billion blank check." She complains that no one bothered to ask about the constitutionality of these extraordinary interventions into the financial markets. "During a recent hearing I asked Secretary [Timothy] Geithner three times where the constitution authorized the Treasury's actions, and his response was, 'Well, Congress passed the law.'"
Insufficient focus on constitutional limits to federal power is a Bachmann pet peeve. "It's like when you come up to a stop sign and you're driving. Some people have it in their mind that the stop sign is optional. The Constitution is government's stop sign. It says, you—the three branches of government—can go so far and no farther. With TARP, the government blew through the Constitutional stop sign and decided 'Whatever it takes, that's what we're going to do.'"
Does this mean she would have favored allowing the banks to fail? "I would have. People think when you have a, quote, 'bank failure,' that that is the end of the bank. And it isn't necessarily. A normal way that the American free market system has worked is that we have a process of unwinding. It's called bankruptcy. It doesn't mean, necessarily, that the industry is eclipsed or that it's gone. Often times, the phoenix rises out of the ashes."
She also bristles at the idea, pushed of late by the White House, that the auto bailouts were a big success for workers and taxpayers. "We'll probably be out $15 billion. What was galling to so many investors was that Chrysler's secured creditors were supposed to receive 100% payout of the first money. We essentially watched over 100 years of bankruptcy law thrown out the window and President Obama eviscerated the private property interests of the secured creditors. He called them 'greedy' for enforcing their own legal rights."
So what would she have done? "For one, I believe my policies prior to '08 would have been much different from [President Bush's]. I wouldn't have spent so much money," she says, pointing in particular at the Department of Education and the Medicare prescription drug bill. "I would have advocated for greater reductions in the corporate tax rate and reductions in the capital gains rate—even more so than what the president did." Mr. Bush cut the capital gains rate to 15% from 20% in 2003.
She's also no fan of the Federal Reserve's decade-long policy of flooding the U.S. economy with cheap money. "I love a lowered interest rate like anyone else. But clearly the Fed has had competing goals and objectives. One is the soundness of money and then the other is jobs. The two different objectives are hard to reconcile. What has gotten us into deep trouble and has people so perturbed is the debasing of the currency."
That's why, if she were president, she wouldn't renominate Ben Bernanke as Fed chairman: "I think that it's very important to demonstrate to the American people that the Federal Reserve will have a new sheriff" to keep the dollar strong and stable.
As for foreign policy, she joined 86 other House Republicans last week in voting for the resolution sponsored by antiwar Democrat Dennis Kucinich to stop U.S. military action in Libya within 15 days. Is she a Midwestern isolationist? "I was opposed to the U.S. involvement in Libya from the very start," she says. "President Obama has never made a compelling national security case on Libya."
Even more striking, she says the 1973 War Powers Resolution, requiring congressional approval for military action after 60 days, is "the law of the land" and must be obeyed. That's a notable difference from every recent president of either party, including Ronald Reagan.
Ms. Bachmann attributes many of her views, especially on economics, to her middle-class upbringing in 1960s Iowa and Minnesota. She talks with almost religious fervor about the virtues of living frugally, working hard and long hours, and avoiding debt. When she was growing up, she recalls admiringly, Iowa dairy farmers worked from 5 a.m. to 10 p.m.
Her political opponents on the left portray her as a "she-devil," in her words, a caricature at odds with her life accomplishments. She's a mother of five, and she and her husband helped raise 23 teenage foster children in their home, as many as four at a time. They succeeded in getting all 23 through high school and later founded a charter school.
She got started in politics after seeing the failures in public schooling. "The kids were coloring posters in 11th grade algebra class," she says. "I decided to do my duty, go to the Republican convention. I had on jeans, a sweatshirt with a hole in it, white moccasins, and I showed up in this auditorium and everyone said, 'Why are we nominating this guy [Gary] Laidig every four years?'"
"I thought, 'I'm nobody from nowhere but maybe if I challenge the guy, he'll shape up a little bit.' So I gave a five-minute speech on freedom, economic liberty and all the rest. And no one could believe it, but I won a supermajority on the first ballot and he was out on his keister."
She ran for Congress in 2006, the worst year for Republicans in two decades. "Nancy Pelosi and all her horses spent $9.6 million to defeat me in that race"—almost three times what Ms. Bachmann had raised. She won 50% to 42%. In 2010, the Democrats and their union allies raised more than $10 million to try to defeat her. "My adversaries have certainly been highly motivated," she says.
But her adversaries—or, at least, rivals—aren't limited to the left. There's Sarah Palin, with whom journalists are convinced she has frosty relations, and fellow Minnesotan Tim Pawlenty, now running for president. About Ms. Palin the congresswoman shrugs, "People want to see a mud-wrestling fight. They won't get it from me because I like Sarah Palin and I respect her." As for whether Mr. Pawlenty was a good governor, "I really don't want to comment."
Ever ready to cite stories from American history, Ms. Bachmann notes with a grin that the last House member to be elected president was James Garfield in 1880. If she were to take her shot, she'd run on an economic package reminiscent of Jack Kemp, the late congressman who championed supply-side economics and was the GOP vice presidential nominee in 1996. "In my perfect world," she explains, "we'd take the 35% corporate tax rate down to nine so that we're the most competitive in the industrialized world. Zero out capital gains. Zero out the alternative minimum tax. Zero out the death tax."
The 3.8 million-word U.S. tax code may be irreparable, she says, a view she's held since working as a tax attorney at the IRS 20 years ago. "I love the FAIR tax. If we were starting over from scratch, I would favor a national sales tax." But she's not a sponsor of the FAIR tax bill because she fears that enacting it won't end the income tax, and "we would end up with a dual tax, a national sales tax and an income tax."
Her main goal is to get tax rates down with a broad-based income tax that everyone pays and that "gets rid of all the deductions." A system in which 47% of Americans don't pay any tax is ruinous for a democracy, she says, "because there is no tie to the government benefits that people demand. I think everyone should have to pay something."
On the stump she emphasizes an "America-centered energy policy" based on "drilling and mining for our rich resources here." And she believes that repealing ObamaCare is a precondition to restoring a prosperous economy. "You cannot have a pro-growth economy and advise, simultaneously, socialized medicine."
Her big challenge is whether the country is ready to support deep spending cuts. On this issue, she carries a sharper blade than everyone except Ron Paul. She voted for the Paul Ryan budget—but "with an asterisk." Why? "The asterisk is that we've got a huge messaging problem [on Medicare]. It needs to be called the 55-and-Under Plan. I can't tell you the number of 78-year-old women who think we're going to pull the rug out from under them."
Ms. Bachmann also voted for the Republican Study Committee budget that cuts deeper and faster than even Mr. Ryan would. "We do have an obligation with Social Security and Medicare, and we have to recognize that" for those who are already retired, she says. But after that, it's Katy bar the door: "Everything else is expendable to bring spending down," and she'd ax "whole departments" including the Department of Education.
"I think people realize the crisis we face isn't in 25 years or even 10 years off. It is right now. And people want it solved now—especially Republican primary voters."
Mr. Moore is a member of The Journal's editorial board.
-
"If I'm in, I'll be all in"
Respectfully, I don't think that is fully true. I don't think she will give up her house seat for a long shot which means she would have to either win or be out early. MN caucuses are usually the same day as so-called super-Tuesday. Call me pessimistic, but I don't think she will allow herself to lose in her home state and then need to build back the momentum to hold her own seat which is hugely expensive because a) she is a target and lightning rod for all national, liberal money, and b) one has to blanket all of the Twin Cities television market covering at least 3 other districts just to reach the part of her district that touches the edges of the metro area.
-
Can we not simply take the statement to mean that she will make a 100% effort? Contrast Newt's cruise ship vacation, , ,
Anyway, I liked this piece about Michelle. I hope for a strong performance from her tomorrow night.
-
CCP the headline in today's LA Times article should warm your heart. :-)
Democrats losing favor with some Latinos
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-latino-democrats-20110611,0,5901833.story
-
Herman Cain was interviewd this weekend on the WSJ Editorial Report (or something like that) on FOX.
A VERY strong interview. The man owns the topic on a level I have not before seen. Previously I liked Cain because I agreed with most of what he says (winced on his non-position on Afghanistan and his lack of knowledge of the "right of return" wrt Israel though) but this is the first time I got a sense of the level he can operate at.
As I have mentioned previously, Michelle Bachman continues to draw my attention (see my post the other day of the WSJ piece on her, plus a just read an extensive piece in yesterday's National Post while in Toronto http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/06/11/republican-race-bachmann-viewed-as-a-serious-contender/ ).
I continue to toy with the idea that a Bachman-Cain ticket would be a very good one. Due to his beginner level on foreign affairs ultimately IMHO he will not and should not get the presidential nominatiaon, but his executive experience complements an area where Bachman is very weak, while her intellgient and informed hostility to the federael tax code due tax attorney background means that together the two of them could be a powerful team for radical tax reform of the best sort-- and in a way that can appeal across party lines.
=====
Though IMHO Peggy Noonan no longer hits at the level she used to, she remains a writer I follow. Herewith her thoughts on Romney:
Of course he should resign—or, better, and as a statement, the House should remove him. I speak as a conservative who wishes to conserve. If I were speaking as a Republican I'd say, "By all means keep him, let him taint all your efforts."
But sometimes all of Washington has to put up its hand up like a traffic cop and say no. It has to say: That doesn't go here, it's not acceptable, it's not among the normal human transgressions of back stairs, love affairs and the congressman on the take. This is decadence. It is pornography. We can't let the world, and the young, know it's "politically survivable." Because that will hurt us, not him, and define us, not him. So: enough.
***
In other news, Mitt Romney had his first good week. It was startling. He stepped out from the blur. The other candidates now call him "the front runner." By most standards he was the front runner months ago, but nobody talked about him. He didn't live in the Republican imagination. It was "Will Mitch run?" and "You like Pawlenty?" Only seven minutes into the conversation would you get, "How will Romney do?" He was so '08, that disastrous year.
But this week he got three big boosts. He had a reasonable announcement speech followed by a lot of national interviews. Then the Washington Post poll: Mr. Romney leads President Obama. On top of that, the two most visible Republicans the past 10 days were Sarah Palin, on her magical mystery tour, and him. They got all the coverage, and for a moment it seemed like a two-person race. Meaning a lot of Republicans got to think, "Hmm, Palin or Romney—a trip to Crazytown or the man of sober mien." That did not hurt him.
VThe financial reporting period ends June 30. Mr. Romney's focused like a laser on getting the kind of numbers that will demoralize rivals and impress the media. Money leads to money. At a Manhattan fund raiser this week, an organizer said they raised about $200,000, not bad for an hour at the end of a long day of fund raising. The roughly 70 attendees were mostly men in suits. There was no vibration of "I'd walk on burning coals for this guy." More an air of "This is a sound choice." On the other hand, no one was distractedly checking his BlackBerry in the back of the room, as I saw once at a Giuliani event in 2008. He was talking, they were scrolling. That's what we call "a sign."
Mr. Romney's emergence means a new phase in the primary contest begins. So some quick observations on the front runner. We'll begin with shallowness and try to work our way up.
All candidates for president are network or local. Romney is a network anchorman—sleek, put together, the right hair, a look of dignity. He's like Brian Williams. Some candidates are local anchormen—they're working hard, they're pros, but they lack the patina, the national sense. Reagan, Clinton, Obama—they were network. This has to do not only with persona, but with a perceived broadness of issues and competencies. It's not decisive, and it can change—Harry Truman was local, and became network. But it probably helps Mr. Romney that he's network.
His seamless happiness can be grating. People like to root for the little guy, and he's never been the little guy. His family has never in his lifetime known financial ill fortune, and his personal wealth is of the self-made kind, the most grating because it means you can't even patronize him. He has in him that way of people who are chipper about each day in large part because each day has been very nice to them. This makes some people want to punch him in the nose. I said once he's like an account executive on "Mad Men," stepping from the shower and asking George the valet to bring him the blue shirt with the white collar. But this year he looks slightly older, maybe wiser, maybe a little more frayed than in 2008. Which is good. Since 2008 everyone else is more frayed, too.
In '08, Romney's brand was at odds with his stand. He looked and had the feel of a well-born Eastern moderate Republican. But he positioned and portrayed himself as grass-roots tea party. It was jarring, didn't seem to fit, and contributed to the impression that he was an attractive lump of poll-tested packaging. He's trying to get around this in two ways. First, he's attempting to focus on economic issues, on which he has personal and professional credibility. Second, he's trying to demonstrate authenticity by sticking to some stands unpopular with the base—global warming, health care.
The common wisdom has been that health care is the huge weak spot in his candidacy. Maybe, but maybe not. The base hates ObamaCare, as we know, and Mr. Romney devised a similar plan as governor of Massachusetts. But he can talk earnestly about it on the hustings until voters' eyes glaze over and they plead to change the subject, which he will. And there are a lot of other subjects. If he gets through the primaries, his position on health care will become a plus: The Democrats this year will try to paint the Republican candidate as radical on health spending. It would be harder to do that to Mr. Romney.
Has enough time passed since his famous flip-flops on issues like abortion to make them old news? Four years ago it colored his candidacy. We'll find out if people decide it's yesterday's story, and give him a second look.
The real problem for Romney is: Does he mean it? Is he serious when he takes a stand? Has he thought it through or merely adopted it? And there is of course religion. In a silly and baiting interview with Piers Morgan on CNN, Mr. Romney swatted away an insistence that he delve into Mormonism and, by implication, defend it. It was like seeing some Brit in 1960 trying to make John F. Kennedy explain and defend Catholicism. It's not something we do in America. Because we still have a little class.
When Mr. Romney's father, George, ran for the GOP nomination in 1968, his religion was not an issue. Forty years later, when his son first ran, it was. Has America grown more illiberal? Maybe not. In 1968, evangelical Christians voted in Democratic primaries, because they tended to be Democrats. By 1980, all that was changing: evangelicals went Republican with Reagan and never came back.
Catholics do not tend to take a harsh view of Mormonism, nor do mainstream Protestants. It is evangelical Christians who are most inclined not to approve. In a general election this would not make much difference: Evangelicals will not vote for Obama. But in the GOP primaries it could still hurt Mr. Romney. No one knows, because no one knows what kind of year this is. Maybe evangelicals will have seen enough of him not to mind; maybe the Obama presidency convinced them it's not so important.
My own read is standard Catholic. Mormons have been, on balance, a deeply constructive force in American life, and it is absurd and ignorant not to support a political figure only because you do not prefer or identify with the theology of his church.
Really, grow up. Enough.
-
Funny how Mormonism is controversial but Rev. Wright's church isn't. Almost like there is a double standard or something..... :roll:
-
Noonan is right on a couple of those counts. Romney presents as Presidential. He is more network news anchor than the people who actually have those jobs. People like Pawlenty as an example are more local in presentation, hence the 6% early support levels.
The Mormon story is old. What are the deeply held religious beliefs of the current resident at the White House? Nobody knows and only opponents care. Romney's challenge is to go from a 23% frontrunner to becoming a candidate who will put the country on the right path and a candidate acceptable to all of the conservative movement.
Early frontrunners sometimes end up as cabinet members in the new administration.
-
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/13/the_missionary_position
-
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/13/the_missionary_position
"Today, popular culture stereotypes Mormons as teetotalers proud of their enormous families and patriotism. Rumor has it that the CIA and FBI treat the Mormon faith as a de facto background check and recruit more heavily on the campus of Brigham Young University than almost anywhere else."
There are a disproportionate number of mormons in the FBI/Intelligence agencies and military/State Dept. because of the lifestyles that tend to make vetting easy combined with foreign language competency and international experience.
-
And, to top it off, Glenn Beck is a Mormon!
-
Responding here to the Herman Cain points from tax policy. Agreed that he is a great American with a calm center and amazing courage. I would be very proud to have him as President. Huckabee I think took the Fair Tax banner out of opportunism and Cain is taking it out of conviction.
Frankly though, the fair tax works if what we needed was about a 10% tax, not 30% sales tax plus the state tax. I think he is also implying we get there by moving forward with spending cuts and income tax rate cuts first, and then gradually change hearts and minds. He is not however charismatic enough to ever get 80% support for repealing all income taxation on the rich. I know hateful, liberal thought way too well for that. We already repealed income taxation on the bottom 50%, so what do they have to gain?
In the context of unattainable, I find the push now in a time of national crisis for what is foreseeably unattainable to be counter-productive. I would actually like to see these candidates move toward consensus rather than differences on key issues if we hope to unite, win the election, win a mandate and accomplish anything meaningful. MHO :-)
-
GOP Debate Recap
June 13, 2011 Posted by John Hinderacker, Powerlineblog.com
"The New Hampshire debate is winding down, and my general impression is that all of the candidates did pretty well. Mitt Romney was a winner, as he came across like a senior statesman and none of the other candidates attacked him. All apparently were obeying Reagan's 11th commandment. Michele Bachmann shone early, not so much during the second half, but on the whole undoubtedly generated some excitement. Newt Gingrich reminded us how good he can be in this debate format. Rick Santorum and Herman Cain did fine. Ron Paul, whom in general I don't like, was collegial and made several positive contributions. Tim Pawlenty--my favorite, as our readers know--did fine, but in my judgment didn't break out.
The overall impression, I think, was of a united front, determined to make Barack Obama a one-term president. That is a good thing. There was a basic conflict of interest between the candidates and CNN, which hosted the debate. The candidates wanted to talk about the economy. CNN led with 20 minutes or so on the economy, then shifted to the social issues, immigration, foreign policy, etc. One could sense television sets switching off across America as the evening wore on. So I don't think the debate represented a breakthrough for any of the candidates individually, with the possible exception of Michele Bachmann--time will tell--but it was a pretty good night for the cause of conservatism and constitutional government."
-
"Some fear that Governor Pawlenty doesn't have the charisma and fireworks rhetoric that they would like to see in a candidate. Charisma and rhetoric are what gave us the current disastrous administration in Washington."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/06/14/is_pawlenty_plenty_110192.html
Is Pawlenty Plenty?
By Thomas Sowell
The Republicans' confused assortment of announced presidential candidates-- as well as unannounced candidates and distant possibilities of candidates-- seems to be clarifying somewhat. The withdrawal of Donald Trump and Mike Huckabee, as well as the withdrawal of much of Newt Gingrich's staff, seems like a much-needed weeding-out process.
Although Mitt Romney has been leading in the polls, his lead over other potential rivals has been slim. Being a "front-runner" this far ahead of next year's nominating convention would not mean much, even if Governor Romney's lead and his support were much bigger than they are.
The albatross around Romney's neck is the RomneyCare medical plan that he signed into law in Massachusetts. His refusal to repudiate RomneyCare means that, as a presidential candidate, he would forfeit one of the strongest argument against Barack Obama, who has ObamaCare as his albatross.
Nor is an about-face on RomneyCare a viable option for Mitt Romney. He has already done too many other about-faces for the voters to be likely to trust him after another. He has painted himself into a corner.
Articulate Newt Gingrich might be the best Republican to go toe-to-toe with Obama in presidential debates-- and a lack of effective articulation has been the Republicans' big weakness for years. Try to name a Republican renowned for his articulation, besides Ronald Reagan, Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln.
While Newt Gingrich is not at that level, he is definitely a cut above most Republican candidates in talking. He also represents a cherished moment in Republican history, when they took the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years, as a result of Gingrich's "contract with America" election strategy.
But that was back in the 1990s, and many younger voters today may have no idea what that was all about. Worse yet, former Speaker Gingrich has shown too many signs of opportunism -- including his wholly unnecessary swipe at Republican Congressman Paul Ryan's attempt to bring some fiscal sanity to Washington-- to be trusted.
His own staff should know him better than the rest of us. Their recent resignations should mark the end of a very promising career that did not live up to all its promises. Even so, Gingrich performed a real service to the country as Speaker of the House of Representatives, which brought federal spending under control and produced what the media chose to call "the Clinton surplus."
Among the other announced Republican presidential candidates, former governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota talks the most sense and shows the most courage. When you tell people in a corn-producing state like Iowa that you want to cut back on Ethanol subsidies, that takes guts, because Iowa will also produce the first results in next year's primary campaign season. And first results, like other first impressions, carry a lot of weight.
But somebody has got to talk sense about our dire economic problems-- and it is painfully clear that Barack Obama will not be that somebody. The fact that Pawlenty has put his neck on the line to do so is a big plus.
Tim Pawlenty cites his track record to back up his statements. That includes reducing Ethanol subsidies when he was governor of Minnesota and cutting the growth of state government spending from just over 20 percent a year to under 2 percent a year.
Governor Pawlenty fought Minnesota's transit unions over runaway pensions and hung tough during a long strike. "Today," he says, "we have a transit system that gives commuters a ride, without taking the taxpayers for a ride."
Some fear that Governor Pawlenty doesn't have the charisma and fireworks rhetoric that they would like to see in a candidate. Charisma and rhetoric are what gave us the current disastrous administration in Washington. Charisma and rhetoric gave people in other countries even bigger disasters, up to and including Hitler.
Politicians and the media may want a candidate with verbal fireworks but the people want jobs. As Tim Pawlenty put it: "Fluffy promises of hope and change don't buy our groceries, make our mortgage payments, put gas in our cars, or pay for our children's clothes."
-
Charisma will also be needed to differentiate himself from the crowded field. Like it or not, even with a good (or great) economic plan or other, his fate is sealed unless he can appeal to the voters.
-
I have only seen the first half so far.
I thought Newt answered well last night the perception that he had attacked Ryan's plan by pointing out his words were precise in answer to a precise question about how Pelosi-Reid had rammed through Obamacare. I thought Newt did well last night, but obviously the loss of his staff on top of the widespread perception that he backstabbed Ryan leave him very vulnerable.
I thought Michelle Bachman did well, and was frustrated by how few questions were sent her way.
I wish Cain had pushed the FAIR tax. I think he has the potential to do well and look good with it. He continues to look very weak on foreign affairs. Given the tectonic shifts going on in the world, to say "Well, I will get together a bunch of experts who will show me the secret intel and then I will decide what to to do" does not cut it in the slightest.
Wuzzhisface, the ex-Senator from PA is a waste of time. The fact that he is running is proof of profound cluelessness.
Pawlenty did not take the dare to follow up on his Obamney Care quote and I thought Romney came in well-prepared and articulate on it.
More after I watch the whole thing.
-
Did anyone take shots at "Obamneycare"?
I guess I should ask exactly how "Obamneycare" was attacked and how candidate-bot 2000 responded.
-
Very true regarding charisma BD. It is the growing and lasting type that is needed, drawing people to you and to your ideas and keeping the people with you over a period of years. Bland is fine with me, but nothing gets accomplished if he/she cannot win or cannot govern.
Romney presents well and no one lately has charmed people like Obama did up through his election and his first shot at setting policy. That mostly wore off with results. He no longer can fill a script with platitudes or contradictions. The rest perhaps are at similar levels of personal appeal.
My point in following Pawlenty is that he is easily underestimated. Ordinary guy, but he rose very quickly to minority leader in the MN house, to majority leader (which means you did something right when the bluest state switches parties) to the R. nomination against a strong conservative challenger, to youngest Governer in 30 years, to reelection, to leadership in the Gov's assn, to probably first pick of McCain's staff for VP, to getting well noticed now for the highest office and drawing a mostly favorable/acceptable impression from primary voters. At 6% Gallup, your point is well taken (but the election will not be held today).
If a Ronald Reagan or a Churchill steps into the fold, then Pawlenty is the local news guy in comparison (Noonan's analogy). Romney is the one who projects stature but the strength of his convictions are still in question - and he could stumble.
---------
BD, other than if you and I run, who do you lean toward at this point?
---------
"Pawlenty did not take the dare to follow up on his Obamney Care quote and I thought Romney came in well-prepared and articulate on it."
Pawlenty is taking big heat elsewhere today for not taking the fight to Romney on Obamneycare, but (IMO) why should he? The astute primary observer doesn't need Pawlenty to repeat or build on that point. He said he would not do that, and if this turns into a food fight this early that hurts all of them. Pawlenty has made his point about Romneycare, he got it repeated/entered into the debate through the question, chose the high road, and moved on. The failed results of Romneycare are still coming in from now until the election. It's the law of the commonwealth. That question is not going to go away and it doesn't have to be Pawlenty pushing it or bringing down the comradery this early.
Others have said Pawlenty looked too pre-programmed in this debate. Dick Morris is saying he blew his chance (at the whole election). In the first debate, other people of significance said he looked Presidential. After coming out with a pretty controversial economic plan, maybe he is the one who escaped the debate without taking harsh criticism. The charismatic frontrunner basically embraced Pawlenty's economic approach.
'The adventure continues'.
-
Doug, let me begin by saying that at this point in the game I tend to enjoy the process far more than picking a favorite. While I am a "lefty" at least by the standards of this forum, let me also say that I am not all that big on President Obama. I've never voted for him and have had the opportunity thrice. I don't like Romney much. I can't explain that, I just a "spider sense" feeling about him. I know essentially nothing about Huntsman. I have never liked Newt. Similar to Weiner, I think that a man needs to be a man (and I don't mean a "typical male"). If you can't be trustworthy toward your wives, you can't get me to trust you. I am enjoying learning about Pawlenty, Bachmann, and Cain. Palin has crossed into a weird cult status for me. It is almost like a Paris Hilton where she is now famous for being famous. And, if you walk out of your committment to your state's voters midway through a term (and I don't mean for higher office), how can I trust you for a four year term in a different executive seat?
Am I missing anyone?
-
Bigdog, Thanks! I agree with a lot of that.
"Am I missing anyone?"
Besides Huntsman, the last major one in might be Rick Perry who I know very little about.
"I am not all that big on President Obama. I've never voted for him and have had the opportunity thrice."
I remember seeing an early debate last time around, Dems in Nov 2007. Details there turned out to be wrong, such as that Obama opposing Hillary's individual mandate and Edwards being a great family man. Takes the fun out of trying to follow it closely.
Any other Dems that would pique your interest, hypothetically, if the incumbent would suddenly drop out or face a challenge? Anyone from the mix of Hillary, Biden or the former or outgoing Senators like Evan Bayh, Conrad, Dorgan, Webb, Feingold, others? Any potential independents or third partiers like a Bloomberg?
-
I don't like that Rick Perry called for the succession of Texas.
I like Webb. He has an interesting cross party affiliation. He also comes out well in a favorite book of mine called "The Nightingale's Song."
I would love to see a good third party candidate, but Bloomberg isn't that guy. I like the freedom to own firearms.
-
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/do-you-know-michele-bachmann-a-quick-history-of-her-political-life/
-
This was an interesting article, Guro. I find the dichotomy of the following two pieces somewhat odd, though.
"Known for piercing and sometimes inaccurate commentary..."
"She’s described as meticulous and worried about the finer details..."
-
Well, the writer seems to be thinking of two specific items:
a) the $200m comment, which does seem to be a moment of poor/reckless fact checking, and
b) the wrong state comment, which personally I file under the same heading as Obama once saying there were 57 states.
Here's Medved's analysis:
The headline for the big GOP debate should read “ROMNEY SOLIDIFIES HIS STATUS AS FRONTRUNNER” but the appropriate sub-head may prove even more significant in the long run: “Bachmann Makes Energetic and Well-Received Debut.” At this point, no one should doubt that the feisty congresswoman from Minnesota will emerge as a major contender—certainly in Iowa (where she was born and raised, and where her evangelical fervor will rally Mike Huckabee’s currently unfocused cadres) and, if she wins there, then most likely in the rest of the country.
Michelle Bachmann greets the audience after the presidential debate at St. Anselms College in Manchester, New Hampshire on June 13, 2011. (Photo: Shannon Stapleton, Reuters / Landov)
For weeks, political analysts have argued that the biggest question about the shape of the Republican race involved identifying the anti-Mitt—the formidable Romney rival who could provide a rallying point for all those who for, whatever reason, found the former Massachusetts governor unacceptable. In recent weeks it looked increasingly likely that Tim Pawlenty would play that role, especially after he unveiled an audacious economic plan that was generally well-received among conservatives. But the New Hampshire debate (carried on CNN) will give rise to feverish speculation that Bachmann may gain momentum as the Mittster’s most fearsome rock-the-establishment challenger.
It’s not that Bachmann delivered a brilliant or masterful or inspiring performance on the stage at St. Anselm College, where she announced her formal candidacy in the midst of the broadcast; it’s just that she so wildly exceeded expectations, especially from all those skeptics who wrote her off long-ago as a whining, unhinged Sarah Palin wannabe, without the moose-hunting exoticism, flirtatious mien or flighty, ditzy voice.
Actually, the main reason that Bachmann helped herself so substantially is that her credibility should destroy the final, forlorn and dwindling chance that the former Alaska governor might still join the race. Tea Party enthusiasts who adore Palin for her fearless, unabashedly conservative positions, girl-next-door sex appeal, impassioned patriotism, and vibrant family life will find a more convincing, less tarnished version of the same virtues in Bachmann. She’s the mother of five (like Palin) and she and her husband raised 23 teenaged foster children (as she told the TV audience three different times), taking kids from troubled inner city backgrounds and guiding them all successfully through high school, with most of them ultimately enrolling in college. Moreover, in the New Hampshire debate Bachmann looked simply smashing—radiant, self-assured, elegantly understated in her tailored, severe black suit with the luminous white blouse, simultaneously formidable and friendly, with her piercing, pale blue eyes igniting for the camera like Bunsen Burners every time she spoke.
One of the common rules for such encounters spells out that the candidate who seems to enjoy himself (or herself) the most, almost always wins the public; that’s why Huckabee, hugely accomplished raconteur and communicator that he is, won every one of last year’s GOP debates and became a major candidate despite lack of money and no prior name recognition. Michele Bachmann, who sparkled and smiled and clearly enjoyed herself more than any of her stiff, often somber male colleagues, has already demonstrated considerable fund-raising prowess (her 2010 congressional campaign broke records) and enjoys semi-celebrity status because of her notorious rants on cable TV.
In this appearance, however, she had obviously abandoned the flame-thrower persona in favor of approach that could actually qualify as… presidential. She looked seasoned and sure-footed most of the night, even though she stumbled through two confusing and contradictory answers to late-in-the-game questions on social issues (about whether she’d accept gay marriage in states like New Hampshire where it’s already operational, and how she felt about Pawlenty’s willingness to permit abortions in instances of rape, incest, and a risk to the mother’s life).
More interesting than these abstruse ruminations were her political instincts at the conclusion of the formal broadcast. CNN kept cameras on the candidates as the network talking-heads delivered voice-over commentary on what had just occurred. Most of the contenders embraced their wives and socialized with one another, milling about on stage. I noticed that Bachmann, on the other hand, plunged into the crowd of spectators, shaking hands, signing autographs, making new friends, flashing that perfect smile with its charmingly imperfect teeth. She is, quite simply, one of the nicest human beings I’ve ever met in politics and she gained ground in the debate because some of that natural warmth and ebullience managed to come across.
As for Romney, he also helped himself, showing vast improvement from his robotic debate performances from four years before. Two strengths stood out most conspicuously here: first, his admirable ability to turn any question on any subject into an opportunity to bash Obama, as if they were already fighting it out for the White House, just the two of them. He never let the audience forget that the president represented his true opponent and that any minor disagreements with Pawlenty or Santorum or Gingrich hardly mattered.
Second, it’s obvious that Mitt has now conquered one of the toughest challenges facing any participant in televised debates—listening to your rivals respectfully, without looking smug or supercilious or discomfited or, worst of all, bored. Al Gore famously lost his second debate with George W. Bush in large part because he greeted many of his opponent’s answers with audible, impatient sighs. Romney on the other hand, looked directly at the other debaters when they spoke, smiling sympathetically, suggesting fellowship, courtesy, even open-mindedness. In general, Mitt looked considerably more comfortable and more at ease than he ever did in 2008; assuming he’s received some serious media coaching, it’s safe to say it paid off handsomely.
His only weak moment came on a question suggesting that pro-lifers might distrust him because he formally endorsed abortion rights. His feeble, oddly plaintive answer—that he counted as proudly, unequivocally pro-life because he had campaigned that way four years ago—amounted to a missed opportunity to reassure those who still see in Romney an excess of calculation and a shortage of passion.
The biggest missed opportunity, however, marred Pawlenty’s otherwise capable outing: when asked why he had used the term “Obamaney-care” on Fox News to emphasize the similarity between the health plans of Barack and Mitt, he provided only a lame narrative (which he recited twice) about Obama himself suggesting he had borrowed key ideas from the Massachusetts plan Romney at one time proudly promoted. Pawlenty pointedly refused to engage Romney on his point of greatest vulnerability, even after moderator John King goaded him by saying he had been willing to make snide remarks about Mitt in the safety of a cable news studio, but wouldn’t try it when his rival stood beside him for a live televised event.
In one sense, T-Paw may have displayed admirable instincts to avoid going after his opponent with hammer-and-tong ferocity in their very first joint appearance; it’s probably too early in the process for any sort of nasty confrontation. But he should have at least cited the main similarity between Romney’s health reform and Obama’s bureaucratic nightmare: both schemes rely on an individual mandate, in which government uses its bullying power to require that every citizen purchase health insurance. Pawlenty could have delivered a far more effective but still gracious response by saying, “No, I don’t want to debate the details of Governor Romney’s plan—that’s irrelevant outside of Massachusetts, and I understand that in that very liberal state there are some people who still like it. But I just think it’s the wrong approach when government gives us more orders rather than allowing us more liberty; when government grows and freedom shrinks. Governor Romney and Barack Obama both supported plans that forced people to buy insurance, whether they wanted it or needed it or not. I just think that’s exactly the wrong approach.”
In other answers, particularly on foreign policy and right-to-work laws, Pawlenty delivered crisp, focused, persuasive sound bites that came across with special effectiveness when delivered in his aw-shucks, Mr. Rogers, friendly neighbor demeanor.
Rick Santorum also provided coherent, thoughtful responses to every question he faced and came across like a seasoned, trustworthy, telegenic and impressive conservative. His problem? There’s no segment of the party base ready to rally to his banner. The Tea Party platoons (effusively praised by Santorum) are already somewhat divided between Ron Paul, Herman Cain and now (in much greater numbers, presumably) Michele Bachmann. If Rick Perry of Texas belatedly joins the fray, he’ll also draw substantial Tea Party support. Santorum, with no money and no natural power-base (he lost his last statewide election in Pennsylvania by 18 points) will find it impossible to escape the dreaded “Good Guy/Can’t Win” label—like the Ralph Bellamy role in Golden Age Hollywood movies, with a character who’s upright, admirable, handsome, hard-working and with no chance at all of winning a glamorous leading lady who’s more likely to go for the raffish Cary Grant or Jimmy Stewart.
Finally, the three guys who don’t really belong on that stage: Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain and Ron Paul.
Newt looked less scary than expected, and never conveyed the battered air of a candidate on an epic losing streak whose presidential aspirations had recently exploded in a welter of accusations and embarrassments. On stage in New Hampshire, he provided informed and well-crafted responses, but hardly delivered the brilliant nuggets one might expect from what pundits invariably describe as “the most brilliant, creative mind in the Republican Party.” Newt did well, but no better than Romney, Pawlenty, Santorum or Bachmann. Given the crushing baggage he must lug through all future laps in this long race, the former Speaker did little to jump-start his sputtering campaign.
Among the seven candidates who showed up at St. Anselm, Herman Cain may have hurt himself the most. His line about “bringing the best minds together in a room, getting the right answers, and then forming a new policy” has begun to sound like a dodge and a platitude, not the endearing modesty of a self-advertised non-politician. His other answers (particularly the muddled and ignorant defense of a prior statement about feeling uncomfortable with a Muslim in his cabinet) showed not just every-man naivete but appalling ignorance. It’s now clear that his problem isn’t that he doesn’t read briefing papers; it’s that he doesn’t read newspapers. As a consistently successful businessman, Mr. Cain ought to realize that no big corporation would hire a new CEO who hadn’t thoroughly familiarized himself with the top issues on the agenda, and proposed decisive approaches; it’s not enough to say you’ll count on experts to set you straight.
And speaking of setting the record straight, I now acknowledge that my past insults aimed at Ron Paul (calling him “Dr. Demento,” among other endearments), may have counted as overly generous. Last time he ran, the Mad Doctor inspired a cult following and raised a great deal of money, but won fewer than 30 delegates and consistently modest primary vote totals. This time, he’ll do even worse: his body language (waving his arms and twitching his eyebrows like a pan-handling street corner prophet predicting the end of the world) and not just his words suggest a crank and a crackpot. Even Dennis Kucinich might have been embarrassed by Dr. Paul’s suggestion that halting the bombing of Al Qaeda operatives in Pakistan and Yemen would actually make the United States more secure, or that eliminating “welfare to foreign nations” would allow us to continue current levels of Medicare (that cost more than a hundred times what we spend on all foreign aid programs combined).
At least Dr. Paul rightly ridiculed Herman Cain’s repeated promise to consult experts before reaching decisions. The crotchety 75-year-old promised to bring all the troops home regardless of the advice or insistence of his generals and admirals because, after all “I’m Commander in Chief.”
Those words provided the debate’s single most chilling moment and will encourage any voters who paid attention to this exercise to rush to support the more plausible candidates. Yes, Dr. Paul provides some comic relief and a bit of unpredictability that sometimes enlivens boring televised debates but his presence also undermines the valuable idea that there is such a thing as a consistent GOP message, and that running for the presidency amounts to serious business.
This column appeared originally in The Daily Beast on June 14, 2011.
-
"Known for piercing and sometimes inaccurate commentary..."
"She’s described as meticulous and worried about the finer details..."
The second point, finer details, was followed by: "such as soundtracks played to pump up rally crowds", meaning attention to the wrong details. Either a worthy rip on her or unfriendly journalism.
As one who has followed her since before she held elective office, it is still hard to say if she is excessively gaffe prone or just a victim of the double standard journalism. Examples, Obama got away with the 57 state comment, presumably he visited some state more than once, but in particular Biden was loaded with falsehoods in the VP debate and then Palin gets ripped for lack of knowledge/experience.
But that double standard is a fact and conservatives need to have well thought out answers if they want to ban gay marriage in states that already have it, ban abortion when over 0.0% of them come from rape, life of the mother etc.
Michele Bachmann won't be the next President, but she may be settling in for a hell of a brush with fame.
-
By JAMES TARANTO
Yesterday's column on Tim Pawlenty's feebleness in criticizing Mitt Romney's version of ObamaCare prompted several readers to write with the suggestion that Pawlenty is pursuing the vice presidential nomination. We doubt it. We've met with Pawlenty twice in recent months, and he has a well-considered (if, thus far, not so well-implemented) plan to win the presidential nomination. Further, if he was sucking up to the former Massachusetts governor Monday night with a Romney-Pawlenty ticket in mind, that would represent a one-day change in strategy, since it was only Sunday morning when Pawlenty referred to "ObamneyCare."
Furthermore, if Pawlenty were angling for the subordinate spot on a Romney ticket, blurring the two men's differences would be precisely the wrong way of going about it. Pawlenty on Monday did not display any strengths to compensate for Romney's weaknesses. Other than regional appeal--the Upper Midwest, though lately a Democratic stronghold in presidential elections, is an area where Republicans can reasonably hope to do better--it's hard to see what Pawlenty would bring to the ticket.
Steve Moore says that Rep. Michele Bachmann could win Iowa.
But if we assume Romney is to be the nominee--a big "if," let us emphasize--then another candidate's performance Monday amounted to a very effective audition for the vice presidency: Michele Bachmann.
Whereas the argument for Pawlenty is that he is most things to all people--that few voters have any reason to be against him--Bachmann stirs genuine enthusiasm among two of the Republican factions most wary of Romney: the Tea Party and the religious right. A Romney-Bachmann ticket would be balanced in terms of ideology (he's moderate, she's conservative), governing style (he's technocratic, she's idealistic), religion (he's Mormon, she's evangelical) and, of course, sex.
This column has no brief for Romney, but strictly as political analysis, we'd say a Romney-Bachmann ticket looks more formidable than the McCain-Palin ticket that lost in 2008. Romney, unlike McCain, has executive and private-sector experience. He's in his mid-60s, old enough that his maturity makes for an attractive contrast with Barack Obama, but not so old that anyone will wonder if he's up to the job.
Romney's biggest weakness is the one The Wall Street Journal identified in a hard-hitting editorial last month titled "Obama's Running Mate":
Presidents lead by offering a vision for the country rooted in certain principles, not by promising a technocracy that runs on "data." Mr. Romney's highest principle seems to be faith in his own expertise.
Like another Massachusetts governor who ran for president, Romney would promise "competence, not ideology"--although Michael Dukakis actually was an ideologue of the liberal left. But again, Romney looks better than McCain, who offered a lack of vision but no reason to think he was a competent administrator.
Associated Press
Mitt campaigns for Michele in 2008.
.As for Bachmann, her biggest advantage over Sarah Palin may be that she is now running for president. That means that if Romney were to name her a year hence, she would be far a more familiar and media-savvy politician than Palin was in 2008. She would be much less vulnerable to both smears from the partisan media and unforced errors like Palin's disastrous interview with Katie Couric, whoever that is. For those who care about such things, the presence of a woman on the ticket might serve as an excuse to vote against re-electing the first black president.
To be sure, Bachmann is running for the presidential nomination, and while no one considers her the favorite, she's surely a shorter shot than she was a few days ago. But a rival who is able to attract significant support in the primaries is likely to bring more to the ticket than one who isn't. What did Joe Biden get Barack Obama other than comic relief?
An interesting aside: A Romney-Bachmann ticket, or a Romney-Pawlenty one for that matter, would combine candidates from the only state Richard Nixon lost in 1972 and the only state Reagan lost in 1984. What's more, of the seven GOP candidates on stage Monday, all but Rick Santorum come from the home state of at least one Democratic presidential nominee since 1960. The four states in question--Georgia, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Texas--have produced a majority of Democratic nominees (8 of 13) during that time.
-
As I mentioned, I have yet to watch the whole Rep debate. What is this I hear that Romney called for leaving Afpakia?
-
Up to now, Rick Perry has had a point in professing no interest in running for the presidency, Why bother? The voluble Texas governor sits atop a state that looks more like one of the boom nations of Southeast Asia than the faltering 49 across America.
The Federal Reserve Bank in Dallas recently estimated that since June 2009, Texas has produced about 37% of the net new jobs in the U.S. At The Journal's offices this week, Gov. Perry said a closer look puts the Texas new-jobs number closer to 48%. Whatever. It's an astounding feat.
What's more, Rick Perry deeply believes the nation's greatness is found within its 50 separate states, not Washington. Why go to the failed city?
View Full Image
Martin Kozlowski
.A few months ago, it was probably true that Rick Perry wasn't running. His two top political aides left him to join the Gingrich campaign. There is no way these two would have deserted Perryland for Newt's world if the governor were making a presidential run. Since Newt's staff collapsed, both are back with Mr. Perry, who's currently got a presidential announcement wound tighter than the Dallas Mavs' defense.
My guess is he's in. Why? He got clearance from what obviously has become the second-most powerful force in American politics—a candidate's wife. In the governor's telling, his wife, Anita, sat him down and said this was no ordinary presidential election for the country. Rick, you've gotta run.
She's right about the race. There may be lots of reasons not to put oneself through the modern presidential gauntlet, but not this time. Four more years of below-average economic growth and above-trend unemployment and it'll take a generation for the U.S. to climb out. The betting here is that Anita Perry wins this argument. They usually do.
What does Rick Perry bring to what is now a slow dance? Three things: Texas, Texas and the Tenth Amendment.
With Rick Perry, you get a double helping of Texas—the person and the state itself. That leads naturally to the early-stage question: Is Rick Perry more Texas than the nation can handle?
Some say that if you close your eyes, you could swear you're hearing George W. Bush and (to some ears) that awful West Texas accent. I don't. Unlike the former president, Mr. Perry has fine-tuned the sound of Texas (Paint Creek, north of Abilene) into a semi-syrupy drawl. And unlike most pols, he delivers a speech in more than one note.
On Tuesday night in Manhattan (N.Y.), he gave the keynote at the New York Republicans' Lincoln dinner, and when Rick Perry got soft and quiet—I know this will sound nuts—it had the whiff of that comfy Jimmy Stewart drawl in his cowboy movies.
Perry would give the race three things: himself, Texas and the 10th Amendment.
.Podcast: Listen to the audio of Wonder Land here. .Onstage, the governor gives you passion. He gives you emotion. Compared to the seven GOP contenders at CNN's 30-seconds-only Twitter debate this week, Rick Perry would be the most animated by far—rocking back, his arms tossed out in broad sweeps. Which brings us to the "swagger problem." Can America handle Rick Perry's Texas swagger?
He's given to wearing cowboy boots. He wears starched, high-collar white shirts with big Texas cufflinks. He sports a fat Texas A&M Aggies ring. He's plenty Texas alright. Any other time, it might be fatal. Not now. The 2012 electorate—fraught over the economic future—is going to blow right past personal quirks to laser in on what the candidate says about the Problem. This is going to be a substance election. What of substance does Rick Perry offer?
Texas. Without the details of the Texas economic boom, this is a normal candidacy. But the details are impressive. Texas is a zero income-tax state, and Mr. Perry gives the impression he'd die at the Alamo before allowing one. The state is historically business-friendly. I recall attending the 1992 GOP convention in Houston, visiting from New York, and feeling as if I were in a capitalist utopia. You could argue that many of the state's new companies are mainly fleeing intolerable hells, such as California. But Texas and Mr. Perry keep producing new welcome mats, notably the recent passage of a loser-pays tort-reform bill. Mr. Perry says Haley Barbour told him they'd need turnstiles on the border if that tort bill passed, and indeed the in-migration of doctors to Texas is significant.
What makes a Perry candidacy intriguing is that he has built out the Texas story into a political philosophy, or movement, erected around the Tenth Amendment. In economic terms, Mr. Perry argues that the nation will grow more if we have 50 states competing with each other rather than competing to survive Washington. But it's broader than that. The tea party is mostly about spending. The Perry argument is about the fundamental relationship between the states and Washington. It's about decades of federal encroachment on state prerogatives.
Whether this Lone Star package would fly is anyone's guess. A person who's been governor of Texas awhile has baggage. I-hate-Rick Perry quotes would be a dime a dozen in Texas. Mr. Perry championed a quixotic Trans-Texas Corridor of highways and rail lines. His Enterprise Fund ladles out millions in subsidies to lure corporations. He just pushed through a pre-abortion sonogram requirement. Texas, a large death-penalty state, does a lot of them. A Perry candidacy might not be a slam dunk with independents—unless 9% unemployment trumps everything this election.
Say this—if the Texas governor gets in, you won't see another debate like last Tuesday's GOP flatliner in New Hampshire.
-
Part of business travel is the reality of time zone changes. Sometimes I find myself awake for an hour or two during the night. Naturally, political junkie that I am , , , and so it was that I caught a goodly part of a speech by Texas Gov. Rick Perry to a Republican audience. Pretty durn good! The man bears watching , , ,
Then followed some chattering class stuff about "Why aren't the Rep candidates talking about foreign policy very much?" Although the folks discussing it were morons (and so I wandered on to a Military channel piece on "Hitler's Bodyguards" ) the question IS a very good one and I'd like to put it up for a bit of discussion here.
-
Part of business travel is the reality of time zone changes. Sometimes I find myself awake for an hour or two during the night. Naturally, political junkie that I am , , , and so it was that I caught a goodly part of a speech by Texas Gov. Rick Perry to a Republican audience. Pretty durn good! The man bears watching , , ,
Then followed some chattering class stuff about "Why aren't the Rep candidates talking about foreign policy very much?" Although the folks discussing it were morons (and so I wandered on to a Military channel piece on "Hitler's Bodyguards" ) the question IS a very good one and I'd like to put it up for a bit of discussion here.
Just a guess, but I'm betting the RNC has invested a lot of money on polling and found that the public, especially swing voters are most concerned about economic issues.
-
Catching up on a few points. James Taranto, who I like very much, was very harsh on Pawlenty for not attacking Romney harder, as was the moderator and most observers. I respect Pawlenty's right to set his own tone and strategy... but then he looked weak and confused by attacking the day before and the day after in safety but restraining himself face to face. He missed an opportunity to do that with tact, insight or humor. That was a moment in a crowded field where people actually wanted to hear what he had to say. I don't know if that means he is done with one weak outing (and low polling numbers). Up until recently I thought he was running a very well designed campaign. Elements of his economic plan went too far, also a partially missed opportunity since he is the only one including Obama to have a plan.
Dick Morris on Hannity during the week calls this round the quarterfinals, like a tennis tournament. He says Pawlenty has Romney on his side of the draw and needs to win there to get to the semifinals - the last two Republicans standing. Bachmann, OTOH, has Herman Cain, Ron Paul? and any other tea party types on her side of the draw. I don't agree it's that simple but he does make some sense.
Bigdog brought up the succession point on Rick Perry, so I finally googled, read and viewed what I could on that this morning. Remember Todd Palin also had ties to people who suggested successionism, and was to be the poison to end it all. First, I would say my view is different. Nobody who is serious and patriotic right now wants to break up the union, but at some point in places like Alaska and Texas, if you are ruled for long enough, with a ruling ideology you despise, from a places as far away as Washington DC eastern seaboard and left coast, and they show no interest in even seeking your consent for that governance because they can get the votes they need elsewhere, talk of succession is no less patriotic than what the colonists went through.
Case in point, I think it is the Virginia challenge on Healthcare that has 26 states suing the feds. That is quite an indicator that the feds have gone beyond consent of the governed, yet the administration ignores that court ruling, a change in congress repealing authorization and proceeds to appeal after a appeal as slow as possible to force a system on the people that most states oppose. At some point,. enough is enough. Luckily we have other, easier ways to enact change.
Rick Perry of course did not ever say he favored succession:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/15/gov-rick-perry-texas-coul_n_187490.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4NZnHDmnu8
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/region/legislature/stories/04/17/0417gop.html
The video (above) pointed to first through google/youtube search of what he said is notable for the commentary before and after Perry's comments - he is surrounded by 'teabaggers', a particularly vile homosexual derogatory depiction of people who come forward and peacefully argue for a smaller and more constitutionally based government.
-------
Crafty posed: "Why aren't the Rep candidates talking about foreign policy very much?"... the question IS a very good one and I'd like to put it up for a bit of discussion here.
Using Pawlenty as the example, he has tried to be the lead force opposing action in Libya. Americans are war weary but I don't think that is the central focus in worldview differences between what I might call our side and Obama's. It would make way more sense (Crafty's point I think) to start laying the large view of what is your view as the next President of America's role in the world today and where we do go from here. As 4 wars(?) wind down - perhaps, what kind of strength and readiness are we going to maintain, and who is going to invest and hire the people from these forces who do not stay in the military. That is another question not even addressed by the incumbent.
-
Crafty posed: "Why aren't the Rep candidates talking about foreign policy very much?"... the question IS a very good one and I'd like to put it up for a bit of discussion here.
Using Pawlenty as the example, he has tried to be the lead force opposing action in Libya. Americans are war weary but I don't think that is the central focus in worldview differences between what I might call our side and Obama's. It would make way more sense (Crafty's point I think) to start laying the large view of what is your view as the next President of America's role in the world today and where we do go from here. As 4 wars(?) wind down - perhaps, what kind of strength and readiness are we going to maintain, and who is going to invest and hire the people from these forces who do not stay in the military. That is another question not even addressed by the incumbent.
I'm not sure Crafty's question "IS a very good one" albeit rather interesting.
I think GM hit it on the nail. "Just a guess, but I'm betting the RNC has invested a lot of money on polling and found that the public, especially swing voters are most concerned about economic issues."
I think at most Americans might be mildly interested in what happens in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, or anyplace else in the Middle East or Europe, etc. for that matter. But the key is the economy; nearly everyone I know is VERY interested and talking about the economy. Further, to date, Obama is weak on this issue. So it makes sense for the Republicans to focus.
-
Its all jobs now, like a laser focus, just look at Obama (sarcasm). We have been wrong several times lately about what the most important issue will be in the next Presidency. We had no idea we were headed into 9/11 or Iraq when W. Bush was elected. Regime change in Iraq was national policy, agreed to by both candidates in the 2000 debates, with Gore saying he would go further than Bush with it - and nobody knew. The issues in 2004 were all about war as a 50 consecutive month job growth was breaking out. By 2006 people took the whole prosperity thing for granted, voted for the politics of economic decline and worldwide surrender. Got the decline, escalated (surged) the war. Obama set himself apart by being the most consistent of all in his anti-Iraq war stance, then presided over that war well 2 1/2 years and counting. Guantanamo, ditto. But by the time the general election was held the issues were all about economic crisis management. Who knew.
Crafty is right. Not ahead of economic growth, but foreign policy as a big part of the job, show us your knowledge, wisdom and competency especially in the sense that most of them are new to it. If you seriously want to be elected and govern effectively, now is the time to begin laying out how you will do that. Foreign policy, also judicial appointments are another key area of difference between the incumbent and the challenger. If you are running against a senior lecturer of constitutional law, you had better have your act together.
When the next crisis comes or events turn - in any of these areas, people need to know who to turn to.
McCain set himself apart to win the nomination by promising to lead us in what direction? Nobody knows. He is a maverick, whatever that is. He was supposed to be the wise and steady hand to complete the wars, admitted that he knew little about economics. Then the collapse hit and he had no more economic wisdom, trust or ideas than Bush, Bernanke or Obama.
-
I already posted this in the Afpakia thread, but I post this here as well because of its implications for the Presidential campaign. Note the comments on Romney.
==============================
For those of us who do not know him or may have forgotten, Michael Yon is an ex-SF soldier who became a reader supported journalist in Iraq. During the worst of the war there due to the respect his SF background afforded him, he went on missions with our troops including into firefights. He was by far and away the first forceful voice that the Surge was working when candidates Baraq and Shrillery "General Betrayus" Clinton were skittering for the exit.
What he did in Iraq, he now does in Afpakia. IMHO whatever this man writes should be taken quite seriously. He has courage, integrity, and he puts himself in harm's way so he can report to us his search for Truth.
Afghanistan is making undeniable progress, but it could all unravel
Next >
19 June 2011
KABUL, AFGHANISTAN
It's time to make big decisions. These decisions will have a huge impact on the future of Afghanistan. The biggest question at hand: How many troops will we keep here and for how long?
The answer to that question must not be dreamed up in political strategy sessions or in focus groups. Buzzwords and abstractions won't do.
This is about real people — our soldiers, airmen, sailors and Marines, our allies — and the people of Afghanistan. It's their lives that hang in the balance, and our judgment must respect the challenge they face and the progress they have made.
Let's begin with a few facts. For the strategy we used, we never had enough troops in Afghanistan to defeat our enemies and stand up a civil society. It can be argued that today, we still do not have enough.
Despite this, the coalition and the Afghans appear to finally be turning the tide in our favor, and a great deal of this can be credited to President Obama for deciding to send more troops. Unfortunately, the President has stated that we will begin bringing troops home this year.
This puts him in a bind. To keep his word, the President may have to undermine the very success that he facilitated.
And especially since the killing of Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan, others can be expected to ratchet up the political pressure on Obama should he not begin the drawdown on schedule. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the Republican frontrunner for the 2012 election, said this last week: "It's time for us to bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can, consistent with the word that comes to our generals that we can hand the country over… we've learned some important lessons in our experience in Afghanistan. I want those troops to come home based upon not politics, not based upon economics, but instead based upon the conditions on the ground determined by the generals. But I also think we've learned that our troops shouldn't go off and try and fight a war of independence for another nation. Only the Afghanis can win Afghanistan's independence from the Taliban."
Gen. David Petraeus is the boss here in Afghanistan. He has been tasked with making a recommendation on troop withdrawal. He arrived in Washington last week, where he is recommending a timetable for the drawdown of the 30,000 “surge” troops sent to the country in 2009.
Obama had promised that those troops would start coming home in July, but conditions on the ground always matter more.
On June 5, I asked Petraeus in his Kabul office for insight into his recommendation to the President. He told me he has not yet told anyone what his recommendation will be.
Many people are waiting. Not even his staff knows.
Petraeus, tapped to take over the CIA upon his retirement from this post, has accumulated a long string of unlikely successes in Iraq, and increasingly in Afghanistan. These efforts have been far more than mere war. Our people triumphed in the kinetic fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan years ago; the far greater difficulties have been the second wars fought in both countries during the long nation-building phases.
Any politician who says we are not nation building in Iraq or Afghanistan should be dismissed. Nation building is the course we chose, and nation building is what is occurring. Slowly.
In Iraq, a government was shattered and rebuilt. In Afghanistan, there was no government to shatter. Afghanistan was just an area where a lot of people lived, and today it's being built up from mud and sticks. For instance, there was not a single meter of paved road in Ghor Province.
A country is being built from scratch and nobody has more experience at the messy and difficult job of “shatter and create” than does Petraeus. He knows his business, his profession and his art, and he knows more about the current war than anyone alive. His recommendation will carry significant weight.
But while we do this critical work, our young warriors are still dying and being wounded in large numbers. People at home are asking if Afghanistan is worth the sacrifice. And then there is the economy, still struggling and endangering our country strategically. The war here is very expensive.
Is it worth it? This is a hard question. We made the judgment that this war was worth fighting when we put our warriors into the arena in the first place. We've already jumped and now we are deciding whether to land on our heads, our rears or our feet. We cannot unjump. Our people are fighting as you read this. When we ordered our military to go, we cloaked ourselves in great responsibility to support them and to achieve success.
Our troops have two responsibilities, which are tightly interwoven: Win the war and create Afghanistan. It is not the troops' place to consider the global economy. They are not to consider unfolding debacle in Libya, the long challenges in Iraq or the dark side of the moon.
And so when Petraeus makes his recommendation to the President, his recommendation should not include any consideration of the U.S. economy, the debt or jobs in America. He is the man in the arena. The man in the arena does not collect parking tickets, or work at the concession stand or concern himself with the electric bill for the stadium. He beats his opponent to the ground. Or, in this case, beats some opponents into the ground and builds a country simultaneously. His recommendation to the President should be pure, devoid of outside considerations.
We must be honest about what we can accomplish. This is a century-long process. A little Afghan girl is watching me write this opinion. She appears to be about 4 years old, and she keeps peeking around the door smiling at me while her mother is cleaning the house and her father takes care of the property. The girl follows me around the house. A storm is coming and a lightning bolt just zapped the electricity. I am unarmed but safe in Kabul, and if this little girl is lucky, and we do not abandon Afghanistan, she may one day end up in a university.
Petraeus told me that at its peak, violence in Iraq was four times higher than current violence is here. This seems about right. I can drive around Afghanistan in many places. I've been back in Kabul for almost two weeks and have not heard a single gunshot or explosion, though I did feel an earthquake.
This isn't Baghdad. During peak times in Iraq, you couldn't go 30 minutes in Baghdad without seeing or hearing something. The most dangerous city in Afghanistan is Kandahar, yet I have driven around Kandahar many times, including recently, without a shred of armor. I could never have survived this in Fallujah, Basra, Baghdad, Baquba or Mosul. I have driven this year, without troops, to places in Afghanistan where last year I would have almost certainly been killed, such as Panjwai. You don't need thick intelligence reports to translate those realities.
Shouting at an oak tree will no not make it grow faster, and ignoring a sapling in this desert will leave it to die. An acorn was planted in 2001, and we mostly ignored it for more than half a decade while our people fought so hard in Iraq. Today, that acorn is a scrawny, 10-year-old oak tree that was so neglected until 2010 that it nearly died. Its skinny branches are still so weak that a sparrow dare not land, and while we focused on Iraq, the enemies here stayed busy nibbling away at anything green. Yet over the past year of extra care, there are clear signs of life and new growth.
Meanwhile, our enemies here are being monkey stomped. The rule of monkey stomping has never changed. Don't stop stomping until the enemy stops breathing. This enemy has earned respect for its courage, resilience and will-not-quit spirit, but there is only so much it can take.
At this rate, the Graveyard of Empires, the Undefeatables, will need a new advertising campaign. Our enemies here are turning out to be the Almost Undefeatables. The many good Afghans want to move forward. They want their kids, boys and girls, to see better days.
The bottom line is that there are unmistakable signs of progress in Afghanistan, and Gen. David Petraeus is about to make a very important recommendation.
His judgment should be trusted.
Major fighting will soon begin in Afghanistan. I will be there providing coverage as I have done in the past. Your support is crucial. If you have enjoyed or benefited from my free dispatches, please consider supporting future work via: Paypal, or my Post Office Box, or other Methods of Support.
Osama bin Laden is dead, but the war rolls on.
Michael Yon
-
for Michele Bachman and other signatories of the Pro Life pledge that she and they are using to attack Romney for not signing. How very silly to pledge not appointing anyone to ANY post who is not pro-Life. Who cares whether e.g. a Secretary of the Treasury is pro Life or not? Stupid! and bad politics too!
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wJfsLafye4&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wJfsLafye4&feature=player_embedded
-
"We...believe that our economy can and must grow at an average rate of 5% annually...We pledge ourselves to policies that will achieve this goal without inflation."
- The 1960 Democratic platform stated /JFK http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29602#axzz1PrtremSU
-
Did you read ALL of the Platform? Line by line? Amazing stuff....
-
Amazing that once upon a time, dems were anti-communist and strong on defense.
-
International Obama fan club: "I would like Barack Obama to be re-elected president of the United States maybe more than someone else. If another person becomes U.S. president, then he may have another course. We understand that there are representatives of a rather conservative wing there who are trying to achieve their political goals at the expense of inflaming passions in relation to Russia, among other things. But what use is criticizing them? This is simply a way of achieving political goals." --Russian President Dmitry Medvedev
-
Medvedev, Putin, Chavez, these are endorsements he might prefer in private.
---------------
(JDN) "Did you read ALL of the Platform? Line by line? Amazing stuff...."
[1960 Dem Platform]
Yes. National security! Pro-growth economics! Trade: " we shall expand world trade in every responsible way"! I enjoyed the constant referrals to what bad condition the Eisenhower administration left us in, lol.
Looking at the age of Obama 2006-2012, this is not your father's Democratic party!
Also note that they use the word holocaust at the beginning to describe a large potential human disaster unrelated to Hitler's treatment of Jewish people.
-
Q: "Who cares whether e.g. a Secretary of the Treasury is pro Life or not?"
A: Michele Bachmann (- and maybe enough other conservatives to give the nomination to Romney)
---------
Moving on, more famous people caught reading the forum:
Crafty 6/19: "Why aren't the Rep candidates talking about foreign policy very much?" ... the question IS a very good one and I'd like to put it up for a bit of discussion here.
Tim Pawlenty 6/23: Pawlenty to Deliver Foreign Policy Speech (Real Clear Politics)
Pawlenty to Deliver Foreign Policy Speech
Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty will head to New York City next week to deliver what his aides are billing as a major foreign policy address Tuesday at the Council on Foreign Relations.
"The speech will focus on the challenges and opportunities presented by the Arab Spring," a Pawlenty aide said in an emailed statement. "Governor Pawlenty will address President Obama's failed leadership, approach, and philosophy of how to approach the entire Middle East region. He will touch on the need for the Republican Party to continue its support for a strong foreign policy."
As the Republican field has drifted toward advocating a less militarily adventurous foreign policy, Pawlenty has remained more hawkish than many of his opponents.
----------
Doug continued: Pawlenty will be judged on the content. Perhaps more important to his future, he will be judged on delivery as to whether he looks credible as a world leader, on foreign policy and economic leadership.
-
The GOP field is sorting itself out, which is to be expected. What's surprising is that so are Republican voters. The early rise of Mitt Romney, the second-place showing of Jon Huntsman (behind Ron Paul) at the recent Republican Leadership Conference, and a Gallup poll last week saying 50% of Republicans and independents who lean Republican favor the candidate with the best chance of beating President Obama, suggests GOP voters on the ground don't want to pick anyone the moderate Democrat down the block wouldn't support.
It's still early, but that makes it even more interesting. It's at this point in a presidential race that obstreperous and passionate movements and candidacies would normally be rising. It's later and with time that a certain soberness, a certain inherent moderation normally take hold. But Republicans at the moment seem prematurely settled, even as they watch, judge and figure out whom to support.
A quick read on a few in the field:
Mitt Romney really is the kind of candidate Republicans imagine centrists would like. He looks the part, sounds the part, has experience in the world and government. Four years ago he was new and controversial. Now he's next in line and kind of old shoe. But the question that dogged him in 2008 hasn't gone away: Does he have philosophical fire inside him, or only personal destiny fire? If the latter, would he do what needs doing as president? Ronald Reagan was mild and attractive as a person and candidate and never claimed to be a radical, but when he got into office at a crucial moment, he did some radical things that turned out to be the right things. He had philosophical fire, which is important.
Peggy Noonan reports on Jon Huntsman's campaign kick-off.
.Michele Bachmann's got fire, a libertarian conservative who means it. She broke through in New Hampshire because she wasn't Cable Bachmann—skittery, combative—but Candidate Bachmann, sincere and accomplished. Does she have the weight and ballast to see it all the way through? Is she a serious person or just a dramatic one who rouses a portion of the base? Will America be drawn to her brand of conservatism?
Tim Pawlenty is earnest, nice, Midwestern. Interestingly, no one doubts his grounding in political thought, or his accomplishments, and yet he's coming across as weak. Does he want this thing? Is he the right size?
Newt Gingrich? That didn't work. Good thing voters found out early, not late.
Herman Cain always gets applause in GOP debates because everyone likes him. The media suspect the reason is that he's handy evidence Republicans aren't racist. But Republicans like him because they like him.
View Full Image
APIC
One imagines him more as secretary of state, like Cordell Hull.
.A number of prominent conservatives are black, and they are admired because they all swam upstream, with no establishment to help them. They weren't born into it, they had to struggle through to it. And when they arrived they were often greeted awkwardly. They were like the old working-class ethnic Democrats who joined the Republican Party in the 1970s and '80s and were greeted by Mrs. Waffington Wafferthird IV: "Your name is Kowalski? We had a plumber named Kowalski at Little Compton, he did wonderful work!" Yeah. Well, glad the pipes work.
It's been a generation or two since the party was like that, and now old Mrs. Wafferthird is likely to introduce herself with theatricality and flair. "Darling, I'm the antique old stereotype we all spoof. I even spoof myself. Have a Ritz cracker." And we all feel protective of her because she's part of a dying wave, a great, three-centuries-long wave.
Anyway Republicans like Mr. Cain because he's plain-spoken and humorous, and he made some money in America. He's the American dream. But is he a president? No, he's a businessman. It's 2011 and he doesn't know his own opinion on Afghanistan.
***
And now Jon Huntsman. The former Utah governor and ambassador to China announced in New Jersey's Liberty State Park on Tuesday. I went to see a Huntsman crowd, to find out who they are and why they support him. But there was no Huntsman crowd, only a hunk of milling media. Interspersed among them were perhaps a hundred individuals who got themselves there to watch and show support. When asked why they were for him, they said words like "balance," "principles" and "expanding the umbrella."
More Peggy Noonan
Read Peggy Noonan's previous columns
Click here to order her book, Patriotic Grace
.Two weeks ago at a Reuters lunch in Manhattan, Mr. Huntsman appeared with Henry Kissinger to talk about the latter's new book, "On China." As Mr. Huntsman talked—when Mr. Kissinger couldn't remember a particular word in Chinese, Mr. Huntsman smoothly supplied it—two journalists at a table to the side came to the same conclusion at almost the same moment: This isn't a president, this is a secretary of state. Huntsman—well-tailored, willowy, gray-haired, cerebral-looking—comes alive when talking about Asia. You imagine him in striped pants and morning coat, like Cordell Hull. Yet he's from Utah, has seven kids, is Mormon, has lowered taxes and balanced budgets. His work in the Obama administration is supposed to be a negative with Republican voters, but it won't be: It's China, the big country now always in the back of the American mind. He speaks two Chinese dialects. That sounds useful.
What part of the GOP base would be Mr. Huntsman's natural constituency? Here political professionals scratch their heads.
Maybe he's going for moderate conservatives and Republicans who have Romney Reluctance, who just can't get to Mitt-land, or not yet. Maybe he's trying to take the vote of conservatives who think deep down Romney doesn't have a deep down. He's saying, "I'm like Romney but I have deep beliefs and a particular expertise: I won two terms as a governor, not one, and was a major ambassador. I'm cool, and my hair is just as presidential."
Mr. Huntsman's call, in his announcement speech, for more civility, was both appropriate and shrewd. Appropriate because there's nothing wrong with adding a bit of grace to the political moment. There's too much hate out there and too many people making a living peddling resentment. Shrewd because it pre-emptively forgives, or retroactively explains, his past friendliness to and support of Mr. Obama. He can flick off criticisms with sad shake of the head: "That's the kind of thing I was talking about when I asked for a higher tone."
His support for gay civil unions is supposedly controversial, but is it? It is a compromise position, and the tea party won't be made unhappy by it: Social issues are not their focus. Mitch Daniels was knocked for calling for a social issues truce some months ago, but only because he put a name on what is happening anyway. There is an informal truce on social issues in the GOP, but no one likes hearing potential leaders mention it, because then the other leaders have to take a side. But almost everyone in the party is focused now on economic issues, in part because a strong economy fosters everything else, including American compassion. Six months ago a profoundly pro-life U.S. senator who now speaks more on economic issues was asked how he explains the shift in emphasis to his pro-life allies. "I tell them unless we turn things around, no one's going to be able to have babies."
-
The Noonan take is pretty good on all of them. It's early and those are the things they are working on.
--------
A couple of good polling pieces on Pawlenty today who is still struggling with very low numbers for someone getting this much attention. AP says his favorable are up ten points. This one is WSJ quoting a home state poll for Pawlenty where most did not want him to run, he is in a dead heat with Obama, the only state Reagan never carried. This means a number of things.
First it means that Obama's is receiving internal polling that is running terrible for him in key states. Obama won Minnesota by 11 points - over the most moderate Republican! Pawlenty is known here, won twice with less than 50% of the vote, nice guy, non-threatening, respected somewhat for competence and good governance, criticized plenty by right and left. He is not a local hero, no parks buildings or freeways are being named for him anytime soon. He is just known, and so is Obama now. If Pawlenty is competitive here, other Republicans are killing Obama in Ohio, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, etc etc, states that Obama won. Gallup has Obama down to 43 and this slow economic summer is just beginning. Rasmussen Obama index is -16 and RCP average just went negative this week at -0.2%. When the Gallup-type polls start hitting the high-30s consistently and when internal polls show all swing states out of reach, this guy is going to discover the need to spend more time with family or working on his golf game. Latest is Obama is down to 38% approval from white women, a good sized liberal constituency. With numbers like the ones he has coming, key candidates don't come to your events in key swing districts. He is already seeing that.
If you think the opposite about Obama, think about this. What is his plan for the next 4 years, why won't he say? More debt, more spending, more government? More double-talk? Fight with a Republican congress over the speed of dismantling his programs? Preside over decline? Wait for the last 2-3 stimuli to kick in? Nationalize another industry - I can't think of one left that is strategic and still largely private, housing, banking, insurance, autos, energy, transportation, food?
One more note on the SurveyUSA MN registered voter poll, Michele Bachmann polls 14 points lower and she is actually better known here than Pawlenty (explained in previous posts).
---------
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303339904576405761559802364.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_BelowLEFTSecond
Pawlenty's Polls
While his name recognition has been trailing behind other Republican hopefuls, a new poll of registered voters in Minnesota shows he does well against President Obama.
By MATTHEW PAYNE
Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty is fond of saying he's the candidate who can "unite the whole Republican party . . . and then actually go on and win the election." While his name recognition has been trailing behind other Republican hopefuls in key early primary states such as Iowa and New Hampshire, a new poll of registered voters in Minnesota from SurveyUSA shows he does well against President Obama.
The poll, conducted late last week, put Mr. Pawlenty in a dead heat with President Obama in a head to head matchup. This is the same Minnesota that voted for Obama by a margin of 11 points in 2008. The fact that Mr. Pawlenty polls relatively well among voters who know him may give credence to the notion that if "Mr. Nice" asserted himself more, he would have a chance at winning the nomination, and maybe even the presidency.
We don't discount Mr. Pawlenty's home-state advantage among Minnesota voters, but Republican hopefuls from other deep blue states didn't fare as well in similar measures. The same SurveyUSA poll had Michele Bachman losing by 14 points, while another recent Public Policy Polling survey has Governor Mitt Romney losing by 20 points in his home state of Massachusetts.
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvnAE8olUxU&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvnAE8olUxU&feature=player_embedded
-
Bachmann Surging in the Polls Ahead of Campaign Kickoff
Published June 25, 2011
| FoxNews.com
Rep. Michele Bachmann has rolled out her presidential campaign with all the flare and flirtation of a seasoned boxing promoter.
First, she stole her opponents' thunder by using a debate stage earlier this month to announce she filed her 2012 papers. Then, she held off on formally announcing that bid for another two weeks -- the formal kickoff is set for Monday in Iowa. The evening before the announcement, Bachmann is planning an informal meet-and-greet in Waterloo. And the week following the announcement will be spent touring early primary states.
The candidate is no doubt making up for lost time, having given her opponents a wide opening to build their operations in key states by waiting so long to make the presidential plunge. But polling conducted since she revealed her intentions at the debate in mid-June suggest she's doing something right.
After weeks of struggling to break out of the single digits, Bachmann has surged in recent polls. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is still the solid GOP frontrunner, but Bachmann has started to separate herself from the rest of the pack.
A Rasmussen Reports poll taken right after Bachmann's debate performance showed her rising to 19 percent, in second place behind Romney at 33 percent. A subsequent poll in Florida taken June 16-19 by Public Policy Polling also showed Bachmann surging into a tie for second place with Sarah Palin -- who has not announced a presidential bid. Though the poll only questioned Republicans in one state, the results showed Bachmann's support climbing from 7 to 17 percent since March. If Palin were taken out of the mix, PPP found Bachmann picking up the bulk of her support and gliding even closer to Romney.
Meanwhile, an Associated Press-GfK poll released this week showed her favorability rating jumping from 41 percent to 54 percent among Republicans, though one third did not have an opinion of her.
"Given that we have been in this race less than two weeks, we are pleased with the growing momentum of the campaign," campaign spokeswoman Alice Stewart said in an email to FoxNews.com.
Stewart said that as Bachmann formally enters the race, voters will see her as "their voice for constitutional conservatism." The Tea Party favorite has surged into the spotlight in recent years by opposing government spending, as well as other popular conservative targets like the federal health care overhaul and environmental regulations.
But Bachmann, who will appear on "Fox News Sunday" ahead of her announcement, is just the latest X-factor in the race. Speculation continues to swirl around Texas Gov. Rick Perry, while Palin stays in the spotlight -- from a distance. Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman is trying in earnest to build his moderate brand after announcing his bid Tuesday.
Some Iowa Republicans have suggested Bachmann missed out on her chance to build a formidable operation in the nation's leadoff caucus state, while others question whether the outspoken Minnesota conservative could ever be more than an also-ran nationally.
The Iowa Democratic Party, which has held counterprogramming events for other Republican candidates, does not plan on holding a news conference to counter Bachmann's announcement Monday. A spokesman for the party told Fox News that while party officials see Bachmann as a contender to win the caucuses, they do not feel she can win the GOP nomination.
But the congresswoman is making a big push to appeal to voters in Iowa despite the late entrance -- and the fact that House members rarely end up as presidential finalists. She's stressing her Iowa roots by holding her announcement in her hometown of Waterloo, and also is looking to return to Iowa after touring South Carolina and New Hampshire. Her social conservative streak is a plus in the leadoff state, and she's trying to develop the other parts of her portfolio.
Though Bachmann in May said the United States needs to "get out" of Afghanistan, she amended her position this past week after President Obama announced his troop withdrawal plan.
In a statement Thursday, she accused the president of "undercutting our security objectives in Afghanistan with ill-advised timelines and accelerated (troop) withdrawals."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/25/bachmann-surging-in-polls-ahead-campaign-kickoff/#ixzz1QLE3hCWg
-
WSJ
By Patrick O'Connor
A former aide welcomed Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann to the White House race on Tuesday with a scathing op-ed in the Des Moines Register.
Associated Press
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R., Minn.)Ron Carey, one of the six chiefs of staff Ms. Bachmann has had since coming to Congress less than five years ago, penned an article with the headline “Bachmann is so not ready for the presidency, but (former Minnesota Gov. Tim) Pawlenty has the judgment and skills.”
“Having seen the two of them, up close and over a long period of time, it is clear to me that while Tim Pawlenty possesses the judgment, demeanor and the readiness to serve as president, Michele Bachmann decidedly does not,” Mr. Carey wrote.
Mr. Carey, who helped elect Ms. Bachmann to Congress in 2006 and 2008, called her campaign and congressional offices “wildly out of control.” Unopened campaign donations littered her office and thousands of her constituents’ emails and letters went unanswered, he wrote.
“If she is unable, or unwilling, to handle the basic duties of a campaign or congressional office, how could she possibly manage the magnitude of the presidency?” Mr. Carey asks in the op-ed.
“I know Michele Bachmann very well,” Mr. Carey concludes his op-ed. “She is a faithful conservative with great oratory skills, but without any leadership experience or real results from her years in office. She is not prepared to assume the White House in 2013.”
The Bachmann campaign did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the article, but the congresswoman said Tuesday during an interview on NBC’s “Today” show that she expects a barrage of negative stories.
“There will be a media onslaught of attack, but that’s nothing new,” she said, responding to a question about whether she would receive scrutiny similar to former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin during her run as John McCain’s vice presidential pick. “That is something that goes with the territory. It doesn’t matter who the candidate is, whether they’re male or female, there’s simply attacks that will come.”
-
Hard to read that. For one thing it sounds like an office in disarray under his watch. OTOH, depending on his reputation and credibility it shows why we need people with serious executive experience and all that entails to become the chief executive. We need both a 180 turn in ideology which she certainly represents, but we also need the ability to competently manage a very complex government and get things done.
-
I've already expressed concern about her lack of executive experience (hence my dalliance with the idea of Cain as her VP candidate) but to have such a high turnover rate of chief of staffs in such a short amount of time with one of them writing a stab-in-the-back hit piece like this certainly does not sound good.
I saw Texas Gov. Terry (Perry?) on Glenn Beck yesterday. Very impressive! Excellent articulation of states's overeignty and the concept of federalism. I will be watching for more on him.
-
When we say executive experience, running a 3-20 person office isn't preparation for Commander in Chief, it is just some first hand small business understanding, more than all of the current cabinet combined - a sad observation. Governor of a small medium-sized state isn't good enough alone either, being a one-term or partial-term governor isn't good enough. Somewhere in there though we pick the best of what is available, as Dems tried to do picking governors of Georgia, Massachusetts and Arkansas, before picking zero experience and winning - if Obama is still considered a win for them.
Agree that Gov. Rick Perry of Texas will be the next one to watch. Probably a 50/50 he will get in. Depends on how he and his family think they will hold up to the scrutiny. He has the oratory ability to project out the big picture of what America means. On a par of stature with Romney and better in content. Reagan obviously had it. Marco Rubio has it, and so few others. Clinton and Obama have something even greater - the ability to project out that feeling while twisting the principles we all believe in to mean something else.
I recall Freki (I believe) posting that Perry is phony - a typical politician. Maybe so, but his flaws come in from a totally different part of the political spectrum than Pres. Obama or even Romney, quite a bit more conservative than most, including that other Texas governor.
Question becomes (IMO) who best embraces the ideas of Cain, Bachman, Rubio, Paul Ryan, Scott Walker, Chris Christie, etc -p and is running and has credible experience and delivery. Realistically, this race comes down to hiring without experience or choose from a few governors who have taken some path of realistic stepping stones to running the American executive branch.
-------
ps I just saw my first presidential bumper sticker and it wasn't for one of the 3 Minnesotans running. "Allen West 2012".
-
I want to speak plainly this morning about the opportunities and the dangers we face today in the Middle East. The revolutions now roiling that region offer the promise of a more democratic, more open, and a more prosperous Arab world. From Morocco to the Arabian Gulf, the escape from the dead hand of oppression is now a real possibility.
Now is not the time to retreat from freedom’s rise.
Yet at the same time, we know these revolutions can bring to power forces that are neither democratic nor forward-looking. Just as the people of Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Syria and elsewhere see a chance for a better life of genuine freedom, the leaders of radical Islam see a chance to ride political turmoil into power.
The United States has a vital stake in the future of this region. We have been presented with a challenge as great as any we have faced in recent decades. And we must get it right. The question is, are we up to the challenge?
My answer is, of course we are. If we are clear about our interests and guided by our principles, we can help steer events in the right direction. Our nation has done this in the past -- at the end of World War II, in the last decade of the Cold War, and in the more recent war on terror … and we can do it again.
But President Obama has failed to formulate and carry out an effective and coherent strategy in response to these events. He has been timid, slow, and too often without a clear understanding of our interests or a clear commitment to our principles.
And parts of the Republican Party now seem to be trying to out-bid the Democrats in appealing to isolationist sentiments. This is no time for uncertain leadership in either party. The stakes are simply too high, and the opportunity is simply too great.
No one in this Administration predicted the events of the Arab spring - but the freedom deficit in the Arab world was no secret. For 60 years, Western nations excused and accommodated the lack of freedom in the Middle East. That could not last. The days of comfortable private deals with dictators were coming to an end in the age of Twitter, You Tube, and Facebook. And history teaches there is no such thing as stable oppression.
President Obama has ignored that lesson of history. Instead of promoting democracy – whose fruit we see now ripening across the region – he adopted a murky policy he called “engagement.”
“Engagement” meant that in 2009, when the Iranian ayatollahs stole an election, and the people of that country rose up in protest, President Obama held his tongue. His silence validated the mullahs, despite the blood on their hands and the nuclear centrifuges in their tunnels.
While protesters were killed and tortured, Secretary Clinton said the Administration was “waiting to see the outcome of the internal Iranian processes.” She and the president waited long enough to see the Green Movement crushed.
“Engagement” meant that in his first year in office, President Obama cut democracy funding for Egyptian civil society by 74 percent. As one American democracy organization noted, this was “perceived by Egyptian democracy activists as signaling a lack of support.” They perceived correctly. It was a lack of support.
“Engagement” meant that when crisis erupted in Cairo this year, as tens of thousands of protesters gathered in Tahrir Square, Secretary Clinton declared, “the Egyptian Government is stable.” Two weeks later, Mubarak was gone. When Secretary Clinton visited Cairo after Mubarak’s fall, democratic activist groups refused to meet with her. And who can blame them?
The forces we now need to succeed in Egypt -- the pro-democracy, secular political parties -- these are the very people President Obama cut off, and Secretary Clinton dismissed.
The Obama “engagement” policy in Syria led the Administration to call Bashar al Assad a “reformer.” Even as Assad’s regime was shooting hundreds of protesters dead in the street, President Obama announced his plan to give Assad “an alternative vision of himself.” Does anyone outside a therapist’s office have any idea what that means? This is what passes for moral clarity in the Obama Administration.
By contrast, I called for Assad’s departure on March 29; I call for it again today. We should recall our ambassador from Damascus; and I call for that again today. The leader of the United States should never leave those willing to sacrifice their lives in the cause of freedom wondering where America stands. As President, I will not.
We need a president who fully understands that America never “leads from behind.”
We cannot underestimate how pivotal this moment is in Middle Eastern history. We need decisive, clear-eyed leadership that is responsive to this historical moment of change in ways that are consistent with our deepest principles and safeguards our vital interests.
Opportunity still exists amid the turmoil of the Arab Spring -- and we should seize it.
As I see it, the governments of the Middle East fall into four broad categories, and each requires a different strategic approach.
The first category consists of three countries now at various stages of transition toward democracy – the formerly fake republics in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya. Iraq is also in this category, but is further along on its journey toward democracy.
For these countries, our goal should be to help promote freedom and democracy.
Elections that produce anti-democratic regimes undermine both freedom and stability. We must do more than monitor polling places. We must redirect foreign aid away from efforts to merely build good will, and toward efforts to build good allies -- genuine democracies governed by free people according to the rule of law. And we must insist that our international partners get off the sidelines and do the same.
We should have no illusions about the difficulty of the transitions faced by Libya, Tunisia, and especially Egypt. Whereas Libya is rich in oil, and Tunisia is small, Egypt is large, populous, and poor. Among the region’s emerging democracies, it remains the biggest opportunity and the biggest danger for American interests.
Having ejected the Mubarak regime, too many Egyptians are now rejecting the beginnings of the economic opening engineered in the last decade. We act out of friendship when we tell Egyptians, and every new democracy, that economic growth and prosperity are the result of free markets and free trade—not subsidies and foreign aid. If we want these countries to succeed, we must afford them the respect of telling them the truth.
In Libya, the best help America can provide to these new friends is to stop leading from behind and commit America’s strength to removing Ghadafi, recognizing the TNC as the government of Libya, and unfreezing assets so the TNC can afford security and essential services as it marches toward Tripoli.
Beyond Libya, America should always promote the universal principles that undergird freedom. We should press new friends to end discrimination against women, to establish independent courts, and freedom of speech and the press. We must insist on religious freedoms for all, including the region’s minorities—whether Christian, Shia, Sunni, or Bahai.
The second category of states is the Arab monarchies. Some – like Jordan and Morocco – are engaging now in what looks like genuine reform. This should earn our praise and our assistance. These kings have understood they must forge a partnership with their own people, leading step by step toward more democratic societies. These monarchies can smooth the path to constitutional reform and freedom and thereby deepen their own legitimacy. If they choose this route, they, too, deserve our help.
But others are resisting reform. While President Obama spoke well about Bahrain in his recent speech, he neglected to utter two important words: Saudi Arabia.
US-Saudi relations are at an all-time low—and not primarily because of the Arab Spring. They were going downhill fast, long before the uprisings began. The Saudis saw an American Administration yearning to engage Iran—just at the time they saw Iran, correctly, as a mortal enemy.
We need to tell the Saudis what we think, which will only be effective if we have a position of trust with them. We will develop that trust by demonstrating that we share their great concern about Iran and that we are committed to doing all that is necessary to defend the region from Iranian aggression.
At the same time, we need to be frank about what the Saudis must do to insure stability in their own country. Above all, they need to reform and open their society. Their treatment of Christians and other minorities, and their treatment of women, is indefensible and must change.
We know that reform will come to Saudi Arabia—sooner and more smoothly if the royal family accepts and designs it. It will come later and with turbulence and even violence if they resist. The vast wealth of their country should be used to support reforms that fit Saudi history and culture—but not to buy off the people as a substitute for lasting reform.
The third category consists of states that are directly hostile to America. They include Iran and Syria. The Arab Spring has already vastly undermined the appeal of Al Qaeda and the killing of Osama Bin Laden has significantly weakened it.
The success of peaceful protests in several Arab countries has shown the world that terror is not only evil, but will eventually be overcome by good. Peaceful protests may soon bring down the Assad regime in Syria. The 2009 protests in Iran inspired Arabs to seek their freedom. Similarly, the Arab protests of this year, and the fall of regime after broken regime, can inspire Iranians to seek their freedom once again.
We have a clear interest in seeing an end to Assad’s murderous regime. By sticking to Bashar al Assad so long, the Obama Administration has not only frustrated Syrians who are fighting for freedom—it has demonstrated strategic blindness. The governments of Iran and Syria are enemies of the United States. They are not reformers and never will be. They support each other. To weaken or replace one, is to weaken or replace the other.
The fall of the Assad mafia in Damascus would weaken Hamas, which is headquartered there. It would weaken Hezbollah, which gets its arms from Iran, through Syria. And it would weaken the Iranian regime itself.
To take advantage of this moment, we should press every diplomatic and economic channel to bring the Assad reign of terror to an end. We need more forceful sanctions to persuade Syria’s Sunni business elite that Assad is too expensive to keep backing. We need to work with Turkey and the Arab nations and the Europeans, to further isolate the regime. And we need to encourage opponents of the regime by making our own position very clear, right now: Bashar al-Assad must go.
When he does, the mullahs of Iran will find themselves isolated and vulnerable. Syria is Iran’s only Arab ally. If we peel that away, I believe it will hasten the fall of the mullahs. And that is the ultimate goal we must pursue. It’s the singular opportunity offered to the world by the brave men and women of the Arab Spring.
The march of freedom in the Middle East cuts across the region’s diversity of religious, ethnic, and political groups. But it is born of a particular unity. It is a united front against stolen elections and stolen liberty, secret police, corruption, and the state-sanctioned violence that is the essence of the Iranian regime’s tyranny.
So this is a moment to ratchet up pressure and speak with clarity. More sanctions. More and better broadcasting into Iran. More assistance to Iranians to access the Internet and satellite TV and the knowledge and freedom that comes with it. More efforts to expose the vicious repression inside that country and expose Teheran’s regime for the pariah it is.
And, very critically, we must have more clarity when it comes to Iran’s nuclear program. In 2008, candidate Barack Obama told AIPAC that he would “always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel.” This year, he told AIPAC “we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.” So I have to ask: are all the options still on the table or not? If he’s not clear with us, it’s no wonder that even our closest allies are confused.
The Administration should enforce all sanctions for which legal authority already exits. We should enact and then enforce new pending legislation which strengthens sanctions particularly against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards who control much of the Iranian economy.
And in the middle of all this, is Israel.
Israel is unique in the region because of what it stands for and what it has accomplished. And it is unique in the threat it faces—the threat of annihilation. It has long been a bastion of democracy in a region of tyranny and violence. And it is by far our closest ally in that part of the world.
Despite wars and terrorists attacks, Israel offers all its citizens, men and women, Jews, Christians, Muslims and, others including 1.5 million Arabs, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to vote, access to independent courts and all other democratic rights.
Nowhere has President Obama’s lack of judgment been more stunning than in his dealings with Israel.
It breaks my heart that President Obama treats Israel, our great friend, as a problem, rather than as an ally. The President seems to genuinely believe the Israeli-Palestinian conflict lies at the heart of every problem in the Middle East. He said it Cairo in 2009 and again this year.
President Obama could not be more wrong.
The uprisings in Tunis, Cairo, Tripoli and elsewhere are not about Israelis and Palestinians. They’re about oppressed people yearning for freedom and prosperity. Whether those countries become prosperous and free is not about how many apartments Israel builds in Jerusalem.
Today the president doesn’t really have a policy toward the peace process. He has an attitude. And let’s be frank about what that attitude is: he thinks Israel is the problem. And he thinks the answer is always more pressure on Israel.
I reject that anti-Israel attitude. I reject it because Israel is a close and reliable democratic ally. And I reject it because I know the people of Israel want peace.
Israeli – Palestinian peace is further away now than the day Barack Obama came to office. But that does not have to be a permanent situation.
We must recognize that peace will only come if everyone in the region perceives clearly that America stands strongly with Israel.
I would take a new approach.
First, I would never undermine Israel’s negotiating position, nor pressure it to accept borders which jeopardize security and its ability to defend itself.
Second, I would not pressure Israel to negotiate with Hamas or a Palestinian government that includes Hamas, unless Hamas renounces terror, accepts Israel’s right to exist, and honors the previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements. In short, Hamas needs to cease being a terrorist group in both word and deed as a first step towards global legitimacy.
Third, I would ensure our assistance to the Palestinians immediately ends if the teaching of hatred in Palestinian classrooms and airwaves continues. That incitement must end now.
Fourth, I would recommend cultivating and empowering moderate forces in Palestinian society.
When the Palestinians have leaders who are honest and capable, who appreciate the rule of law, who understand that war against Israel has doomed generations of Palestinians to lives of bitterness, violence, and poverty – then peace will come.
The Middle East is changing before our eyes—but our government has not kept up. It abandoned the promotion of democracy just as Arabs were about to seize it. It sought to cozy up to dictators just as their own people rose against them. It downplayed our principles and distanced us from key allies.
All this was wrong, and these policies have failed. The Administration has abandoned them, and at the price of American leadership. A region that since World War II has looked to us for security and progress now wonders where we are and what we’re up to.
The next president must do better. Today, in our own Republican Party, some look back and conclude our projection of strength and defense of freedom was a product of different times and different challenges. While times have changed, the nature of the challenge has not.
In the 1980s, we were up against a violent, totalitarian ideology bent on subjugating the people and principles of the West. While others sought to co-exist, President Reagan instead sought victory. So must we, today. For America is exceptional, and we have the moral clarity to lead the world.
It is not wrong for Republicans to question the conduct of President Obama’s military leadership in Libya. There is much to question. And it is not wrong for Republicans to debate the timing of our military drawdown in Afghanistan— though my belief is that General Petraeus’ voice ought to carry the most weight on that question.
What is wrong, is for the Republican Party to shrink from the challenges of American leadership in the world. History repeatedly warns us that in the long run, weakness in foreign policy costs us and our children much more than we’ll save in a budget line item.
America already has one political party devoted to decline, retrenchment, and withdrawal. It does not need a second one.
Our enemies in the War on Terror, just like our opponents in the Cold War, respect and respond to strength. Sometimes strength means military intervention. Sometimes it means diplomatic pressure. It always means moral clarity in word and deed.
That is the legacy of Republican foreign policy at its best, and the banner our next Republican President must carry around the world.
Our ideals of economic and political freedom, of equality and opportunity for all citizens, remain the dream of people in the Middle East and throughout the world. As America stands for these principles, and stands with our friends and allies, we will help the Middle East transform this moment of turbulence into a firmer, more lasting opportunity for freedom, peace, and progress. http://www.timpawlenty.com/articles/no-retreat-from-freedoms-rise-gov-tim-pawlentys-remarks-at-council-on-foreign-relations
-
Doug,
I like Pawlenty.
I am not sure why the DC/MSM (even Fox too) press keeps writing him off though.
Bachmann is clearly way in over her head.
So was "Brock" though, though he had a lot of savvy people surrounding him who knew the ropes and pushed him through and gave him his script.
Bachmann does not have the same politically wise sheisters surrounding her as she just keeps saying one thing after another (like mixing up John Wayne Gacy with John Wayne). Who is advising her? These kinds of mistakes really makes her sound absolutely stupid. Too bad there is not a conservative movement of Jews like the liberal Jews jornolist, Soros, and the rest who got "Brock" into power doing the same for a Republican.
As Levin would say - "OK I SAID IT". Yes liberal Jews got Brock in power! Dammit!
-
Thoughtful piece by Pawlenty. Would you please post in the Foreign Affairs thread as well? I would like to discuss it there in the context of that thread instead of in the context of the 2012 campaign.
-
Are some liberal fellow Jews awakening that they may really have to give up their capatilistic freedom lifestyle if they keep voting for Brock and the rest of the crat party? Well their not just giving away Israel. They are giving away this great country too. Wake up you fools.
***Some of these traditional Democrats now say, to their own astonishment, that they’ll consider voting for a Republican in 2012.***
WOW! Although I will have to see this to believe on election day....
***Jewish Dems losing faith in Obama
By: Ben Smith
June 29, 2011 04:32 AM EDT
David Ainsman really began to get worried about President Barack Obama’s standing with his fellow Jewish Democrats when a recent dinner with his wife and two other couples — all Obama voters in 2008 — nearly turned into a screaming match.
Ainsman, a prominent Democratic lawyer and Pittsburgh Jewish community leader, was trying to explain that Obama had just been offering Israel a bit of “tough love” in his May 19 speech on the Arab Spring. His friends disagreed — to say the least.
One said he had the sense that Obama “took the opportunity to throw Israel under the bus.” Another, who swore he wasn’t getting his information from the mutually despised Fox News, admitted he’d lost faith in the president.
If several dozen interviews with POLITICO are any indication, a similar conversation is taking place in Jewish communities across the country. Obama’s speech last month seems to have crystallized the doubts many pro-Israel Democrats had about Obama in 2008 in a way that could, on the margins, cost the president votes and money in 2012 and will not be easy to repair. (See also: President Obama's Middle East speech: Details complicate 'simple' message)
“It’s less something specific than that these incidents keep on coming,” said Ainsman.
The immediate controversy sparked by the speech was Obama’s statement that Israel should embrace the country’s 1967 borders, with “land swaps,” as a basis for peace talks. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seized on the first half of that phrase and the threat of a return to what Israelis sometimes refer to as “Auschwitz borders.” (Related: Obama defends border policy)
Obama’s Jewish allies stressed the second half: that land swaps would — as American negotiators have long contemplated — give Israel security in its narrow middle, and the deal would give the country international legitimacy and normalcy.
But the noisy fray after the speech mirrored any number of smaller controversies. Politically hawkish Jews and groups such as the Republican Jewish Coalition and the Emergency Committee for Israel pounded Obama in news releases. White House surrogates and staffers defended him, as did the plentiful American Jews who have long wanted the White House to lean harder on Israel’s conservative government.
Based on the conversations with POLITICO, it’s hard to resist the conclusion that some kind of tipping point has been reached.
Most of those interviewed were center-left American Jews and Obama supporters — and many of them Democratic donors. On some core issues involving Israel, they’re well to the left of Netanyahu and many Americans: They refer to the “West Bank,” not to “Judea and Samaria,” fervently supported the Oslo peace process and Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and believe in the urgency of creating a Palestinian state.
But they are also fearful for Israel at a moment of turmoil in a hostile region when the moderate Palestinian Authority is joining forces with the militantly anti-Israel Hamas.
“It’s a hot time, because Israel is isolated in the world and, in particular, with the Obama administration putting pressure on Israel,” said Rabbi Neil Cooper, leader of Temple Beth Hillel-Beth El in Philadelphia’s Main Line suburbs, who recently lectured his large, politically connected congregation on avoiding turning Israel into a partisan issue.
Some of these traditional Democrats now say, to their own astonishment, that they’ll consider voting for a Republican in 2012. And many of those who continue to support Obama said they find themselves constantly on the defensive in conversations with friends.
“I’m hearing a tremendous amount of skittishness from pro-Israel voters who voted for Obama and now are questioning whether they did the right thing or not,” said Betsy Sheerr, the former head of an abortion-rights-supporting, pro-Israel PAC in Philadelphia, who said she continues to support Obama, with only mild reservations. “I’m hearing a lot of ‘Oh, if we’d only elected Hillary instead.’”
Even Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who spoke to POLITICO to combat the story line of Jewish defections, said she’d detected a level of anxiety in a recent visit to a senior center in her South Florida district.
“They wanted some clarity on the president’s view,” she said. “I answered their questions and restored some confidence that maybe was a little shaky, [rebutted] misinformation and the inaccurate reporting about what was said.”
Wasserman Schultz and other top Democrats say the storm will pass. (Related: Debbie Wasserman Schultz: Jewish voters will stick with Obama)
They point out to anyone who will listen that beyond the difficult personal relationship of Obama and Netanyahu, beyond a tense, stalled peace process, there’s a litany of good news for supporters of Israel: Military cooperation is at an all-time high; Obama has supplied Israel with a key missile defense system; the U.S. boycotted an anti-racism conference seen as anti-Israel; and America is set to spend valuable international political capital beating back a Palestinian independence declaration at the United Nations in September.
The qualms that many Jewish Democrats express about Obama date back to his emergence onto the national scene in 2007. Though he had warm relations with Chicago’s Jewish community, he had also been friends with leading Palestinian activists, unusual in the Democratic establishment. And though he seemed to be trying to take a conventionally pro-Israel stand, he was a novice at the complicated politics of the America-Israel relationship, and his sheer inexperience showed at times.
At the 2007 AIPAC Policy Conference, Obama professed his love for Israel but then seemed, - to some who were there for his informal talk - to betray a kind of naivete about the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians: “The biggest enemy” he said, using the same rhetoric he applied to American politics, was “not just terrorists, it’s not just Hezbollah, it’s not just Hamas — it’s also cynicism.”
At the next year’s AIPAC conference, he again botched the conflict’s code, committing himself to an “undivided Jerusalem” and then walking it back the next day.
Those doubts and gaffes lingered, even for many of the majority who supported him.
“There’s an inclination in the community to not trust this president’s gut feel on Israel and every time he sets out on a path that’s troubling you do get this ‘ouch’ reaction from the Jewish Community because they’re distrustful of him,” said the president of a major national Jewish organization, who declined to be quoted by name to avoid endangering his ties to the White House.
Many of Obama’s supporters, then and now, said they were unworried about the political allegiance of Jewish voters. Every four years, they say, Republicans claim to be making inroads with American Jews, and every four years, voters and donors go overwhelmingly for the Democrats, voting on a range of issues that include, but aren’t limited to Israel.
But while that pattern has held, Obama certainly didn’t take anything for granted. His 2008 campaign dealt with misgivings with a quiet, intense, and effective round of communal outreach.
“When Obama was running, there was a lot of concern among the guys in my group at shul, who are all late-30s to mid-40s, who I hang out with and daven with and go to dinner with, about Obama,” recalled Scott Matasar, a Cleveland lawyer who’s active in Jewish organizations.
Matasar remembers his friends’ worries over whether Obama was “going to be OK for Israel.” But then Obama met with the community’s leaders during a swing through Cleveland in the primary, and the rabbi at the denominationally conservative synagogue Matasar attends — “a real ardent Zionist and Israel defender” — came back to synagogue convinced.
“That put a lot of my concerns to rest for my friends who are very much Israel hawks but who, like me, aren’t one-issue voters.”
Now Matasar says he’s appalled by Obama’s “rookie mistakes and bumbling” and the reported marginalization of a veteran peace negotiator, Dennis Ross, in favor of aides who back a tougher line on Netanyahu. He’s the most pro-Obama member of his social circle but is finding the president harder to defend.
“He’d been very ham-handed in the way he presented [the 1967 border announcement] and the way he sprung this on Netanyahu,” Matasar said.
A Philadelphia Democrat and pro-Israel activist, Joe Wolfson, recalled a similar progression.
“What got me past Obama in the recent election was Dennis Ross — I heard him speak in Philadelphia and I had many of my concerns allayed,” Wolfson said. “Now, I think I’m like many pro-Israel Democrats now who are looking to see whether we can vote Republican.”
That, perhaps, is the crux of the political question: The pro-Israel Jewish voters and activists who spoke to POLITICO are largely die-hard Democrats, few of whom have ever cast a vote for a Republican to be president. Does the new wave of Jewish angst matter?
One place it might is fundraising. Many of the Clinton-era Democratic mega-donors who make Israel their key issue, the most prominent of whom is the Los Angeles Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban, never really warmed to Obama, though Saban says he will vote for the Democrat and write him a check if asked.
A top-dollar Washington fundraiser aimed at Jewish donors in Miami last week raised more than $1 million from 80 people, and while one prominent Jewish activist said the DNC had to scramble to fill seats, seven-figure fundraisers are hard to sneer at.
Even people writing five-figure checks to Obama, though, appeared in need of a bit of bucking up.
“We were very reassured,” Randi Levine, who attended the event with her husband, Jeffrey, a New York real estate developer, told POLITICO.
Philadelphia Jewish Democrats are among the hosts of another top-dollar event June 30. David Cohen, a Comcast executive and former top aide to former Gov. Ed Rendell, said questions about Obama’s position on Israel have been a regular, if not dominant, feature of his attempts to recruit donors.
“I takes me about five minutes of talking through the president’s position and the president’s speech, and the uniform reaction has been, ‘I guess you’re right, that’s not how I saw it covered,’” he said.
Others involved in the Philadelphia event, however, said they think Jewish doubts are taking a fundraising toll.
“We’re going to raise a ton of money, but I don’t know if we’re going to hit our goals,” said Daniel Berger, a lawyer who is firmly in the “peace camp” and said he blamed the controversy on Netanyahu’s intransigence.
© 2011 POLITICO LLC****
-
CCP, Interesting, I agree. Each of these people have their role to play. Ours is in the armchair telling them what their role is. :-) The best thing Michele Bachmann can do IMO is hold Republican feet to the fire from inside of congress. Demint in the senate is doing that also. Her Presidential run, to the extent that it goes well, increases her power in that role. When the key primaries hit, people I think are going to look at who has governed and who can win in the general election and that is a challenge all of them have to demonstrate.
Pawlenty I think has gotten excellent attention from punditry and opinion leaders and access to the shows. He is one who has the experience and has done his homework. His struggle is to poll as voter's first choice, not just win a mildly favorable reaction. He needs to win enough support to compete and stay relevant and he needs to raise money. https://action.timpawlenty.com/contribute :wink: His strengths (consistent, conservative and qualified) will help him more later in the process if he makes it that far.
Over the media, he comes across as the ordinary guy. Not a chiseled face for Mt Rushmore nor a Barry White voice for network anchor. Advisers and pundits tell him to come across stronger and be more exciting. There are limits to that. He needs to be his best but be himself, not something he isn't. He needs keep the focus on direction and competence.
-
I saw a snippet yesterday where the question of his "low macho factor" came up. His answer"
"You've got to be kidding. I used to play hockey and I probably have been in more fights than the rest of the candidates combined."
I liked him in that moment :-D
-
The real tough guys are usually quiet and soft spoken, from what I've seen.
-
While I agree the "real tough guys are usually quiet and soft spoken, from what I've seen." this is not a barroom fight. It's a fight in the media.
I wish he would listen to his advisors and step it up a little. He has a great message, he is qualified, and I would consider voting for him. But as of now, he's going no where.
If you don't get the votes, who cares about your message. Time to be a little outspoken and dynamic (if possible) I would say.
-
People that have played hockey with the governor might suggest regarding his hockey and fighting skills that he not quit his day job. :-) Good answer though. He didn't play Herb Brooks 'Miracle on ice' level hockey nor was he a Derek Boogaard level fighter but hockey does toughen you, it's all teamwork and you learn (political analogy) that if you keep your balance and keep your head on straight going into the collisions you can be the one still standing after a big hit.
-
http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/against-the-grain/nerves-show-on-team-obama-20110628?page=1
Nerves Show on Team Obama
Recent scrambling by the president’s political advisers indicates they’re very worried about his reelection chances.
-
By KARL ROVE
High unemployment, anemic growth, defections in key groups such as independents and Hispanics, and unpopular policies are among the reasons President Obama is unlikely to win re-election. But likely to lose is far from certain to lose. If Republicans make enough unforced errors, Mr. Obama could win.
The first such mistake would be forgetting that the target voters are those ready to swing away from Mr. Obama (independents, Hispanics, college educated and young voters) and those whose opposition to Mr. Obama has deepened since 2008 (seniors and working-class voters).
These voters gave the GOP a big win in the 2010 midterm. They are deeply concerned about the economy, jobs, spending, deficits and health care. Many still like Mr. Obama personally but disapprove of his handling of the issues. They are not GOP primary voters, but they are watching the contest. The Republican Party will find it more difficult to gain their support if its nominee adopts a tone that's harshly negative and personally anti-Obama.
The GOP nominee should fiercely challenge Mr. Obama's policies, actions and leadership using the president's own words, but should stay away from questioning his motives, patriotism or character. He will do this to his GOP opponent to try to draw Republicans into the mud pit. They should avoid it.
It won't be easy. Mr. Obama can't win re-election by trumpeting his achievements. And he has decided against offering a bold agenda for a second term: That was evident in his State of the Union emphasis on high-speed rail, high-speed Internet and "countless" green jobs.
Instead, backed by a brutally efficient opposition research unit, the president will use focus-group tested lines of attack to disqualify the Republican nominee by questioning his or her values, intentions and intelligence.
Republicans should avoid giving him mistakes to pounce on and should stand up to this withering assault, always looking for ways to turn it back on Mr. Obama and his record. The GOP candidate must express disappointment and regret, not disgust and anger, especially in the debates. Ronald Reagan's cheery retorts to Jimmy Carter's often-petty attacks are a good model. Any day that isn't a referendum on the Obama presidency should be considered wasted.
Republicans also must not confuse the tea party movement with the larger, more important tea party sentiment. As important as tea party groups are, and for all the energy and passion they bring, for every person who showed up at a tea party rally there were dozens more who didn't but who share the deep concerns about Mr. Obama's profligate spending, record deficits and monstrous health-care bill.
The GOP candidate must stay focused on this broader tea party sentiment, not just the organized groups, especially when some of them stray from the priorities that gave rise to them (for example, adopting such causes as the repeal of the 17th Amendment, which established election of U.S. senators by popular vote). The broader sentiment is what swung independents so solidly into the GOP column last fall.
=========
About Karl Rove
Karl Rove served as Senior Advisor to President George W. Bush from 2000–2007 and Deputy Chief of Staff from 2004–2007. At the White House he oversaw the Offices of Strategic Initiatives, Political Affairs, Public Liaison, and Intergovernmental Affairs and was Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, coordinating the White House policy-making process.
Before Karl became known as "The Architect" of President Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaigns, he was president of Karl Rove + Company, an Austin-based public affairs firm that worked for Republican candidates, nonpartisan causes, and nonprofit groups. His clients included over 75 Republican U.S. Senate, Congressional and gubernatorial candidates in 24 states, as well as the Moderate Party of Sweden.
Karl writes a weekly op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, is a Newsweek columnist and is the author of the book "Courage and Consequence" (Threshold Editions).
Email the author atKarl@Rove.comor visit him on the web atRove.com. Or, you can send a Tweet to @karlrove.
===============
.The GOP nominee could also lose if the Republican National Committee (RNC) and battleground-state party committees don't respond to the Obama grass-roots operation with a significant effort of their own. The GOP had the edge in grass-roots identification, persuasion, registration and turnout efforts in 2000 and 2004. It lost these advantages in 2008, big time, in part because its candidate didn't emphasize the grass roots. It must regain them in 2012. Only the RNC and the state party committees can effectively plan, fund and execute these efforts.
Finally, Republicans cannot play it safe. It is tempting to believe that Mr. Obama is so weak, the economy so fragile, that attacking him is all that's needed. Applying relentless pressure on the president is necessary but insufficient. Setting forth an alternative vision to Mr. Obama's will be required as well. Voters are looking for a serious GOP governing agenda as a reason to turn Mr. Obama out of office.
Failing to offer a well-thought-out vision and defend it against Mr. Obama's inevitable distortions, demagoguery and straw-man arguments would put the GOP nominee in the position of Thomas Dewey in 1948, whose strategy of running out the clock gave President Harry Truman the opening he needed.
Mr. Obama could have enjoyed the advantage of incumbency—with its power to set the agenda and dominate the stage—until next spring when the GOP nomination will be settled. Instead he prematurely abandoned the stance of an assured public leader to become an aggressive political candidate. Now his re-election depends on political rivals making significant errors. That's dangerous for any politician, but given his Oval Office record, Mr. Obama may have no other viable strategy.
Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.
-
The GOP has demonstrated an incredible talent for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. It'd be funny if the stakes weren't so high.
-
Very early info while Bachmann is the hot ticket of the moment pulling roughly even with Romney. The favorables/unfavorables also tell something about how the candidates are being received in Iowa:
(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2011-06-27-Blumenthal-iowapolldetailedquestions.png)
-
With Bachmann and Pawlenty at the top, I wonder if this says more about proximity to Iowa than anything else.
Also, it should be noted that the winner in Iowa rarely goes on to the White House. However, a poor showing in Iowa can sound the death knell of a campaign.
-
Native Iowan would not be Bachmann's pitch if she were running for one of Minnesota's far left senate seats. She also would start as a 20 point underdog with no second chance to make a first impression.
The proximity makes visiting easier for Pawlenty in particular, also Bachmann once congress finishes business and goes on recess.
During Pawlenty's time as Governor I doubt many Iowans were aware of him. I needed google to remember who is governor of Iowa now. Different markets. Other than the visits, Iowans see these folks on the same national shows as everyone else. Palin, Romney, Gingrich, Giuliani, even Ron Paul - all had higher total numbers of familiarity in Iowa than Pawlenty and Bachmann.
One thing striking from the poll is that people thought it was impossible to oppose ethanol subsidies in Iowa. Pawlenty did that in his Des Moines announcement speech. 58-13 favorable means he survived that but hasn't broken through for other reasons.
The second point of BD is very true. The straw poll tells us something about the activist part of the conservative electorate, but is nothing like a full primary or general election so it has a different winner, see 2007 below. For every candidate, even the winner in Iowa, it is all about gaining traction. The activists this year are like kids in a candy store with Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul all coming through, plus Sarah Palin and perhaps Rick Perry. Pawlenty courts those people but probably needs to pull more first ballot support from Romney and Newt's numbers to gain anything. His real problem is how to gain any traction in places like NH and SC if he has no positive headline coming out of Iowa.
Still, it's the flirting and courting stage. There will be a couple more momentum shifts before the main events. I wouldn't have predicted McCain or Obama in 2008 - and neither did Iowa in August 11, 2007:
Place Candidate Votes Percentage
1 Mitt Romney 4,516 31.6%
2 Mike Huckabee 2,587 18.1%
3 Sam Brownback 2,192 15.3%
4 Tom Tancredo 1,961 13.7%
5 Ron Paul 1,305 9.1%
6 Tommy Thompson 1,039 7.3%
7 Fred Thompson 203 1.4%
8 Rudy Giuliani 183 1.3%
9 Duncan Hunter 174 1.2%
10 John McCain 101 0.7%
OTOH, McCain perhaps thought he was clever to skip Iowa and focus on New Hampshire, but in Nov he lost both states by 9-10 points. The goal of 2012 is not to become the McCain or Dukakis of our time.
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiO2iwAgbFs&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiO2iwAgbFs&feature=player_embedded
Of course, you have to be present, if you are even going to vote present.
-
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_1/Are-Obama-Polls-Worse-Than-Meet-the-Eye-207006-1.html
On their face, President Barack Obama's poll numbers are mediocre but not terrible. His 46 percent job approval in the June 15-19 Pew Research Center survey is far better than President George W. Bush's worst Pew Research Center job numbers, for example.
In March of 2006, Bush's job approval fell to 33 percent in Pew polling, and immediately before the 2008 elections, in late October, his job approval stood at 20 percent, while a stunning 70 percent disapproved. In December 2008, as he was about to leave office, Bush's job ratings stood at 24 percent approval and 68 percent disapproval.
In comparison with those numbers, Obama looks wildly popular.
But Obama continues to earn much higher marks, in part, because his base, including liberal Democrats and African-Americans, has been standing by him, which has tended to prevent his overall job approval numbers from falling as much as they otherwise might.
For example, while Obama's job approval in the Pew survey stood at 46 percent among all adults, it was 87 percent among African-Americans and 81 percent among liberal Democrats.
In comparison, the president's job approval stood at 77 percent among all Democrats, at just 42 percent among independents and at a weak 39 percent among white independents.
Bush couldn't count on the support of a group the way Obama can count on support among African-Americans, who have a strong incentive to see the president in a positive light.
Many of Bush's previously strongest supporters had turned on him by the time the final months of his presidency rolled around. In December 2008, for example, his job ratings among conservative Republicans stood at 66 percent approval and 25 percent disapproval. In comparison, Obama's disapproval among African-Americans was a minuscule 5 percent in the mid-June Pew Research poll.
Because that likely won't happen to Obama, his overall job numbers aren't as useful in understanding his political standing as Bush's were. With Obama, independent voters or even white voters, who still constitute close to three-quarters of the national electorate, provide a better measure of the president's political prospects than do his overall job approval numbers.
In the 2008 national exit poll, Obama won independents, 52 percent to 44 percent, over Republican nominee John McCain. In the recent Pew Research Center survey, only 42 percent of independents said they approved of the president's performance, while 46 percent disapproved.
Of course, all of the president's numbers could change between now and November 2012, but for now, they constitute a considerable problem for him, since independents are a key swing constituency and Obama's strong showing among swing voters was one of the most important reasons why he did so well overall and in key states such as Ohio and Florida.
Obama's problem is also apparent when looking at his standing among white independents. McCain narrowly won the group 49 percent to 47 percent. But in the Pew survey, only 39 percent of white independents approve of the president's job performance, while 51 percent disapprove.
The Pew survey has another interesting number that is worth noting.
The survey found that 46 percent of respondents think the economic condition of the economy is "poor," compared with 8 percent who said either "excellent" or "good" and 45 percent who said "only fair."
But if you look at the cross-tabs provided in the analysis, only 37 percent of Democrats said that the economy is poor, while 52 percent of Republicans picked that description and 50 percent of independents called it poor.
-
8% say the economy is good? That number seems high, are we measuring sense of humor?
87% approval among blacks? Yes, but they won't show up in anywhere near the same numbers as 2008. The excitement is gone. Black unemployment is way up. Obama is the first (half)black President and that was historic, but nothing magical came to them for it. Blacks as a group fare better like everyone else in pro-growth times like under Presidents Reagan and Clinton than under Obama. Obama may win 87% of blacks or more in exit polls, but far lower in number of votes than in 2008.
The comparison to Bush at 20-24% approval is in the 2006-2008 period, not 2004. Conservatives turned against Bush after reelection while liberals at this point believe Obama is their best and only bet.
Bush approvals in 2004 were roughly where Obama is now (http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm). 2004 was about war but Bush had pro-growth policies kicking in by that time while Obama has put nothing in motion to grow the economy, is still working further on an anti-growth agenda (spread the prosperity), and recession fatigue has already set in.
Pretty hard to say 'stay the course' when no one can identify in a positive way what the course is.
The only campaign slogan they have come up with so far is that everything was far worse than we thought when we got here (Bush's fault).
Missing from the Republican campaigns IMO is any attempt to pin some blame for the 2008 financial collapse onto the Pelosi-Reid-Obama congress that took Washington by storm in Nov 2006, promising anti-growth / anti-productive investment measures, right when unemployment was at its lowest point.
-
8% say the economy is good? That number seems high, are we measuring sense of humor?
:-) Even I have to agree, saying "the economy is good" is pretty funny.
Missing from the Republican campaigns IMO is any attempt to pin some blame for the 2008 financial collapse onto the Pelosi-Reid-Obama congress that took Washington by storm in Nov 2006, promising anti-growth / anti-productive investment measures, right when unemployment was at its lowest point.
That is the key. Obama will get the black vote, most of the Latino vote, frankly, most of the minority vote. He will get the union vote, the liberal vote. That's good for IMHO 40%.
The key are the Independents.
As Doug pointed out, the message has to be clear and blame clearly placed. But, a clear alternative needs to be offered and articulated. Not just repeating the mantra "lower taxes". The majority of voters (remember the majority don't pay a lot of taxes) don't care about lower taxes. And the concept that lowering taxes will increase jobs is a bit esoteric.
IMHO if the Republicans run somebody ideologically pure, you will turn off many Independents. And the Republicans will lose.
That's why I like Huntsman. I know he's too middle of the road for many conservatives, but he can win. And I trust him. That's more
than I can say for Romney - there is something fake about him. I like Pawlenty, but if he doesn't step it up soon, he will be left in the dust.
Bachmann will never beat Obama. And Cain won't even win the party nomination. Remember, the number one goal of Republicans should be to WIN.
Huntsman is qualified, I think he's honest and believable, and he will appeal to a wide spectrum of voters.
Just my 2cents.
-
JDN, My 2cents: half-right. It is: who can carry BOTH - conservatives and independents. Who can win the nomination AND win the general election, not just who can win independents and a general election. People remember the McCain experience. He headed into the general election needing to reach rightward for a base when he should have been reaching out to the rest.
Now we are in the beauty pageant phase - ideological beauty - and that choice at the moment from the activists is Bachmann over Cain, Gingrich, Paul, Santorum. On the competence and stature side it is Romney over Pawlenty and Huntsman.
Next come all the twists and turns along the way. Huntsman and Pawlenty aren't out of it IMO yet. They each need to establish what they seem to be missing and they need to be in a position to benefit from someone else faltering which is bound to happen. As Dick Morris put it, these are the quarterfinals through this year and in the earliest primaries.
My thought on Huntsman at this point is that we got the wrong one. Jon Jr. is a great guy but it was his father who really was the achiever.
-
Maybe you are right, and perhaps I am swayed because of the conservatism of this forum, but I figure the hardcore right will vote for a dogcatcher versus Obama. It's
the ones in the middle that need to be convinced.
Also, I'm not sure Romney has greater "competence" or "stature" than Pawlenty or Huntsman. He's just been running longer. I'm also not sure that's a plus in my eyes except
that it has enabled him to raise funds and build a war chest. I hope he does falter and make room for someone else.
As for Huntsman, he could have stayed home and clipped coupons, but he has served his state and country well.
Morris is right; this is only the quarterfinals. However, given the rising cost of running, even the quarterfinals become important.
-
The right is energized, a lot of Obama voters are finding this isn't the hope and change they had imagined. Dumping oil onto the market from the SPR indicates the desperation felt in the white house.
-
56 percent of Jewish Americans said they would vote to reelect Obama over a generic Republican candidate if the elections were held today...
78 percent of Jewish voters cast a ballot for Obama in 2008
http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/dick-morris/169715-obama-losing-jewish-voters
-
George Will today. The ending points to Gov. Rick Perry?
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/2011_0707alibi_obama_is_ripe_for_takedown_ready-made_slogan_is_this_the_best_we_can_do/
‘Alibi Obama’ is ripe for takedown
Ready-made slogan: ‘Is this the best we can do?
By George F. Will- Updated 10 hours ago
“If he popped up in the pinch he should of made a base hit and the reason he didn’t was so-and-so. And if he cracked one for three bases he ought to had a home run, only the ball wasn’t lively, or the wind brought it back, or he tripped on a lump o’ dirt, roundin’ first base.”
— Ring Lardner,
“Alibi Ike” (1915)
WASHINGTON — The Republicans’ 2012 presidential nominee will run against Alibi Ike. Lardner, a Chicago sportswriter, created that character (“His right name was Frank X. Farrell, and I guess the X stood for ‘Excuse me.’ ”) who resembles Chicagoan Barack Obama. After blaming his predecessor for this and that, and after firing all the arrows in liberalism’s quiver — the stimulus, cash for clunkers, etc. — Obama seems poised to blame the recovery’s anemia on Republican resistance to simultaneously raising the debt ceiling and taxes.
So the Republican nominee’s campaign theme can already be written. In 1960, candidate John Kennedy’s theme was: “We can do better.” In 2012, the Republican candidate should say “Is this the best we can do?”
In the contest to determine who will wield those words, there have been three important recent developments: Michele Bachmann’s swift ascent into the top tier of candidates, Tim Pawlenty’s perch there becoming wobbly and Jon Huntsman’s mystifying approach to securing a place there.
Bachmann has been propelled by three strengths: Her natural aptitude, honed by considerable practice, has made her formidable at the presentational side of politics. She has perfect pitch for the nominating electorate’s passions. And she has substantive private- and public-sector experience, as a tax lawyer and as a legislator on, among others, the House Intelligence Committee.
But she also has a deficiency — indiscipline — that can, if not promptly corrected, vitiate her assets. Unprepared for the intense scrutiny presidential campaigns receive, she trustingly repeats things told to her (confusing Concord, Mass., with Concord, N.H., and John Wayne with the mass murderer John Wayne Gacy), and she plunges into peripheral and utterly optional subjects she has not mastered (e.g., the Founders and slavery). Her staff, which is not ready for prime time, is not serving as a filter to protect her from eager but misinformed supporters, and from herself.
Pawlenty, a more ardent than discerning admirer of John McCain, is suddenly echoing McCain’s unhistorical and nonsensical canard that skepticism about nation-building in Afghanistan and opposition to the intervention in Libya’s civil war constitute isolationism. “America,” Pawlenty says, astonishingly, “already has one political party devoted to decline, retrenchment and withdrawal. It does not need a second one.” The Democratic Party supporting a Democratic president’s plunge into Libya is devoted to “withdrawal”? If only.
Occasionally there are Democratic presidential candidates who appeal to people who really do not like Democrats (e.g., former Arizona Gov. Bruce Babbitt in 1988), and Republicans who appeal to people who think Republicans are among nature’s mistakes (e.g., Illinois Rep. John Anderson in 1980). Huntsman seems to be auditioning for this role, which is puzzling, because such people are not nominated.
Huntsman’s campaign manager, John Weaver, a former McCain man, believes the Republican Party is “nowhere near being a national governing party” — a view usually held by people called Democrats — and that the “simple reason” is: “No one wants to be around a bunch of cranks.” Many of the cranks are called ... the Republican nominating electorate.
Announcing his candidacy near the Statue of Liberty, where Ronald Reagan began his 1980 post-convention campaign, Huntsman promised “civility” because “I don’t think you need to run down someone’s reputation” when running for president. Actually, you do.
You must say why your opponent deserves a reputation for inadequacy. So Reagan at that spot said Jimmy Carter’s “whole sorry record” was “a litany of despair, of broken promises, of sacred trusts abandoned and forgotten.” Reagan said Carter’s “cynical” proposals had produced “human tragedy, human misery, the crushing of the human spirit.” Reagan’s forthrightness was neither uncivil nor, in the electorate’s November opinion, untrue.
Who will carry the “Is This the Best We Can Do?” banner? So far, the serene front-runner, Mitt Romney, has nothing to fear from Huntsman’s politics of high-mindedness. Bachmann’s saliency with social conservatives, and the lurchings of Pawlenty’s campaign, threaten Pawlenty’s all-in wager on Iowa. And the potential fragility of Bachmann’s campaign turns attention to the last piece of the Republican puzzle — Texas’ Gov. Rick Perry, a high-octane social and economic conservative whom nobody could confuse with Alibi Ike.
-
These are some stats of the incumbent administration. My approach is to go back 2 more years to when Dems truly took over Washington. 'Breakeven' growth economically in America is about 3.1%. So-called 2% growth is actually moving the country backwards.
-------------
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/577501/201107061854/Romneys-Right-It-Is-Worse-Now.htm (excerpted)
There are 2 million fewer private-sector jobs now than when Obama was sworn in, and the unemployment rate is 1.5 percentage points higher.
• There are now more long-term unemployed than at any time since the government started keeping records.
• The U.S. dollar is more than 12% weaker.
• The number of Americans on food stamps has climbed 37%.
• The Misery Index (unemployment plus inflation) is up 62%.
• And the national debt is about 40% higher than it was in January 2009.
In fact, reporters who bother to look will discover that Obama has managed to produce the worst recovery on record.
By this point in the Reagan recovery after the 1981-82 recession, for example, unemployment had been knocked down to 7.4% from a peak of 10.8%, and quarterly GDP growth averaged a screaming 7%.
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/07/07/sen_rubio_we_dont_need_new_taxes_we_need_new_taxpayers.html
Without a teleprompter, with passion, this is what clarity and vision looks like and how it ties to the details of government policies. Rubio is every candidate's VP choice. He makes Ronald Reagan look unsure of himself and soft on freedom. But can he hold his own in a debate with Joe Biden?
Watch this and then click the 'Play again' button. Play it for your family and send it to your friends. If you are non-political - watch this video. Do any of these things Obama and the Democrats are proposing grow jobs or fix the deficit? The answer is no. Someone needs to explain it and call them on it.
Rubio: "I've never met a single job creator who's ever said to me I can't wait until government raises taxes again so I can go out and create a job. And I'm curious to know if they say that in New Hampshire because they don't say that in Florida. And so my view on all this is I want to know how many jobs these tax increases the president proposes will create because if they're not creating jobs and they're not creating new taxpayers, they're not solving the problem."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/07/07/sen_rubio_we_dont_need_new_taxes_we_need_new_taxpayers.html
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/07/07/sen_rubio_we_dont_need_new_taxes_we_need_new_taxpayers.html
Without a teleprompter, with passion, this is what clarity and vision looks like and how it ties to the details of government policies. Rubio is every candidate's VP choice. He makes Ronald Reagan look unsure of himself and soft on freedom. But can he hold his own in a debate with Joe Biden?
Watch this and then click the 'Play again' button. Play it for your family and send it to your friends. If you are non-political - watch this video. Do any of these things Obama and the Democrats are proposing grow jobs or fix the deficit? The answer is no. Someone needs to explain it and call them on it.
Rubio: "I've never met a single job creator who's ever said to me I can't wait until government raises taxes again so I can go out and create a job. And I'm curious to know if they say that in New Hampshire because they don't say that in Florida. And so my view on all this is I want to know how many jobs these tax increases the president proposes will create because if they're not creating jobs and they're not creating new taxpayers, they're not solving the problem."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/07/07/sen_rubio_we_dont_need_new_taxes_we_need_new_taxpayers.html
Awesome!
-
THAT is how to make the case for the economic side of the American Creed. Clearly we need to keep our eye on this man. Without knowing more than the little I currently know about him, he seems like an IDEAL VP candidate. He will eat Biden alive, he will give Reps a shot at the Latino vote (yes, yes, I know the Cubans and the Mexicans are different voting blocks but this guy will know how to handle the immigration issue and neutralize it with the Mex vote and bring them home with cultural conservative issues).
-
**More "community organizer" levels of stupid. If he's so concerned about criminals with access to guns, maybe he should stop Holder's DOJ from shipping them to Mexican drug cartels. Then again, his moves to restrict 2nd Amendment freedoms result in more guns and ammo being sold, so that's the one economic stimulus he actually can make happen.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-07-08-obama-gun-control-safety-giffords_n.htm
Anti-gun groups have been disappointed to see no action so far from President Barack Obama, who supported tough gun control measures earlier in his career but fell largely silent upon becoming president. Some activists were using the opportunity of the six-month anniversary of the Giffords shooting on Friday to speak up.
Spokesman Jay Carney said that the new steps would be made public "in the near future." He didn't offer details, but people involved in talks at the Justice Department to craft the new measures said they expected to see something in the next several weeks. Whatever is proposed is not expected to involve legislation or take on major issues like banning assault weapons but could include executive action to strengthen the background check system or other steps.
-
That belongs in the Gun thread.
-
That belongs in the Gun thread.
I disagree. Obama is desperately flailing and promising gun control to woo his disaffected base, in doing so, creating a very effective wedge issue to shear off gun owning dems and swing voters. It's much dumber than tapping the strategic oil reserves.
-
A nice bit from Candidate-bot 2000's campaign:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgqP6vOVY58&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgqP6vOVY58&feature=player_embedded
-
And who said ALL of Hollywood supports the Democrats? :-)
http://www.zimbio.com/Famous+Republicans/articles
-
http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-204_162-10008523-5.html?tag=page
-
http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-204_162-10008523-5.html?tag=page
Even people who voted for him are feeling that way now.
-
Newt appears to be toast for a variety of reasons, but that does not mean the man is lacking is some pretty sharp insights.
One of the points he made in the first debarte, was that this campaign needs to be about establishing a change in who is in power, not just winning the presidency. It needs to be a campaign about ideas and a platform, not a popularity contest between two candidates.
Newt tookover the Congress for the first time in many decades ! with the "Contract with America". When the Reps won, they had the power to change things e.g. Welfare Reform- this was and remains a big deal- cutting capital gains and much more. What is the Rep CWA now? They howl about deficits instead of spending (enabling tax increases to be part of the coversatiaon) and except for Ryan, are too chickenexcrement to name the elephant in the room. ENTITLEMENTS WILL HAVE TO GET OFF OF BASELINE BUDGETING AND CONVERT TO VOUCHERS WITH A NUMBER= THIS AND NO MORE.
The unique uni-polar world of American Supremacy certain did not have to go the way that it has, but multi-polar is inevitable and the question is America's strategy in that. Where is the Rep vision here? Do we want to run on going further into Afpakia? Hitting Iran? I'd be game for a lot of things that would put me well outside the normal bell curve, but given the level of competence displayed by Bush-Rumbo and Bowing Baraq and the obvious incoherence of our stategy in Afpakia and the lack of anyone articulating anything plausible about Iran, I can't say as I blame the American people for declining to fk around another 10 years in Afpakia and not really caring that Baraq deliberately undercut his campaing promise to win the right and essential war of self defense in Afpakia by declaring we would be leaving it up to the Afghanis in 18 months.
Foreign affairs has been a Rep political strength for a long time. We have a president apparently doing his best to accelerate our decline in the world and yet Rep candidates have no counter vision.
-
"Foreign affairs has been a Rep political strength for a long time. We have a president apparently doing his best to accelerate our decline in the world and yet Rep candidates have no counter vision."
Two words: John Bolton
Having said that, the problem here is the public has been dumbed down to the point that there is a common belief that foreign policy isn't really important and I'm sure polling has told the repub hopefuls that this isn't a major/winning issue.
-
I think people know foreign policy is important, they just don't know what to do about any of it. We have a severe case of war fatigue, but also a sense that there isn't a lot we can do about a lot of these things. For Libya, like Egypt, people don't know if the new guys are better than the old guys and are totally burned out trying to figure it out. Is Iraq on course or will it turn backward in a minute? As a hawk I am thinking: very strong force used less often. We proved we could go across the world and take down these two regimes, maybe three. But we also proved we don't have much of a stomach for it, and showed that weakness. Our central foreign policy strength long term will come from righting the economy first, without neglecting our forces, intelligence, capabilities and readiness. What happened to John Bolton anyway?
Newt has foreign policy proposals: http://bibireport.blogspot.com/2011/06/newt-gingrich-outlines-9-policy.html, and economic ones: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/13/us-usa-campaign-gingrich-idUSTRE74C3UV20110513 We need the best of his ideas no matter who is the nominee. Baseline budgeting and dynamic scoring are two things that never got done. The bureaucracy prevailed over the reformers. Newt is the type who could have designed a trap like the McConnell plan for Obama, now he is first to trash it. He lived through one of these poitical shutdowns. What was his win-win solution. The standoff was not solvable without also allowing Obama and Senate Dems to save face.
Pawlenty is another taking the move to Commander in Chief seriously. He made many trips to Iraq and Afghanistan, I assume he has good advisers and has issued a serious and hawkish policy plan. Greeted with a yawn here and elsewhere. My reaction was perhaps too hawkish, compensating for what he is lacks, but all but Bolton lack that experience, including Huntsman and including Obama. What is Obama's plan on Syria? Yemen? Golf this weekend? He can answer one of these. (Romney has weekly foreign policy staff meetings and doesn't attend them.) Pawlenty and Newt are not very far apart on policies and plans.
People aren't looking for a war President in July 2011; maybe they will be in Nov 2012 or halfway through the first or second term. If Pawlenty, Romney, Bachmann or whoever loses because he or she appeared too hawkish, too war-eager... or too unready, then the economy and the foreign policy stays with the declinists.
-
I think Huntsman's service as Ambassador to China (and fluent in Chinese), China being perhaps the key player in this century, counts as foreign policy experience, perhaps better than anyone other than Bolton who is a non entity in this race.
-
I think Huntsman's service as Ambassador to China (and fluent in Chinese), China being perhaps the key player in this century, counts as foreign policy experience, perhaps better than anyone other than Bolton who is a non entity in this race.
Fluency in Mandarin is no small feat, and Huntsman's experience in China is good, but much like Romney, who is he really? What are his core beliefs? What would he be like in the oval office?
-
Exactly. Core beliefs? The Tea Party goes too far. :-P As best as I can tell Huntsman is the candidate of the Bush wing of the Republican Party.
-
Who is Huntsman? I acknowledge that remains to be seen. I posted in response to Doug's post; my only point was that Huntsman has foreign policy experience more so
than anyone other than Bolton who as a candidate, really isn't even an issue.
As for what he would be like in Office, well he was a very successful governor in Utah. Overall, he had a great track record. The man is qualified.
And yes, I think the Tea Party goes too far. If the Republicans run solely on the Tea Party Platform and continue to require all these ridiculous "pledges" I predict they will lose.
-
JDN, I disagree with you on Bolton, I think he really was part of the foreign policy team, only for a short time, and had foreign policy expertise before being ambassador to the UN. Like you say, it doesn't matter at this moment because he isn't a candidate. I suspect he might play a role in the next administration and then his views and experience may come back into the light.
Huntsman's experience in foreign policy and his views for the most part are a question mark. I don't have enough information to say this yet, but it hasn't been refuted anywhere... Huntsman worked for the President, he was picked to be our ambassador to perhaps the most crucial other country in the world, the most populous nation, the world's second largest economy, the country with the largest army, the country that holds the most of our debt, the country that threatens our ally Taiwan, etc... In all that, I don't believe he has ever had a one on one discussion about China policy with the President. And I doubt he was sent top secret info or strategic memos into an embassy inside a totalitarian regime. Something he wrote to Obama made me think that: 'I'm sorry we didn't have time to talk about China...' so I looked up everything I could find to follow up on it. There was a state dinner and certainly they stood and sat close and both smiled and shook a lot of communist hands. It is more a slam on Obama who has no interest in these matters, but it appears to me that Huntsman was off, for the most part, doing PR on his own in China, and largely was kept out of the foreign policy loop IMO. (I would be happy to be corrected with facts on that.)
Huntsman speaks Mandarin. That is good, but I don't value it as highly as JDN does. Sec. Rice was fluent in Russian, but Putin was Putin during her time of service. I studied... Nihongo Wakarimasu ka? but never directly used it in my own international business dealings. Indirectly, yes. Huntsman lived in Taiwan from 1987 to 1988 (less than one year? where English is more widely known than in PRC). Not questioning his skills but if his accent/dialect in Chinese is not American, then it is Taiwanese. In a crisis with the PRC in Beijing, wouldn't that be like having an emergency meeting with General Grant during the Civil war and he discovers you have a Montgomery, Alabama accent. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101013195905AAHQx2z
Huntsman's foreign experience is more on the side of trade, also important, rather than geopolitical and military strategy. Our strategy with China during his time on trade and everything else was status quo as far as I know. A little jawboning by other over the fixed exchange rate but no other changes. Huntsman has a nice background for a starting point to run for President. My point is that he, like everyone else including Obama 2008, comes into the campaign and the job having done nothing remotely similar to being Commander in Chief. He may become a great one, but we don't know that. Maybe if Petraeus was running, I would give out more credit.
-
Doug, yes perhaps Bolton was and/or will be part of the foreign policy team, he is qualified although I don't necessarily agree with his viewpoint, but my point was that he is not and never will be a viable candidate therefore comparing him to the candidates is irrelevant.
As for Huntsman, I think you are giving him less credit than he deserves for his deep knowledge of China and Asian affairs. I have many Chinese friends from Taiwan who travel, do business, and communicate with Mainland China. Mandarin seems to be the common bond. No one seems to care about accents. And from what everyone says, he is fluent. But language isn't my point; he knows the players in China. In my opinion, he probably has the best record/experience in foreign affairs among those running therefore it's hard to understand your question mark.
As for experience being Commander in Chief, well, most of our Presidents, our great ones, with the exception of Washington, were never military generals. That in my opinion is how it should be; I don't want the military running our country.
As for Huntsman having a "nice background for a starting point to run for President", he did an outstanding job of running the State of Utah. I think if you check his record you will be impressed. In my opinion, he definitely is "qualified".
I do agree he needs to define more clearly his "core beliefs". Hopefully, it's not just blindly following the Tea Party Platform. But just nice platitudes don't cut it either.
Regarding your question, Hai, watashi mo nihongo ga wakarimasu.
-
My question mark would be that I don't know his policies toward China much less Russia or influencing change in the Middle East. I believe he snubbed the Chinese leadership a bit on his exit which endears him more to me than to them. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/20/jon-huntsman-predicts-major-problems-for-china_n_880402.html
Of course we don't want military rule. A Petraeus type would have to separate himself from that, and he isn't running. A better example of foreign policy experience would be a former Sec of State or Sec of Defense, who also had governor level or comparable public executive experience and significant business experience. No one has all that. You make a good point that Huntsman has the best mix of that in his background, I'm just saying he wasn't setting or even seriously advising an administration on US foreign policy as far as we know.
Huntsman faces other challenges in getting elected. http://www.ontheissues.org/Jon_Huntsman.htm You call him centrist but his mix of views on different issues do not match up well IMO with enough other centrists to make up for his positions on important issues that will offend both the right and the left. More maverick than moderate.
With 3 and 3/4 years incumbency in Nov 2012, it is Obama who will have the experience. What we will be arguing is the quality of that experience and what we project forward for them.
Thanks JDN for the answer to my question, I thought so!
-
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2011/07/14/gops-big-debt-ceiling-card-obamas-birthday-bash/
Party like it's 2013!
-
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2011/07/14/gops-big-debt-ceiling-card-obamas-birthday-bash/
Party like it's 2013!
:?
It's a fundraiser. Raise money now, be elected for 4 more years. Don't count Obama out just yet.
-
What is with these wacky "pledges" candidates are being required/asked to take?
I respect the fact that Romney and Pawlenty won't sign.
"Earlier, Romney also declined to sign, saying that the pledge contained “references and provisions that were undignified and inappropriate for a presidential campaign.” He deserves credit for the strength of his denunciation, but his refusal was predictable. Though he ran as the conservative alternative to John McCain in 2008, this time he’s positioning himself as the sane, electable centrist. Last month he refused to sign the Susan B. Anthony List’s far-reaching anti-abortion pledge, so it would have been odd if he’d put his name on the FAMiLY Leader’s even more radical document. After all, the 14-point pledge is about far more than fighting gay rights and abortion. It also commits signatories to making divorce more difficult, to rejecting “Sharia Islam” (a theologically nonsensical term), and to protecting women and children from being “lured into promiscuity,” among other provisions. Initially, the pledge suggested that black families were in some ways more stable under slavery than they are today, though the FAMiLY Leader removed that language after a national uproar.
Given the pledge’s wackiness, Pawlenty’s refusal to sign it speaks quite well of his character. But religious conservatives in Iowa are unlikely to see it that way. "
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/13/tim-pawlenty-will-his-refusal-to-sign-the-anti-porn-pledge-doom-him-in-iowa.html
-
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2011/07/14/gops-big-debt-ceiling-card-obamas-birthday-bash/
Party like it's 2013!
:?
It's a fundraiser. Raise money now, be elected for 4 more years. Don't count Obama out just yet.
Gee, I hope none of those eeeeevil rich people are invited, with their private jets buzzing around ruining the economy.....
-
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304203304576446332084493902.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
The Obama Downgrade
The real reason the U.S. could lose its AAA rating..
So the credit-rating agencies that helped to create the financial crisis that led to a deep recession are now warning that the U.S. could lose the AAA rating it has had since 1917. As painfully ironic as this is, there's no benefit in shooting the messengers. The real culprit is the U.S. political class, especially the President who has presided over this historic collapse of fiscal credibility.
Moody's and the boys are citing the risk of a default on August 2 as the proximate reason for their warning. But Americans should understand that the debt ceiling is merely the trigger. The gun is the spending boom of the last three years and the prospect that Washington lacks the political will to reduce it in the years to come.
On spending, it is important to recall how extraordinary the blowout of the last three years has been. We've seen nothing like it since World War II. Nothing close. The nearby chart tracks federal outlays as a share of GDP since 1960. The early peaks coincide with the rise of the Great Society, the recession of 1974-75, and then a high of 23.5% with the recession of 1982 and the Reagan defense buildup.
From there, spending declines, most rapidly during the 1990s as defense outlays fell to 3% of GDP in 2000 from its Reagan peak of 6.2% in 1986. The early George W. Bush years saw spending bounce up to a plateau of roughly 20% of GDP, but no more than 20.7% as recently as 2008.
Then came the Obama blowout, in league with Nancy Pelosi's Congress. With the recession as a rationale, Democrats consciously blew up the national balance sheet, lifting federal outlays to 25% in 2009, the highest level since 1945. (Even in 1946, with millions still in the military, spending was only 24.8% of GDP. In 1947 it fell to 14.8%.) Though the recession ended in June 2009, spending in 2010 stayed high at nearly 24%, and this year it is heading back toward 25%.
This is the main reason that federal debt held by the public as a share of GDP has climbed from 40.3% in 2008, to 53.5% in 2009, 62.2% in 2010 and an estimated 72% this year, and is expected to keep rising in the future. These are heights not seen since the Korean War, and many analysts think U.S. debt will soon hit 90% or 100% of GDP.
...
Congress is responsible for the way so much of this spending was wasted, resulting in little job creation and the slowest economic recovery since the 1930s. But in the U.S. political system, Presidents are supposed to be the fiscal adults. When they abdicate, the teenagers invite over their special interest friends and blow the inheritance.
The President is now claiming to have found fiscal virtue, but notice how hard he has fought House Republicans as they've sought to abate the spending boom. First he used the threat of a government shutdown to whittle the fiscal 2011 spending cuts down to very little. Then he invited Paul Ryan to sit in the front row for a speech while he called his House budget un-American.
Now Mr. Obama is using the debt-ceiling debate as a battering ram not to control spending but to command a tax increase. We're told the White House list of immediate budget savings, the ones that matter most because they are enforceable by the current Congress, are negligible. His offer for immediate domestic nondefense discretionary cuts: $2 billion.
-
Good piece, but , , , Although of course this has implications for the Presdential race, but then most things do. So to prevent this thread from becoming an incoherent mishmash, please post that in the Budget thread. Thank you.
-
This could go in the Health Care thread, but given its political implications for the Romney campaign I put it here:
WSJ
SALT LAKE CITY — Former Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt, a top supporter and adviser of Republican White House hopeful Mitt Romney, strenuously backed the core piece of President Barack Obama’s health-care law and urged the states to move forward together in adopting health insurance exchanges.
Reuters
U.S. Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney greets voters after at a town hall meeting campaign stop in Derry, New Hampshire, Friday.Speaking to a bipartisan group of governors at the National Governors Association, the former Republican governor who served as secretary of health and human services in the Bush administration, called the exchanges where individuals and small businesses can purchase health plans “a very practical solution to a problem that needs to be solved.” He warned governors who are reluctant to move forward with their state-level exchanges that their intransigence will only empower federal regulators.
And he said the health care law that passed is a compromise that gives the states the flexibility they need.
“This is a profoundly important time for the states,” said Mr. Leavitt. “States need to lead.”
The comments came at a time when every major Republican presidential candidate has pledged to repeal the Affordable Care Act, the president’s health care law. For former Massachusetts Gov. Romney, the issue is extra sensitive: the health care plan he secured for Massachusetts included an exchange almost identical to the federal law. He has tried to tightrope through the issue, blasting the federal law as he defends his own.
The federal law gives the states until January 2014 to set up their own exchanges, with federal oversight. If they fail to do so, their citizens will get access to a federal exchange.
But some Republican governors have been reluctant. They oppose the federal law and say they hope it will be repealed by a Republican president in 2013.
Mr. Leavitt urged them to get moving anyway. If all 50 states move forward, they will compel the federal Department of Health and Human Services to give them the flexibility to tailor their exchanges to their state needs. If only 20 move forward, the other 30 will “give license” to HHS to be inflexible in designing regulations governing the exchanges.
He urged the governors not defend their “partisan flags” over the interests of their states.
Republican governors pushed back hard. Gov. Dave Heineman of Nebraska called the law a huge, unfunded mandate.
“There’s no way to get people to take charge of the health care issue if they think the federal government is going to take charge of them, if they think the states are going to take care of them,” said Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad.
Cindy Gillespie, a Washington lobbyist who helped Mr. Romney design the Massachusetts plan, also raised a red flag.
“Between the exchanges and Medicaid expansion (in the law), there will be a complete upheaval of the insurance market in every state,” she warned.
But in an interview with Washington Wire, Mr. Leavitt said the problem of access to health insurance for individuals and small businesses will not disappear if a Republican president wins repeal.
-
Herman Cain was on Stossel over the weekend and it was noted he is a "survivor" of stage 4 colon cancer.
Unfortunately this is not a curable disease. I am afraid this rules him out as a Presidential candidate in my mind:
http://www.your-cancer-prevention-guide.com/colon-cancer-stage-4.html
-
Well, for me he was already ruled out due to shocking levels of ignorance and lack of thought on foreign affairs.
Separately, I saw a report that he said something to the effect that communities should be able to prevent mosques? Were he being taken more seriously as a candidate, this might get some more play.
-
You implied that communities should be able to prevent mosques. May I presume that you also think communities should be able to prevent churches or synagogues from being buit?
-
Too bad about his cancer, I didn't know that. Herman Cain is a great guy but not the next President. I didn't hear the long version of his Mosque point, it was something to the effect that being Muslim means favoring a state established religion and a religion-run state, violating of our 1st amendment and community standards therefore citizens should have a right to block that in their neighborhood?? I don't agree and didn't take Crafty to imply he did either, but if there was a valid point in there, a serious candidate needs a better political sensitivity and awareness of what comments will sidetrack, not lead us to the solution for all that is going wrong right now. Bachmann will be next to digress or sidetrack if I were to guess.
Perry likely to get in, people say. Has the oratory skills, tea party credentials and the most governing experience of any of them. Has something in common with Barack Obama; he took over an economy left behind by George W Bush. Differing results. Created more jobs recently than the rest of Obama's America.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/rick-perry-game-changer/2011/07/17/gIQAv2wYLI_blog.html
-
JDN: Doug is right. My statement did not take sides. Please read more carefully.
PS: But not to duck the issue. I do have sympathy for the point that Cain makes: As Doug notes, the we do not have the full version of his views on this subject, but generally I regard it as valid to note that Islam theocratic i.e. both a religion and a political ideology-- and the political ideology is seditious to the American Creed. This I think needs to be stated plainly, openly, and fearlessly.
PS: I also oppose freedom of religion for the Aztec religion of human sacrifice.
If anyone wants to take this further please use the Legal Issues presented by the War with Islamic Fascism thread.
-
"PS: I also oppose freedom of religion for the Aztec religion of human sacrifice."
More of the ignorant, Aztecaphobic hate speech typically found here. Not every Aztec engaged in human sacrifice and those that did were just a small group of radicals that in no way represent the vast majority of peaceful Aztecs who just wanted in live in peace with the other pre-columbian civilizations they forcefully conquered and sacrified to their gods.
-
Ahem , , , :lol:
"If anyone wants to take this further please use the Legal Issues presented by the War with Islamic Fascism thread."
-
I like and respect Pawlenty. He's qualified. I'm glad to see he's got a little fire at least. I wish he would be even more aggressive.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-pawlenty-bachmann-20110719,0,6503104.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Fpolitics+%28L.A.+Times+-+Politics%29
-
Prediction: He's not going to make it.
The following piece sees things rather clearly I think.
=============
Next to generalized distemper in Republican circles over their presidential candidates, the second most-offered opinion on the race is that people wish Paul Ryan were running. The Wisconsin congressman and House Budget chairman says he's not, but the discontented, especially independents, keep saying they wish he were.
I am beginning to think that the Draft Ryan movement is about something other than Paul Ryan. And that something is disagreement with the simple notion that all that matters is finding a hero who can defeat Barack Obama. Voters sense this election is wading into deeper waters than that.
View Full Image
David Gothard
.Chris Christie understands this. After Paul Ryan, New Jersey's governor is the second most-mentioned GOP presidential hero. Gov. Christie says he's not ready to run for president. He's right. Not this time. Chris Christie has remarkable political and people skills. But his success in New Jersey has much to do with the fact that he mastered the deep, complex details of his state at its moment of crisis. He knows that he is in no way prepared to bring that level of knowledge to the debate voters want about the federal crisis.
I think the American electorate understands that next year's choice of a president is not about anything so unfocused as "the future of our country." The dissatisfaction with the GOP candidates reflects the awareness that the 2012 election isn't about 50 states. It's about the financial structure of one place—the nation's capital.
In the 1960s we had civil-rights elections. In the 1980s we had Cold War and American greatness elections. In 2012 we're going to have an election about money. Washington's money and ours.
Three dormant financial volcanoes have sat beneath U.S. presidential elections for a generation: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Combined, they hold enough lava to one day turn the United States into a kind of economic Pompeii, trapped in the eternal sludge of its entitlements. Until recently, daily life went on in the U.S. from one election to the next, alongside the rumbling volcanoes. Three events changed the American electorate's view of Washington's spending commitments from watchful waiting to active case-management.
The first was the 2008 financial crisis. The damage those events did to savings, employment and people's sense of financial security forced the public to focus acutely on money—theirs and the government's. Even as people's life assets turned precarious, they read about the scale of the government's long-term revenue needs. You could be for or against the 2009 stimulus, but its $831 billion price tag hit nearly everyone as sticker shock. Wondering who exactly is going to pay for all this is no longer just conservative blowback. It is an obvious question.
With the country mesmerized by these tense, post-2008 financial issues, along came the Obama health-care initiative. Incredibly, a whole nation's people focused for a year on the details of a bill about health care and insurance. With its passage, the country knew it had a fourth long-term entitlement.
We're now engulfed by a third monumental event that is about how Washington manages money: the debt ceiling. The details of the fight over tax increases and spending cuts matter, but the political impact of one detail matters most: The debt ceiling has hit $14 trillion, and the U.S. is on the cusp of a ratings downgrade.
Non-Obama voters want a presidential contender who can do hand-to-hand policy combat with the incumbent in 2012.
.Podcast: Listen to the audio of Wonder Land here. .What Republicans and ideologically independent voters want is a GOP candidate willing—and more importantly, able—to engage Barack Obama frontally and in detail over the future of the spending commitments embedded in the events of the past three years and the past 70 years. Mr. Obama wants spending to rise to 25% of GDP to support those commitments for the next 70 years. Until we settle this and the taxes it implies, everything else a candidate may propose, such as devolving power away from Washington, is beside the point because it won't be possible.
Mitt Romney is the front-runner, and that status attracts attention. To date, what non-Obama voters see, and fear, is a candidate content to coast to the nomination and then conduct a blandly conservative campaign. They want a more substantive choice than that. They want to have it out over the worth or danger of Barack Obama's ideas. They want the chance to ratify Washington's enormous long-term claims on the country's wealth, or decisively reject them.
When people say they "like" Paul Ryan it is because they see him as a kind of political Navy SEAL, someone with the specialized knowledge needed to do hand-to-hand policy combat with an incumbent president who represents a once-and-for-all assertion of Washington's primacy. And make no mistake: It will take a virtual commando team of Washington insiders to run the political labyrinths to the central processing units of the country's four massive entitlement factories.
Don't read this as a Ryan endorsement. Read it as an endorsement of the discontented voters who understand they need a candidate with the skill set to take on Barack Obama with more than sophisticated blather. If that's the battleground, the president wins.
-
Jeb Bush on Hannity this evening sounded quite good and I was surprised. He didn't just sound like a moderate establish type. He is quite adept at highlighting the total failures of Brock and why we need to change course. All we need is a candidate who can do this with vigor and with eloquent oratory.
Jeb is not running. Perry maybe can do this? :| Pawlenty is just too laid back from what I have seen. Bachman is still not prime time on national/international issues.
We have to get rid of Brock. This country cannot afford figuratively and finanically another 4 yrs of this disaster or as the great Bob Grant talk show host descirbes him - this abomination!
-
At this rate the only one voting for Brock is JDN: :-D :-D :-D 8-)
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/now-obama-gets-the-blame-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/
-
Bachman has not flinched during the debt ceiling brouhaha. If nothing is passed by August 2, what happens next I suspect will greatly help or hurt her campaign.
-
http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20110729/6344593f-3bf2-4946-aaac-cadd6b518fb5
Question presented: What effect the Full Faith and Credit Clause?
-
http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20110729/6344593f-3bf2-4946-aaac-cadd6b518fb5
Question presented: What effect the Full Faith and Credit Clause?
With DOMA? Not sure, however if full faith and credit actually had teeth, then a Utah CCW should work in NYC and LA, right?
Perry falling back to the 10th on social issues is a smart move on many levels. Gordian knotlike in a way.
-
GM, While I agree with you that the CCW rulings should be recognized nationwide, you need to read the whole clause:
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof (my emphasis).
There is major difference between may and shall. And according the clause, it would seem, it leaves the enforcement to the discretion of Congress.
-
Good point BD.
"Perry falling back to the 10th on social issues is a smart move on many levels. Gordian knotlike in a way."
Agree.
-
His polls numbers are not improving yet.
He needs more debate Iowa exposure I guess.
-
GM, While I agree with you that the CCW rulings should be recognized nationwide, you need to read the whole clause:
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof (my emphasis).
There is major difference between may and shall. And according the clause, it would seem, it leaves the enforcement to the discretion of Congress.
Isn't a driver's license issued by the state of Utah a public act? Isn't that why a driver in a Utah registered vehicle with a Utah DL can drive through LA and NYC?
-
MAY, GM. Or did.
Please don't get into an argument with me about this one. Please note that I agreed with you.
-
I'm not arguing, I really don't understand how a driver's license from a different state is given "full faith and credit" yet a concealed weapon license is not. The issuance of a license (driver or CCW) seems to to me to fall under the definition of a public act, thus a "shall" and not a "may" catagory.
I asked a state trooper that was teaching a class I was in on traffic code (Troopers really know traffic code, they sleep, eat and breathe it in my state) about out of state drivers who are in technical violation of state traffic code while in our state (in this case, the display of a front lic. plate). My state statute say all vehicles on public roadways MUST (not may) display a front license plate when operating a vehicle on a public roadway. The statute does not make allowance for out of state vehicles. We have a bordering state where only the rear plate is required. The trooper and every other person I've asked has never explained why that statute doesn't apply to the out of state vehicles. Is that a "full faith and credit" thing?
-
These are good questions, but no longer pertinent to this thread. Lets take them to the C'l issues thread on SCH forum. I for one look forward to learning from BD's answers.
-
CCP wrote: Doug any inside word on Pawlenty?
His polls numbers are not improving yet.
He needs more debate Iowa exposure I guess.
-------------
CCP, no inside word. I have too busy and he has been too broke for me to tell him that I want to be a highly paid consultant to the campaign. If he is reading the forum, he can get that offer here.
A good article I will attach at the end here that says he is getting good endorsements in Florida including an incoming speaker of the Florida house? Isn't that Marco Rubio's old job? Only half joking, once he announces his running mate is Marco Rubio I think he will do just fine nationwide.
Yes he needs to bump the poll numbers up nationwide and especially in the states where he is spending his time and like all of them, he needs to raise money. I see he is 3rd now in Iowa, to Romney and Bachmann. Bachmann is running there as being from there, not just from a neighboring state. My take is that she will fizzle at some point but that could be after the straw poll. There is a debate coming up before the straw poll and I don't think Pawlenty will be holding his punches this next time, after the beating he took in NH for giving Obamneycare a pass. He moved his comparisons over to Bachmann once she was the star of the moment. The argument was very similar views, plus experience, accomplishments and competence.
The word is out especially to people who never heard him or met him that he is the most boring person imaginable. That actually can be good to keep expectations low and then surpass them. Those reviews don't match what Rush L said after the first debate that Pawlenty looked 'Presidential'. Besides his influence, he has a pretty good eye and ear for conservative politics. I think people also are hitting a wall with the current candidates/other candidates so they keep looking again to see if they missed the one. That phenomenon could however help Rick Perry instead of Pawlenty if he doesn't make his move soon.
I posted his June Iowa numbers, but the Iowa poll that has him third also shows his favorable/unfavorable rating climbing to 60-12. http://www.lifenews.com/2011/07/14/bachmann-leads-third-iowa-poll-over-romney-pawlenty-third/ If people found him to be a complete waste of time, those numbers would not be that high.
My current feeling is that Romney has become a bit irrelevant, though still leading, and that Rick Perry will be the next sensation, but who knows. Even then, I think it is important to have an experienced former two term governor ready with competence and good positions on issues in second or third place that you can turn to if needed because we all know what happened to ... John Edwards, Spiro Agnew, Gary Hart, Howard Dean, Mike Huckabee, Pat Buchanan, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, Dick Gephart, Michael Dukakis, John McCain, George Bush, Dick Cheney, George Romney, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Rep. Jefferson, David Wu, Anthony Weiner, etc. Politicians can lose their shine.
--------------
(There is a 2 minute coffee shop stump talk at the link. He is running against Barack Obama, not Romney, Bachmann etc.)
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/underdog-tim-pawlenty-drawing-strong-republican-support-in-florida/1183912
Underdog Tim Pawlenty drawing strong Republican support in Florida
By Adam C. Smith, (Tampa) Times Political Editor
In Print: Wednesday, August 3, 2011
TAMPA — The vast majority of Floridians couldn't pick Tim Pawlenty out of a lineup. He barely registers in the polls. And there's a decent chance he'll have to quit the presidential race soon if he continues to show little momentum in Iowa.
And yet something curious is happening in Florida: Influential Republican leaders continue to line up behind the former Minnesota governor, even with little evidence he's a viable contender.
"I don't know or care if he's got a 5 percent chance or a 50 percent chance or an 80 percent chance, what matters right now is we need people who stand up for what they believe in,'' said state Rep. Richard Corcoran of New Port Richey, a Pawlenty supporter in line to be speaker of the Florida House.
Another future House speaker, former Mitt Romney supporter Chris Dorworth of Lake Mary, likened it to PC users who are satisfied with their computers and Apple users who are ardent about theirs.
"Other people support their candidate, but Tim Pawlenty people are passionate about him," Dorworth said before a Pawlenty fundraising lunch that drew about 40 people to Tampa's InterContinental hotel Tuesday.
The campaign stop was only part of a busy political week in Tampa, which, starting today, hosts the Republican National Committee's summer meeting. More than 200 people will be in town checking out the site of the 2012 Republican National Convention.
Florida is expected to have one of the earliest presidential primary contests, and on a fundraising swing that took Pawlenty, 50, through Orlando Monday evening and Tampa and Miami on Tuesday, he made clear Florida is a key part of his strategy to win the nomination.
"We're looking forward to having a robust campaign in Florida. I think we've got the earliest and best and most prominent team of political leaders, volunteer leaders in this state," he said in an exclusive interview with the St. Petersburg Times and Bay News 9 airing Sunday on Political Connections.
Pawlenty, who also schmoozed with GOP activists at the Buddy Brew coffee shop in Tampa, said he expects to compete in a potentially crucial Florida GOP "Presidency 5" straw poll in September.
But Iowa is do or die for Pawlenty, and by his own admission his campaign can't afford a weak showing in an Aug. 13 "straw poll" — a symbolic, but nonbinding vote by party activists — in Ames, Iowa. A poor showing could take him out before Florida's poll even occurs.
Angling to be the main Republican alternative to Romney, the low-key Pawlenty has brought on board top Republican consultants nationally and in early primary states, but so far he has been overshadowed by U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, a fellow Minnesotan, and Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a potential candidate. Most Iowa polls show Pawlenty mired in single digits well behind Bachmann and Romney.
"Every month there's the flavor of the month where somebody's thinking about running, not running, gets in, doesn't get in,'' Pawlenty said, suggesting that ultimately people will focus on people's records. He was particularly skeptical of Bachmann's staying power.
"The last thing we want is another person in that office who wasn't prepared for that office, doesn't have executive experience and, with all due respect to congresswoman Bachmann, her record of results in Congress is nonexistent," he said.
Pawlenty supporters see a person with a blue-collar background, strong faith and a record of cutting government even in Democratic-leaning Minnesota.
"When I spend time with Gov. Pawlenty, I get a comfort in his leadership style, I get comfort in his conservative philosophy, and I get comfort in his ability to beat the president,'' said state Rep. Will Weatherford of Wesley Chapel, another future state House speaker and former Romney backer.
Endorsements don't necessarily translate to votes. But they can provide credibility in a primary dominated by hard-core Republicans.
Romney has an extensive fundraising network in Florida where he campaigned hard in 2008, but Pawlenty has been winning over a new generation of under-40 Republican fundraisers and political leaders, some of whom have the opportunity to be on the ground floor of a top presidential campaign rather than a late-comer to Romney. As of June 30, Pawlenty had about $2 million on hand, compared to nearly $13 million for Romney, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
"I don't necessarily have anything to gain by getting on board," said 28-year-old state Rep. James Grant, R-Tampa, "but maybe we can build momentum by showing we have a team here in Florida and show the people that trusted us to be leaders in this state that we're willing to stick our neck out for somebody we believe is a true leader."
-
"I have too busy and he has been too broke for me to tell him that I want to be a highly paid consultant to the campaign."
Doug please save the country and work for an IOU.
-
(http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/ODowngradev2b.jpg)
Downgrade 2012!
-
Saw Pawlenty interviewed by Chris Wallace yesterday. A much better performance than I had seen previously.
===========
Ron Paul: The Outsider
The Texas libertarian may not win the GOP's 2012 presidential nomination, but his views have helped reshape the party
How influential is Ron Paul?
For more than three decades, Paul’s brand of uncompromising libertarianism left him on the fringes of the Republican Party. Only three of the 416 bills he has sponsored in Congress since 1997 even made it out of committee—and two of those were defeated. But events of the last three years—including the meltdown of the financial sector, massive government bailouts of private industry, and an exploding federal deficit—have turned his warnings on the dangers of debt and excessive spending into mainstream Republican thought. The Tea Party has embraced Paul’s belief that the best government is the least government, and that taxes are an intrusion on individual liberty. “Time has come around to where the people are agreeing with much of what I’ve been saying for 30 years,” Paul said in May, when he announced his third campaign for the GOP presidential nomination. “The time is right.”
Has the GOP embraced all his ideas?
No. Many of them are still anathema to the Republican establishment. A self-described “strict constitutionalist,” Paul believes the federal government should do almost nothing beyond punishing fraud and warding off foreign attacks; he has denounced U.S. “militarism” and argued that the U.S. should not meddle in the Middle East or the affairs of other nations. He’s voted against everything from humanitarian relief for Hurricane Katrina victims to granting a Congressional Gold Medal to Rosa Parks. (It wasn’t personal; he also opposed awards for Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II.) Given the chance, he’d shutter the Federal Reserve, the Internal Revenue Service, and “unconstitutional domestic bureaucracies” like the departments of Education, Energy, and Commerce. And although he’s a devout Christian, the 12-term congressman from Texas would legalize prostitution, heroin, and cocaine. “If people are only free to make good decisions,” Paul said, “they are not truly free.” He is not one to make concessions. “I don’t like the word ‘compromise,’” he said. “You give up half your beliefs.”
How did Paul come to his views?
He traces his sense of personal responsibility and self-reliance to his hard-working family in Pittsburgh. At age 5, Paul started working at his father’s small dairy, earning a penny every time he spotted a dirty bottle on the conveyor belt. He later delivered newspapers and mowed lawns, and helped pay his own college tuition. While studying medicine at Duke University, he discovered the work of Austrian economists Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises, who championed unregulated markets and sound currency. When President Nixon abandoned the gold standard in 1971, Paul said, “I decided to speak out.” He predicted that a Federal Reserve delinked from gold would print too much money, resulting in a housing bubble, a devalued dollar, massive foreign borrowing, and recession. He still sees a return to the gold standard as the only way to put the U.S. back on a secure financial footing.
What kinds of people support Paul?
His unusual ideas have attracted an equally unusual band of supporters, ranging from pot-smoking college students to hard-core fiscal conservatives. What they have in common is fervent enthusiasm for his message of individual liberty. “When people come to believe in Ron Paul, there is a passion that burns within us,” said Elizabeth Day, 57, a 2012 Paul campaign volunteer. His fans back their love with money: Paul’s presidential campaign received $4.5 million in donations in the second quarter of 2011—more than all of his competitors except Mitt Romney. The Paulites also turn out en masse whenever there’s a GOP presidential straw poll.
Can Paul win the 2012 presidential nomination?
History suggests not. In 1988, when Paul ran as the Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate, he won just 0.5 percent of the vote; in the 2008 GOP primaries, he took 5.6 percent. Today Paul is polling between 7 and 8 percent, far behind Republican front-runners Romney and Michele Bachmann. Ironically, the resonance of Paul’s anti-Washington message could be undermining his 2012 campaign. The GOP field is crowded with candidates who have adopted his argument for stripped-down government. Paul’s rivals, moreover, aren’t tied to libertarian policies that spook most Republicans, such as legalizing heroin and bringing all U.S. troops home. “The conservatives who might have gone with him in the past have enough other choices this time,” said Fran Wendelboe, a former Republican New Hampshire state representative.
So why is Paul running?
The message has always been more important than the office for Paul, who will retire from Congress next year. He sees every TV interview or Republican debate as a chance to persuade more Americans of the merits of libertarianism, and to wake them up to the “tyranny” of central government. As awareness of his stance grows, he believes, so does the chance that a like-minded candidate—perhaps his son Rand Paul, a Tea Party idol and Kentucky senator—might one day win the White House. “Politicians don’t amount to much,” said Paul, “but ideas do.”
Civil rights vs. the free market
The 1964 Civil Rights Act helped end racial segregation in the U.S. But if Paul had been in Congress at the time, he would have voted against this landmark piece of legislation. His problem with the law, he recently explained, was its “property rights element,” not the fact that it brought about greater racial equality. In Paul’s strict libertarian ideology, the federal government has no right to tell a private business what it can or cannot do on its own property. So any hairdresser who wants to bar black people from his or her salon should be free to do so. Paul says that this argument doesn’t make him a racist, and he contends that racist businesses would be punished by customers, and by the free market itself. Any business owner that did ban blacks, he said, “would be an idiot and out of business.”
-
"Saw Pawlenty interviewed by Chris Wallace yesterday. A much better performance than I had seen previously."
I saw that also. Better but still just slightly off message. The question should not still be, does a two term governor have more executive experience than a 3rd term congresswoman. Instead of dismissing her efforts, he should have emphasized how badly we need her holding feet to the fire in the House - to get things done in his administration. The question in this race is, who will stand next to President Barack Obama a year from this fall with a limited government, pro-growth agenda and win the debate, the election and the mandate to turn this ship around.
-
Agreed!
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJZl-YzYHFc&feature=player_embedded#at=13[/youtube]
Get some!
-
"The question in this race is, who will stand next to President Barack Obama a year from this fall with a limited government, pro-growth agenda and win the debate, the election and the mandate to turn this ship around."
And as more and more see "we" are on the "wrong track" such a candidate could win easily in a landslide and hopefully bring more legislatures with the same philosophy in for the *correction of our direction*.
-
A pitch based upon experience is quite relevant, but the essential point is as posited by CCP.
-
An interesting article on third party candidates from the LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-masketnoel-indies-20110810,0,128833.story
-
....until the next vacation.
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/08/10/good-news-despite-economic-apocalypse-obamas-vacation-still-a-go/comment-page-1/#comments
Good news: Despite economic apocalypse, Obama’s vacation still a go
posted at 5:12 pm on August 10, 2011 by Allahpundit
I know what you’re thinking. “It seems like just yesterday that he was talking about a ‘new sense of urgency’ on deficits and job growth.” You’re wrong, though. It was two days ago. Maybe the mood passed?
Over to you, Zero Hedge guy:
We bring you this special announcement courtesy of the White House which has informed that American plebs that following a fantastic job well done, in which the market is now back to pre-QE2 levels, unemployment is near record highs, delays for presidential press meetings compare with Newark airplane take offs, pessimism is at record highs, America’s credit rating has just been downgraded, the country was nearly bankrupted, and sales of end of the world provisions are through the roof (not to mention ammunition), president Obama is taking a well-deserved vacation at Martha’s Vineyard at the end of the month…
Our advice: buy ELY stock: with the market about to implode, the president is sure to make at least one company’s year.
The Bidens have already decamped to the Hamptons, you’ll be pleased to know, and plenty of European leaders are still on vacay despite the tremors in the eurozone and ominous economic forecasts coming out of Germany. Although that’s beginning to change: Sarkozy canceled the rest of his trip to deal with the risk that France is next up for a downgrade and the Netherlands’ parliament recalled its prime minister to discuss the Greece bailout agreed to last month.
But you know what? If O is dead set on a little Vineyard frolicking while the global economy shudders, let him go. He knows the political risk of getting caught by a photographer playing hacky sack on a day when the market drops another 500 points. (It was down 519 today; two of the top 10 biggest Dow drops in market history have occurred within the past three days.) His approval rating’s already perilously close to breaking through the 40th-percentile floor; 73 percent say the country’s on the wrong track; and just one in four Americans still has confidence in the federal government to solve economic problems. The country’s given up on him and on Congress, so what would be accomplished by having him hang around the White House to watch Europe and the NYSE implode? If he wants to give a speech mumbling about “recommendations” for the economy that he plans to get around to issuing one of these days, he can do it from the beach. Have a blast, champ. Click the image to watch.
-
GM, The ink is barely dry where I gave the Pawlenty campaign all of that material. I love the commercial, I'm glad they are reading the forum and as CCP suggested, I am happy to work for an IOU until they can get together the cash to put me on payroll. :wink:
Bigdog, I agree with the D.U. professor / LA TIme piece regarding third parties. Now is the time for centrists on both sides to flex their muscles and have some say on who will be the nominee. especially IMO on the Dem side. Picking up from a precious discussion, can you imagine the waves that could be made if someone like Sen. Jim Webb distanced himself from the President and announced his candidacy right now or after Labor Day? Giuliani is still looking at it from the R. side, also Huntsman is considered centrist. Voters in primaries have been known to deliver surprises.
If someone as far to the right as Bachmann (or Cain or Paul or Santorum) becomes the nominee, I think the emergence of at least one prominent 3rd party entrant is near certain. I can't read into the views of the author but I'm sure the LA Times gets it that the only way a Bachmann type can win is if a serious third party contender steals the energy from the center of the room.
-
Doug,
If T-paw is smart, his people should be reading this forum. Not joking.
-
Heck, everyone should be reading this forum :-D
-
I happen to be a Christian, I go to church most Sundays, but I'm not comfortable with those running on their piety,
or public claims of their strong Christian faith. In Iowa, it seems to be a race to see who is "more Christian". Each candidate is loudly proclaiming the depth
of their Christian faith. Yet, I see nothing wrong with a Mormon, a Jew, or a Buddhist running or being elected President.
I like the quote from Matthew 6:5-6:
"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others ... but when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen."
The following link references the virtues of Perry for President. That may be true, but not IMHO because he's the "most Christian" among the group running.
Yet I read the following...
The big brains gathered east of the Hudson and Potomac Rivers believe that Mitt Romney is the candidate to beat. But they are unable to hear what Rick Perry is saying. The Christian prayer rally in Houston was a very loud proclamation to fundamentalists and Teavangelicals, which said, "I am not a Mormon." The far right and Christian fundamentalists have an inordinate amount of influence in the GOP primary process and, regardless of messages of inclusion, very few of them will vote for a Mormon.
"We think a them Mormons as bein' in kind of a cult," one of the Houston rally attendees told me. "I couldn't vote for one a them when we got a real Christian like Governor Perry runnin'."
Perry, of course, can't come right out and print bumper stickers that say, "Rick Perry -- 2012 -- Not a Mormon." But he doesn't have to. He's wearing his faith like a power tie while Romney stays quiet as a tabernacle mouse on the topic of religion."
Why Rick Perry is headed to the White House
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/08/11/moore.perry.candidate/index.html
-
"...those running on their piety, or public claims of their strong Christian faith. In Iowa, it seems to be a race to see who is "more Christian". Each candidate is loudly proclaiming the depth of their Christian faith."
Really? As it seems so common, I've seen no evidence of what you declare, certainly not linked or quoted in the post.
Rick Perry who is not a candidate at this point hosted a prayer conference - not in Iowa.
Pawlenty who I have followed the closest was raised Catholic and attends an extremely large active evangelical congregation and I have never heard him mention that. He switched churches once in his life, to appease his wife not to further his career. He never wore it on his sleeve as Governor. Seems to me Cain pushes his business background and the Mormons in the race never brag about that - so I have no idea where this quadrennial criticism comes from.
Bachmann was never not a Christian conservative and keeps winning elections based on her values and her view of constitutional principles. She started her public career by with knocking out an 18 year incumbent RINO from her local senate district, mainly for his support of the liberal educational agenda. If people are offended, they can vote against her. Better yet if RINOs were not complicit across the country in liberal governing, this home-based conservative activist's career never would have included a run for office.
Perry's (running for nothing) prayer event was for people who wanted to be part of a prayer event, political issues never came up, nor was he in Iowa. He may have even delayed his candidacy to the highest office for the exact concern you articulate, that this long scheduled event, important to him, might be taken wrong - by people who won't vote for him anyway.
Both sides go to the places of worship to meet the people. The biggest phony in the group is the one who boasts he is Christian but still hasn't picked a Washington church in his 7th year in Washington, or a pastor he could really relate to since the famed G*d DAMN America black separatist advocate took his retirement. The incumbent has faith that an all-present God is over at the golf course too, on a sunny, summer Sunday morning.
The other religious phony from my point of view is Keith Ellison who thank God is not running.
-
Rick Perry IS running; the news says that he will announce this Saturday.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/11/breaking-perry-will-announce-saturday/?hpt=po_bn2
As for religious comments;
"Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, refers to God so frequently in the context of her political ambitions that you would think He was her running mate. At the Faith and Freedom Conference, she treated the audience to a prayer of her own design:
"Lord, we know there are things we have done in our nation that have not been pleasing in your sight," she sorrowfully intoned, "Lord, we ask your forgiveness for that."
It requires great chutzpah to beg divine forgiveness for the policies of your political opponents.
Not to be outdone by his fellow Minnesotan, Pawlenty countered in July with a six-minute campaign video to prove that he was the most Christian after all. Interjecting tender stories about his wife's peerless piety with cranky condemnations of same-sex marriage, Pawlenty then blinked into the camera and assured voters, "My faith is very important to me, and it influences all that I do, and it informs people about what my values are."
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich may not be able to boast about Christian values in his personal life, but he has vowed to defend his grandchildren from the imminent threat of "a secular atheist country" or, somewhat inconsistently, political domination by radical Islamists. Gingrich has also promised to resist the fearsome "homosexual agenda" on the grounds that he supports "pro-classical Christianity," a hitherto-undiscovered Christian sect that may be imaginary."
I would prefer to see a race based on the issues, not who claims to be the "most Christian". Not to mention as I said, I see nothing wrong with electing a Mormon. For that matter, someone who did not profess strong faith in any religion, yet if most qualified deserves to be President.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/08/10/wolraich.perry.christian/index.html?hpt=op_t1
-
Good grief, that's all you got. Wasted my time once again trying to answer nothing.
You use quotes around " "most Christian" ", Gov. Pawlenty "claims to be the "most Christian" " but... HE DIDN'T. Maybe Tina Fay said it. The quote is of 'CNN Opinion', not Pawlenty. What a bunch of BS. Everyone asks candidates about values and religion. The campaign releases a video that addresses that so they can get on with questions about public policy. You think they are lying, wearing it on their sleeve or excessively religious?? Does he preach about Jesus Christ in his Iowa stump speeches? No, but he called for an end to ethanol subsidies in Iowa and promises to repeal Obamacare. Is their one word or sentence in that video that actually offends you? http://action.iowastrawpoll2011.com/ Is his view about separation of church and state wrong? I don't think so. Of the Founders? No. "My faith is very important to me, and it influences all that I do"? Outrageous! He turned to his faith for strength and comfort as a teenager when his mom died rather suddenly. Wimp! He switched churches/denominations to his wife's church before he married her. Flipflopper! His faith guides him in all his decisions. Panderer! Mary Pawlenty got her faith from her parents. Theft! Unbelievable.
What the hell does "most Christian" mean anyway, to the atheist liberal CNN writer (much less Teavangelical!). He doesn't say - just throws it out there for people to repeat and pass on - in "quotes". Christians I know don't EVER talk that way. Maybe they challenge themselves to be a better Christian - a better religious person - to use the concept more openly in the context of threads and posts here designed to challenge people to think and behave better. That is offensive? Out of bounds in a Presidential campaign??
John Kerry and Barack Obama each made very strong statements about their faith, then largely ignored the teachings, as near as I could tell. Where were you then? Did you accuse them of trying to be the most Christian? No because the double standard is an essential component of the criticism.
Al Gore running for President said: "I think the purpose of life is to glorify God. I turn to my faith as the bedrock of my approach to any important questions in my life." "Faith is the center of my life. " New York Times, May 29, 1999 Imagine THAT.
I would hope the next President knows where rights and values originate, grasp the importance of family and values life. If the candidate is atheist, a video explaining how that will affect future decisions would be helpful too.
-
Too bad Perry won't be in the debate tonight.
Romney handled himself well against the loser heckler.
So far for me Romney, Pawlenty, and I am still not totally righting off Newt.
Maybe Perry.
As for me nothing wrong with a little religion - as long as it doesn't include Sharia law. :-)
-
I happen to be a Christian, I go to church most Sundays, but I'm not comfortable with those running on their piety,
or public claims of their strong Christian faith.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/130783-obama-says-he-prays-every-night-reads-the-bible
Obama: I pray every night, read the Bible
By Elise Viebeck - 11/27/10 12:13 PM ET
Praying and reading the Bible are part of his everyday life, President Obama said in a wide-ranging interview broadcast Friday.
Speaking with Barbara Walters, Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama also described how they involve their daughters in daily prayer.
"Michelle and I have not only benefited from our prayer life, but I think the girls have too," the president told Walters. "We say grace before we eat dinner every night. We take turns."
"n the end, we always say we hope we live long and strong," the first lady said.
"Long and strong. And that we give back."
Obama has been dogged by criticism about his faith since he took office. A poll released in late August showed that a growing number of Americans — one in five, up from one in ten in March — say he is a Muslim.
When asked if he prays himself, the president said: "I do. Every night."
He also says that he reads the Bible, and, asked to explain why so many Americans deny that he is a Christian, blamed the internet.
-
Doug, I'm a little surprised at your reply. I don't think there is any question that the evangelical Christian right's influence is quite strong;
disproportionate to America's belief in freedom of religion IMHO. You know better. Frankly, IMHO questioning ones beliefs is wrong. Romney may be a Mormon, as is Huntsman. Both IMHO are fine men. I see nothing wrong with either of them being elected President. That fact that they are Mormon should have nothing to do with the election, yet, it does....
I don't know, nor do I care about Obama's religious beliefs. He has had to respond because politically, being "Christian" is required to be elected. Yet, if he was Muslim, or Mormon, or Jew, and was doing a good job :-D for America I wouldn't really care.
I will say this, while you can disagree with his policies, easy to do :-) I think he values family and has a good family.
Frankly, from a "religious" standpoint, that is all that is important to me. I think he has good intent, albeit perhaps misguided. :-D
-
You read it here first folks. JDN finds political figures who publicly proclaim their christian faith problematic, except for when Obama does it, of course, because he has to for some reason that totally doesn't apply to anyone else we might think of.
-
Initial snap impressions:
IMHO Fox made a mistake in letting the audience make noise.
*Santorum: Had some good moments, but his numbers will not noticeably improve. Time to go.
*Cain: Much improved, but ditto
*Ron Paul: Had several good moments, but some awkward ones. His numbers will do well, but ultimately he will not be the candidate. His distinct and confident approach to foreign affairs, loudly cheered by an audience full of his supporters, presents a contrast with the indistinct positions of the other candidates. This is a point I have mentioned previously-- traditional Rep coherence on foreign affairs, traditionally a strong issue for them, is not to be found at present.
*Newt Gringrich: A good night for Newt and his numbers should move up. I like Chris Wallace, but he definitely is a Washington insider type (very funny watching him interview Glenn Beck at the height of GB's ratings-- clearly he just id not get it) and it chuckled me (and I suspect many people) to see him bitch slap CW-- who responded with self-importance.
*Bachman: Held her own, numbers should remain solid, but over IMHO some chinks remain in her armor.
*Pawlenty: His mission to go after Bachman I do not think served him well and a lot of his statements seemed canned. I think his numbers will compel him to withdraw. A decent man, but IMHO he just is not going to get traction.
*Romney: Remains the leader.
*Huntsman: remains a Bushie pipe dream. He remains a non-entity.
-
*Ron Paul: Had several good moments, but some awkward ones. His numbers will do well, but ultimately he will not be the candidate. His distinct and confident approach to foreign affairs, loudly cheered by an audience full of his supporters, presents a contrast with the indistinct positions of the other candidates. This is a point I have mentioned previously-- traditional Rep coherence on foreign affairs, traditionally a strong issue for them, is not to be found at present.
Paul is like the elderly dementia patient who occasionally has moments of lucidity where he pipes up with something profound and relevent, and you start thinking maybe he's not as bad as you thought. Then you look back up at him and find him finger-painting with his own excrement.....
-
Crafty your impressions were about the same as mine.
Newt was best followed close by Romney.
Last night suggested to me that the best strategy for the candidates is not to go after each other trying to distinguish themselves from the pack that way but to go after Brock.
Like Newt did. Of course everyone knows Newt so he has a bit of an advantage that way but I think others would serve themselves better doing the same.
I am not sure why I respect Bachman but I just can't seem to like her.
I agree with Newt about the Mickey Mouse questions. OTOH it might be good practice for the candidates to learn to deal with them now rather than later by MSM left wing gotcha types.
-
I missed the debate and watched only the clips they made available, what someone else thinks are the more interesting moments. Pawlenty and Bachmann wasted their time and hurt themselves attacking each other. GM was right, Pawlenty should have been reading the forum and he didn't.
I didn't see much of Romney. Other than no major gaffes or punches landed, I would like to know more about what others think he did right to remain frontrunner.
The focus of the debate questions seemed to be for ratings rather than about governing. Newt addressed that pretty well.
I think the candidates (at least 2 of them) erred by thinking the event in Iowa is the straw poll. The event for the candidates was the nationally televised debate. The non-binding straw poll just tells us what a small number of Iowans think about what we are all seeing and hearing.
Pawlenty was wrong to trivialize what Bachmann has been doing in congress. He should have treated her as an ally and hoped that she stays there. The opponent is Obama. And her attack on him was weak. Is there any doubt that she voted for him twice?
-
Pawlenty was wrong to trivialize what Bachmann has been doing in congress. He should have treated her as an ally and hoped that she stays there. The opponent is Obama. And her attack on him was weak. Is there any doubt that she voted for him twice?
While in the final election the "the opponent is Obama" in the primaries, the "opponent" is your fellow party members. You have to win the early rounds, i.e. beat your fellow party members in the primaries, otherwise your "opponent" will never be Obama.
I've always thought this aspect of our political system to rather interesting.
-
JDN,
You make sense :-o when you point out that in the primary debates they should be attacking each other in an effort to set themselves apart from the rest of the pack.
However, for me personally I want to see who is best to lead the country and beat Obama. To me whoever can display this skill/feat/ability or whatever you want to call it is who I am voting for.
Like Doug pointed out who is best to stand right up next to Obama point out why the direction he is taking us is into a deep ditch and how they will right the ship around. Or another way who can highlight the contrast between bigger government and smaller government personal freedom etc.
Last night I thought Newt did that well. Romney looked like he could do it. Even Santorum sounded good in that regard.
Indeed one thing I came away with was a lot more confidence and good feelings that whoever wins the Rep party will be able to take Brock apart.
The three on the bottom were Cain, Huntsman, and Paul - the latter states "so what if Iran gets nucs" - as a Jew - a total non starter for me.
-
"who can highlight the contrast between bigger government and smaller government personal freedom etc."
CCP, Well put. Besides who can win, who can govern. Who can steer even a Republican congress to get things right and who can bring the country along. Even with a house and senate sweep, getting 60 Senators on board will be eternally difficult.
The undefeated George W. Bush proved that even winning the election twice is not good enough. You have to keep winning every day, keep leading in the right direction AND keep bringing the people with you. Peaking today or in Nov 2012 alone will not save the Republic.
-
WSJ Editorial Page Editor Paul Gigot on last night's debate and the race:
Romney's Debate Luck
By PAUL A. GIGOT
Mitt Romney is a weak presidential front-runner by historical standards, but you wouldn't have known it from Thursday night's Iowa debate. He sailed mainly above the fray on a stage where everyone else was jostling for position behind him. More prepared than he was in 2008, the former Massachusetts governor batted away attempts to challenge his record on jobs and health care in a format that didn't invite follow-up queries or deeper debate.
Mr. Romney was helped by the multitude of pretenders. Tim Pawlenty is the only other plausible GOP nominee on stage, but he got locked in a cage match with Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann. The former Minnesota governor with a genuine record of accomplishment must be asking himself how he got to this point. He was no doubt told he had to challenge Ms. Bachmann so he doesn't finish behind her in Saturday's Iowa straw poll, but the inevitable result was that he looked smaller than he is.
Ms. Bachmann held her own in the scrum, but Mr. Pawlenty and former Sen. Rick Santorum scored by noting her gift for "showmanship not leadership." Her admirers like her willingness to fight, but her claim that the Standard & Poor's downgrade of U.S. debt vindicated her refusal to vote for a debt-ceiling increase illustrates why voters will never trust her with the White House and I doubt even the nomination.
Had Republicans forced a post-Aug. 2 shutdown of government services and risked default, Moody's and Fitch would have joined S&P in downgrading U.S. debt. Either Ms. Bachmann knows this, in which case she is merely playing to the talk radio GOP base. Or she doesn't know it, which makes her unready to be president. The Romney camp is hoping she wins the straw poll and the caucuses next year because it will make its road to the nomination easier. Her main achievement in the end may be to fatally wound Mr. Pawlenty.
With Texas Gov. Rick Perry entering the race, Mr. Romney is about to get more serious competition. But don't be surprised if other candidates look at the weak field, and at President Obama's sinking poll numbers, and decide to jump in after Labor Day.
-
"The former Minnesota governor with a genuine record of accomplishment must be asking himself how he got to this point. He was no doubt told he had to challenge Ms. Bachmann so he doesn't finish behind her in Saturday's Iowa straw poll, but the inevitable result was that he looked smaller than he is."
I think Tim would be better off just forgeting Bachman and taking it right to Brock. Highlight his strong points and why he can straighten out the country. Bachman will likely eventually self destruct or become moot as people see being stubburn alone is not enough. I am still scratching my head at Morris calling her a "genius". I must be missing something.
I notice Gigot totally ignores Newt. If Newt keeps doing what he did last night than that will be proven a mistake.
-
Well we are seeing the Crat talking points:
"Save and protect the middle class"
"Save and protect Medicare and Social Security"
And make the "rich" and "corporations" pay "their fair share".
The Republican who can effectively counter these Crat lines will win and crush Brock.
I guess they will play the racial ethnic cards too. However this is losing credibility except with the die hard white haters.
The women card? is probably caput too.
-
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2011/08/12/news/economy/perry_texas_jobs/chart-texas-jobs2.top.gif)
Community organizers, hardest hit!
-
David Axelrod is in Iowa, out front on this. He already explained that the growth in Texas is from oil and war, not from the leadership of the governor "down there".
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/12/rick-perry-record-swiped_n_925302.html
Who knew that legalizing energy production could grow jobs? This could have national implications!
Barack Obama and Rick Perry share something in common. They both inherited an economy from George W. Bush. Only one of them has whined constantly about it since then.
Texas has a GDP comparable to Russia and Perry is the longest serving Governor in Texas history. Texas under Perry according to BLS had more job growth than the other 49 states combined. This is attributable to luck, not policies.
Barack Obama was a noted community activist at the time of his elevation to high office, published nothing as editor at Harvard or as lecturer at Univ. of Chicago, got his opponent removed the ballot and voted 'present' 130 times in the Illinois state senate to avoid a record of controversial positions. He served a third of a term in the US Senate before declaring his candidacy for President and was ranked no.1 as the Senate's most liberal member. As President he developed a new leadership style applied to both economic and military command called leading from behind.
---------
Between January 2001 and June 2010, the Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates, Texas’s non-farm employment grew from 9,542,400 in January 2001, when Perry took office, to 10,395,800 in June 2010 — an increase of 853,400 or 8.9 percent. California simultaneously lost 827,800 jobs. Employment in Texas grew more than in the other 49 states combined.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/269851/run-rick-run-deroy-murdock
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/sep/23/rick-perry/gov-rick-perry-says-texas-has-created-more-850000-/
-
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2011/08/13/obama-compares-martin-luther-king/
Obama Compares Himself to Martin Luther King
by Keith Koffler on August 13, 2011, 1:58 pm
At least it wasn’t Jesus.
At a small, exclusive New York City fundraiser Thursday night featuring the likes of Gwyneth Paltrow and movie mogul Harvey Weinstein, Obama compared himself and his agenda to that of Martin Luther King Jr.
And now that King has his own memorial on the Mall I think that we forget when he was alive there was nobody who was more vilified, nobody who was more controversial, nobody who was more despairing at times. There was a decade that followed the great successes of Birmingham and Selma in which he was just struggling, fighting the good fight, and scorned, and many folks angry. But what he understood, what kept him going, was that the arc of moral universe is long but it bends towards justice. But it doesn’t bend on its own. It bends because all of us are putting our hand on the arc and we are bending it in that direction. And it takes time. And it’s hard work. And there are frustrations.
Mr. Obama, I knew Martin Luther King. Martin Luther King was a friend of mine . . .
-
Question presented: Who would be the most effective in debate with Baraq?
My answer: Newt. I just gave him $25.
-
Question presented: Who would be the most effective in debate with Baraq?
My answer: Newt. I just gave him $25.
Are there not more effective speakers who also won't be elected president?
-
Of the people who have the background, character, experience and disposition to be a great President, who can 'who can best highlight the contrast between bigger government and smaller government with greater personal freedoms etc.'?
(restating the longer form of the question)
Every one of these candidates has flaws. We get to choose through them and argue it out, then using Murphy' law we pick the wrong one.
--------------
Here is the WSJ raining on Gov. Rick Perry's debut. He sounded like the perfect conservative candidate. This story however tells about the opposite of chasing the government out of business and special interests out of government.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304760604576428262897285614.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Rick Perry's Crony Capitalism Problem
The presidential candidate's signature economic development initiative has raised questions among conservatives.
By CHARLES DAMERON
Gov. Rick Perry's presidential pitch goes something like this: During one of the worst recessions in American history, he's kept his state "open for business." In the last two years, Texas created over a quarter of a million jobs, meaning that the state's 8% unemployment rate is substantially lower than the rest of the nation's. The governor credits this exceptional growth to things like low taxes and tort reform.
It's a strong message. But one of the governor's signature economic development initiatives—the Texas Emerging Technology Fund—has lately raised serious questions among some conservatives.
The Emerging Technology Fund was created at Mr. Perry's behest in 2005 to act as a kind of public-sector venture capital firm, largely to provide funding for tech start-ups in Texas. Since then, the fund has committed nearly $200 million of taxpayer money to fund 133 companies. Mr. Perry told a group of CEOs in May that the fund's "strategic investments are what's helping us keep groundbreaking innovations in the state." The governor, together with the lieutenant governor and the speaker of the Texas House, enjoys ultimate decision-making power over the fund's investments.
National Review correspondent Robert Costa on last night's GOP presidential debate and Saturday's Iowa straw poll.
Among the companies that the Emerging Technology Fund has invested in is Convergen LifeSciences, Inc. It received a $4.5 million grant last year—the second largest grant in the history of the fund. The founder and executive chairman of Convergen is David G. Nance.
In 2009, when Mr. Nance submitted his application for a $4.5 million Emerging Technology Fund grant for Convergen, he and his partners had invested only $1,000 of their own money into their new company, according to documentation prepared by the governor's office in February 2010. But over the years, Mr. Nance managed to invest a lot more than $1,000 in Mr. Perry. Texas Ethics Commission records show that Mr. Nance donated $75,000 to Mr. Perry's campaigns between 2001 and 2006.
The regional panel that reviewed Convergen's application turned down the company's $4.5 million request when it presented its proposal on Oct. 7, 2009. But Mr. Nance appealed that decision directly to a statewide advisory committee (of which Mr. Nance was once a member) appointed by Mr. Perry. Just eight days later, on Oct. 15, a subcommittee unanimously recommended approval by the full statewide committee. On Oct. 29, the full advisory committee unanimously recommended the approval of Convergen's application. When asked why the advisory committee felt comfortable recommending Convergen's grant, Lucy Nashed, a spokesperson for Mr. Perry, said that the committee "thoroughly vetted the company."
Starting in 2008, Mr. Perry also appropriated approximately $2 million in federal taxpayer money through the auspices of the Wagner-Peyser Act—a federal works program founded during the New Deal and overseen in Texas by Mr. Perry's office—to a nonprofit launched by Mr. Nance called Innovate Texas. The nonprofit was meant to help entrepreneurs by linking them to investors. It began receiving funding on Dec. 31, 2008, soon after Mr. Nance's previous company, Introgen Therapeutics, declared bankruptcy on Dec. 3. According to state records, Mr. Nance paid himself $250,000 for the two years he ran Innovate Texas. Innovate Texas, whose listed phone number is not a working number, could not be reached for comment. (Two phone calls left for Mr. Nance at Convergen's offices went unreturned.)
ThromboVision, Inc., a medical imaging company, was also the recipient of an award from the Emerging Technology Fund: It received $1.5 million in 2007. Charles Tate, a major Perry contributor, served as the chairman of a state committee that reviewed ThromboVision's application for state funding, and Mr. Tate voted to give ThromboVision the public money. One month after ThromboVision received notification that it would receive a $1.5 million state grant in April 2007, Mr. Tate invested his own money in ThromboVision, according to the Dallas Morning News. The Texas paper later found that by 2010 Mr. Tate owned a total of 200,000 preferred shares in ThromboVision.
According to a Texas state auditor's report, ThromboVision failed to submit required annual reports to the fund from 2008 through 2010, when the company went bankrupt. The report noted the tech fund's managers were "unaware of ThromboVision, Inc.'s bankruptcy until after the bankruptcy had been reported in a newspaper." ThromboVision's bankruptcy filing revealed not only that Mr. Tate had been a preferred shareholder in ThromboVision, but so had prominent Perry supporter Charles Miller, who owned 250,000 preferred shares in the company and has donated $125,000 to the governor's campaigns. Three phone calls and an email seeking Mr. Tate's side of the story went unreturned.
All told, the Dallas Morning News has found that some $16 million from the tech fund has gone to firms in which major Perry contributors were either investors or officers, and $27 million from the fund has gone to companies founded or advised by six advisory board members. The tangle of interests surrounding the fund has raised eyebrows throughout the state, especially among conservatives who think the fund is a misplaced use of taxpayer dollars to start with.
"It is fundamentally immoral and arrogant," says state representative David Simpson, a tea party-backed freshman from Longview, two hours east of Dallas. The fund "opened the door to the appearance of impropriety, if not actual impropriety."
In April, the state auditor's office called for greater transparency in the fund's management, and some legislators began looking for ways that the fund might be reformed. With the state facing a $27 billion budget shortfall in the last legislative session, Mr. Simpson filed a motion in the Texas House in May to shutter the fund and redirect the money to other portions of the budget. That measure passed 89-37 to cheers from the chamber. But the fund was kept alive by the legislature's conference committee. The fund currently has $140 million to spend, according to the governor's office.
Michael Quinn Sullivan, the president of Texans for Fiscal Responsibility, sees in the Emerging Technology Fund a classic example of the perils of government pork. "The problem with these kinds of funds is that even when they're used with the best of intentions, it looks bad," says Mr. Sullivan. "You're taking from the average taxpayer and giving to someone who has a connection with government officials."
Mr. Dameron is a Robert L. Bartley Fellow at the Journal.
-
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/08/pawlenty-drops-out.php
I didn't want to say it, but the debate last Thursday was strike two and this isn't baseball where you get 3 swings.
He did a whole lot of things right in his campaign, but he made a few glaring errors that he could not overcome.
-
Still, it's too bad. He was a class act and qualified. Sorry to see him out of the competition.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/08/14/pawlenty/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
-
a) He should have announced before the Iowa debate, when the other candidates were pretty much off the radar screen-- now they are bigger and realer in the public perception
b) cronyism? Uh oh , , ,
Concerning Newt: I thought he did very well in the debate and showed flashes of why I hoped so strongly that he would run in 2008. I want him and those who watch his donation numbers to get the message that I want to hear more of that. The reasoning is not dissimilar to my support for Bachman; ultimately I am not yet persuaded that she is ready to be President (e.g. the utter lack of executive experience, my unfamiliarity with her thoughts and depth on foreign affairs) but I am glad to see her represent well a hardcore Tea Party message, including traditional values, and to get support for it.
I have had hopes that Perry would be the one, because he too speaks a good Tea Party game AND has plenty of executive credibility, but now the spotlight is on him and we will learn much more about him.
-
a) He should have announced before the Iowa debate, when the other candidates were pretty much off the radar screen-- now they are bigger and realer in the public perception
b) cronyism? Uh oh , , ,
Yeah, the current president will beat him up over that topic.
-
"Yeah, the current president will beat him up over that topic ['crony capitalism']".
GM's sarcasm flies over even my highly trained ear sometimes. Okay, Obama is 100,000 times worse in that category but what part of doubled standard don't people get. The cheap shot artists in the mainstream and the huffpost/kos type stream and colbert/stewart stream will get plenty of mileage, innuendo and accusations out of it. Political gifts tied to taxpayer handouts is the gift that just keeps giving - so don't do the handouts! All the candidates that have actually governed have RINO (non-conservative, unequal treatment under the law) government programs in their past. I hate that part of this process where our message gets diluted and our criticism gets muted because our people did or expressed support for the same things we are trying to stop.
-
Doug,
I think by the time we get to election day in 2012, the public will be happy to overlook whatever warts (real or media created) the Not-Obama might have. We need to not just beat him, we need someone who can start undoing the damage from the first day in office.
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g2nn_TqeSE&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g2nn_TqeSE&feature=player_embedded
-
"We need to not just beat him, we need someone who can start undoing the damage from the first day in office."
That's right. We better start looking seriously at making a difference in the house and senate too.
-
"We need to not just beat him, we need someone who can start undoing the damage from the first day in office."
That's right. We better start looking seriously at making a difference in the house and senate too.
So, we can pick away at Perry or whoever else gets the nomination for not meeting our lofty ideals, or we can focus on repairing the damage.
-
IMHO Newt best gets and has best spoken of the importance of winning in the Senate and House as well. I have not heard from Romney on this at all. Bachman gets it, and so does Perry, but Newt is the one with a track record of putting together a huge win for the team. Whether he gets a lot of traction or not, I hope the others are taking notes.
============
Krugman airs out the attack strategy against Perry; in our responses I'd like to encourage us to keep snide reminders of what a terrible economist and raging progressive (a redundancy I know) to a minimum and keep our eye on the ball-- which is to discern if there is any truth to the comments and if not to rebut them in politically effective terms.
==========
As expected, Rick Perry, the governor of Texas, has announced that he is running for president. And we already know what his campaign will be about: faith in miracles.
Some of these miracles will involve things that you’re liable to read in the Bible. But if he wins the Republican nomination, his campaign will probably center on a more secular theme: the alleged economic miracle in Texas, which, it’s often asserted, sailed through the Great Recession almost unscathed thanks to conservative economic policies. And Mr. Perry will claim that he can restore prosperity to America by applying the same policies at a national level.
So what you need to know is that the Texas miracle is a myth, and more broadly that Texan experience offers no useful lessons on how to restore national full employment.
It’s true that Texas entered recession a bit later than the rest of America, mainly because the state’s still energy-heavy economy was buoyed by high oil prices through the first half of 2008. Also, Texas was spared the worst of the housing crisis, partly because it turns out to have surprisingly strict regulation of mortgage lending.
Despite all that, however, from mid-2008 onward unemployment soared in Texas, just as it did almost everywhere else.
In June 2011, the Texas unemployment rate was 8.2 percent. That was less than unemployment in collapsed-bubble states like California and Florida, but it was slightly higher than the unemployment rate in New York, and significantly higher than the rate in Massachusetts. By the way, one in four Texans lacks health insurance, the highest proportion in the nation, thanks largely to the state’s small-government approach. Meanwhile, Massachusetts has near-universal coverage thanks to health reform very similar to the “job-killing” Affordable Care Act.
So where does the notion of a Texas miracle come from? Mainly from widespread misunderstanding of the economic effects of population growth.
For this much is true about Texas: It has, for many decades, had much faster population growth than the rest of America — about twice as fast since 1990. Several factors underlie this rapid population growth: a high birth rate, immigration from Mexico, and inward migration of Americans from other states, who are attracted to Texas by its warm weather and low cost of living, low housing costs in particular.
And just to be clear, there’s nothing wrong with a low cost of living. In particular, there’s a good case to be made that zoning policies in many states unnecessarily restrict the supply of housing, and that this is one area where Texas does in fact do something right.
But what does population growth have to do with job growth? Well, the high rate of population growth translates into above-average job growth through a couple of channels. Many of the people moving to Texas — retirees in search of warm winters, middle-class Mexicans in search of a safer life — bring purchasing power that leads to greater local employment. At the same time, the rapid growth in the Texas work force keeps wages low — almost 10 percent of Texan workers earn the minimum wage or less, well above the national average — and these low wages give corporations an incentive to move production to the Lone Star State.
So Texas tends, in good years and bad, to have higher job growth than the rest of America. But it needs lots of new jobs just to keep up with its rising population — and as those unemployment comparisons show, recent employment growth has fallen well short of what’s needed.
If this picture doesn’t look very much like the glowing portrait Texas boosters like to paint, there’s a reason: the glowing portrait is false.
Still, does Texas job growth point the way to faster job growth in the nation as a whole? No.
What Texas shows is that a state offering cheap labor and, less important, weak regulation can attract jobs from other states. I believe that the appropriate response to this insight is “Well, duh.” The point is that arguing from this experience that depressing wages and dismantling regulation in America as a whole would create more jobs — which is, whatever Mr. Perry may say, what Perrynomics amounts to in practice — involves a fallacy of composition: every state can’t lure jobs away from every other state.
In fact, at a national level lower wages would almost certainly lead to fewer jobs — because they would leave working Americans even less able to cope with the overhang of debt left behind by the housing bubble, an overhang that is at the heart of our economic problem.
So when Mr. Perry presents himself as the candidate who knows how to create jobs, don’t believe him. His prescriptions for job creation would work about as well in practice as his prayer-based attempt to end Texas’s crippling drought.
-
On Pawlenty's exit: He didn't want to go into debt, he called a conference call with supporters and contributors, withdrew from the race. He asked his campaign manager if he could borrow his car and he drove his wife and two daughters home to Minnesota. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pawlenty-quits-2012-presidential-race/2011/08/14/gIQAFAyzEJ_story_1.html
------
Krugman, "I'd like to encourage us to keep snide reminders of what a terrible economist and raging progressive (a redundancy I know) to a minimum"
- These grounds rules are very restrictive! :-)
In a way it reminds me of trying to compare Japan or Sweden of old with the USA, Texas is a very different place than New York, than California, than MN, than DC, than Hawaii etc. The differences are a reminder of why we don't want centralized economic decisions on everything from wages to industrial policy. Krugman is mostly just starting the anti-Texas theme. If a significant portion of the population is comprised of recent immigrants from Mexico, you would logically compare their employment and healthcare status with what they had before, not compare with a 3rd generation Ivy League professor from Cambridge with tenure. But if you are Krugman, deception is the vehicle - whoops, those damn ground rules.
How do you answer logic that says Americans move into Texas for the weather "inward migration of Americans from other states, who are attracted to Texas by its warm weather" when Dallas just had 40 days over 100 (this is not dry heat!) and he closes with mention to the 'crippling drought'. Midwesterners and young adults move to Dallas because it is a vibrant city with a vibrant economy. 3M moved divisions and expansions to Austin for a number of reasons, but the defining one was the tax climate opposite of where they were driven from. Richardson TX and Plano are silicon valleys of their own outside of the tax jurisdiction of Sacramento.
Posted previously: "Between January 2001 and June 2010, the Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates, Texas’s non-farm employment grew... an increase of 853,400 or 8.9 percent. California simultaneously lost 827,800 jobs. Employment in Texas grew more than in the other 49 states combined."
It seems we always have the harder argument to make, but here it is Krugman swimming fiercely upstream. He argues - all that Texas job growth, what the rest of the country so desperately needs, is not meaningful or relevant because... why? By the end of reading the piece once, no memorable answer sticks in my mind, just that Texas isn't that great of a place - to an ivy league northeasterner. The economy grew jobs because of migration?? Wouldn't every 'real' economist tell you that is ass-backwards. Migration goes to the jobs - or else to the welfare.
This is a more difficult argument to articulate, but please recall this educational piece from the Iowahawk that applies to economic outcomes and healthcare outcomes just as much as it does to education: 'Longhorns 17, Badgers 1' http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2011/03/longhorns-17-badgers-1.html. The 50 states have unique situations and demographics. If you are going to compare rural, compare rural. If you are going to compare urban black, compare urban black, if you want to study Hispanic-American outcomes, compare Hispanic-American outcomes. If you want to compare college educated white suburbanites (no one does), then do that. But that is not at all what agenda driven pretend-economists like Krugman ever do, unless it would somehow support his pre-ordained conclusion, that to a New Yorker, Texas is a rotten, rotten place, in his mind, badly in need of more taxes and regulations, against their will, from Washington.
-
Did California's weather suddenly get bad or are people and businesses leaving there for some other reason? :roll:
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhMAV9VLvHA&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
I'll say his insights are of a consistent quality.
-
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/07/08/obamas-epa-adds-texas-to-new-cross-state-emissions-rule-at-the-last-minute/
Obama’s EPA adds Texas to new cross state emissions rule at the last minute
Unemployment is at 9.2% nationally, thanks in no small part to Obama’s failed policies, while Texas’ unemployment rate is more than a point lower than the national average. Texas has its own power grid, and was supposed to be left off the EPA’s new cross state emissions rule — but the Lone Star state got added anyway on Thursday. And Obama’s EPA administrator doesn’t care a bit about the people who are losing their jobs or will end up seeing their energy rates skyrocket because of this. She is just doing her boss’ bidding.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said those fears were exaggerated, particularly in Texas, where some already have moved to clean up their coal-fired plants.
Yes, Texas is already cleaning up its air on its own, and has been since the 1990s. So why the meddling? Politics.
“Texas has an ample range of cost-effective emission reduction options for complying with the requirements of this rule without threatening reliability or the continued operation of coal-burning units,” Jackson said.
CPS Energy last month announced it would shutter its two oldest and dirtiest coal plants by 2018, 13 years ahead of their planned retirement date, rather than spend upward of $550 million on new pollution-control equipment.
That’s going to cost jobs. This is politics disguised as science. Just take a look at the states the EPA decided to leave off the rule change.
The challenge from the new rule, known as the Cross State Air Pollution Rule, is that stricter limits take effect next year, giving power-plant owners little time to comply.
Texas was not included in the EPA’s draft rule related to sulfur dioxide cuts because EPA modeling had shown little downwind impact from Texas power plants on other states.
On Thursday, however, the EPA said Texas would be required to meet lower SO2 limits to avoid allowing the state to increase emissions.
Five states — Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Massachusetts, along with the District of Columbia — were dropped from the final EPA rule.
Three blue states and two swing states get left off, while Texas gets added even though the EPA’s own model shows little evidence that emissions from Texas impact other states at all. Nah, there’s no politics here.
Gov. Perry has issued a statement slamming the EPA’s decision, but it may be time to challenge Obama on these moves more directly.
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=R0n3NLgSsAg[/youtube]
Love it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=R0n3NLgSsAg
-
Robert Heinlein:
Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as “bad luck.”
Barack Obama:
“We had reversed the recession, avoided a depression, gotten the economy moving again,” Obama told a crowd in Decorah, Iowa. “But over the last six months we’ve had a run of bad luck.”
**Props to instapundit.
-
Kevin Williamson of National Review puts numbers to an argument I was trying to make yesterday back to Paul Krugman disparaging Texas. If housing costs 4 times more in Brooklyn than in Houston, wouldn't you expect incomes to be close to 4 times higher too? No, they are slightly lower.
I would add that the only healthcare stat Krugman finds to bolster his case is percentage of people insured. I prefer comparing survival rates to the terrible things we are most likely to face, to comparing financial schemes. Uninsured does not mean refused treatment. Insured rates are highest where it is compulsory so it is as much an indicator of loss of freedoms it is of quality of care.
Unmentioned in both pieces is whether the influx of illegals is Perry's fault or Obama's?
------------------------
Paul Krugman Is Still Wrong about Texas
August 15, 2011
By Kevin D. Williamson
http://www.nationalreview.com/exchequer/274695/paul-krugman-still-wrong-about-texas
Paul Krugman continues his campaign to discredit the economic success of Texas, and, as usual, he is none too particular about the facts. Let’s allow Professor K. to lay out his case:
[Texas] has, for many decades, had much faster population growth than the rest of America — about twice as fast since 1990. Several factors underlie this rapid population growth: a high birth rate, immigration from Mexico, and inward migration of Americans from other states, who are attracted to Texas by its warm weather and low cost of living, low housing costs in particular.
. . . But what does population growth have to do with job growth? Well, the high rate of population growth translates into above-average job growth through a couple of channels. Many of the people moving to Texas — retirees in search of warm winters, middle-class Mexicans in search of a safer life — bring purchasing power that leads to greater local employment. At the same time, the rapid growth in the Texas work force keeps wages low — almost 10 percent of Texan workers earn the minimum wage or less, well above the national average — and these low wages give corporations an incentive to move production to the Lone Star State.
What, indeed, does population growth have to do with job growth? Professor Krugman is half correct here — but intentionally only half correct: A booming population leads to growth in jobs. But there is another half to that equation: A booming economy, and the jobs that go with it, leads to population growth. Texas has added millions of people and millions of jobs in the past decade; New York, and many other struggling states, added virtually none of either. And it is not about the weather or other non-economic factors: People are not leaving California for Texas because Houston has a more pleasant climate (try it in August), or leaving New York because of the superior cultural amenities to be found in Nacogdoches and Lubbock. People are moving from the collapsing states into the expanding states because there is work to be had, and opportunity. I’ll set aside, for the moment, these “middle-class Mexicans” immigrating to Texas other than to note that “middle-class” does not broadly comport with the data we have on the economic characteristics of Mexican immigrants. To say the least.
Krugman points out that New York and Massachusetts both have lower unemployment rates than does Texas, and he goes on to parrot the “McJobs” myth: Sure, Texas has lots of jobs, but they’re crappy jobs at low wages. (My summary.) Or, as Professor Krugman puts it, “low wages give corporations an incentive to move production to the Lone Star State.” Are wages low in Texas? There is one question one must always ask when dealing with Paul Krugman’s statements of fact, at least when he’s writing in the New York Times: Is this true? Since he cites New York and Massachusetts, let’s do some comparison shopping between relevant U.S. metros: Harris County (that’s Houston and environs to you), Kings County (Brooklyn), and Suffolk County (Boston).
Houston, like Brooklyn and Boston, is a mixed bag: wealthy enclaves, immigrant communities rich and poor, students, government workers — your usual big urban confluence. In Harris County, the median household income is $50,577. In Brooklyn, it is $42,932, and in Suffolk County (which includes Boston and some nearby communities) it was $53,751. So, Boston has a median household income about 6 percent higher than Houston’s, while Brooklyn’s is about 15 percent lower than Houston’s.
Brooklyn is not the poorest part of New York, by a long shot (the Bronx is), and, looking at those income numbers above, you may think of something Professor Krugman mentions but does not really take properly into account: New York and Boston have a significantly higher cost of living than does Houston, or the rest of Texas. Even though Houston has a higher median income than does Brooklyn, and nearly equals that of Boston, comparing money wages does not tell us anything like the whole story: $50,000 a year in Houston is a very different thing from $50,000 a year in Boston or Brooklyn.
How different? Let’s look at the data: In spite of the fact that Texas did not have a housing crash like the rest of the country, housing remains quite inexpensive there. The typical owner-occupied home in Brooklyn costs well over a half-million dollars. In Suffolk County it’s nearly $400,000. In Houston? A whopping $130,100. Put another way: In Houston, the median household income is 39 percent of the cost of a typical house. In Brooklyn, the median household income is 8 percent of the cost of the median home, and in Boston it’s only 14 percent. When it comes to homeownership, $1 in earnings in Houston is worth a lot more than $1 in Brooklyn or Boston. But even that doesn’t really tell the story, because the typical house in Houston doesn’t look much like the typical house in Brooklyn: Some 64 percent of the homes in Houston are single-family units, i.e., houses. In Brooklyn, 85 percent are multi-family units, i.e. apartments and condos.
Professor Krugman knows that these variables are significant when comparing real standards of living, but he takes scant account of them. That is misleading, and he knows it is misleading.
Likewise, he knows that the rest of the picture is much more complicated than is his claim: “By the way, one in four Texans lacks health insurance, the highest proportion in the nation, thanks largely to the state’s small-government approach.” Is small government really the reason a relatively large number of Texans lack health insurance? Or might there be another explanation?
Houston, as it turns out, is a less white place than Boston (no surprise) and also less white than Brooklyn. All three cities have large foreign-born populations, but Houston is unusual in one regard: It is 41 percent Hispanic, many of those Hispanics are immigrants, and many of those immigrants are illegals. Texas is home to 1.77 million illegal immigrants; New York is home to about one-fourth that number, according to the Department of Homeland Security, and Massachusetts doesn’t make the top-25 list. Despite Professor Krugman’s invocation of “middle-class Mexicans” moving to Texas, the great majority of Mexican and Latin American immigrants to Texas are far from middle class. The fact is that, in the words of a Fed study, “Mexican immigrants are highly occupationally clustered (disproportionately work in distinctive “very low wage” occupations).” Nationally, Hispanic households’ median income is barely more than half that of non-Hispanic whites. And low-wage occupations also tend to be low-benefit occupations, meaning no health insurance. (That is, incidentally, one more good reason to break the link between employment and health insurance.)
Further, some 28 percent of Texans are 18 years old or younger, higher than either New York or Massachusetts. Younger people are more likely to work in low-wage/low-benefit jobs, less likely to have health insurance — and less likely to need it.
The issues of immigration and age also touch on Professor Krugman’s point about the number of minimum-wage workers in Texas vs. other states. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, which seems to be his source for this claim, puts the average hourly wage in Texas at 90 percent of the national average, which suggests that wages are not wildly out of line in Texas compared with other states. (And, again, it is important to keep those cost-of-living differences in mind.) In general, I’m skeptical of this particular BLS data, because it is based on questionnaire responses, rather than some firmer source of data such as tax returns. People may not know their actual wages in some cases (you’d be surprised), and in many more cases might not be inclined to tell the truth about it when the government is on the other end of the line.
Interestingly, the BLS results find that, nationwide, the number of people being paid less than minimum wage — i.e., those being paid an illegal wage — was 40 percent higher than those being paid the minimum wage. What sort of workers are likely to earn minimum wage or less than minimum wage? Disproportionately, teenagers and illegal immigrants. You will not be surprised to learn that just as Texas has many times as many illegals as New York or Massachusetts, and it also has significantly more 16-to-19-year-old workers than either state.
Another important fact that escapes Krugman: The fact that a large number of workers make minimum wage, combined with a young and immigrant-heavy population and millions of new jobs, may very well mean that teens and others who otherwise would not be working at all have found employment. That is a sign of economic strength, not of stagnation. New York and Massachusetts would be better off with millions of new minimum-wage workers — if that meant millions fewer unemployed people.
All of this is too obvious for Paul Krugman to have overlooked it. And I expect he didn’t. I believe that he is presenting willfully incomplete and misleading information to the public, and using his academic credentials to prop up his shoddy journalism.
ADDENDUM:
Also, Professor Krugman owes his readers a correction, having written: “almost 10 percent of Texan workers earn the minimum wage or less, well above the national average.” Unless I am mistaken, that is an undeniable factual error: The number of Texas workers earning minimum wage is about half that, just over 5 percent. The number of hourly workers earning minimum wage in Texas is nearly 10 percent, but hourly workers are, in Texas as everywhere, generally paid less than salaries workers. But hourly workers are only about 56 percent of the Texas work force. Can we get a correction, New York Times?
-
See 8/16/11 entry of John Stewart on Ron Paul's lack of media coverage:
http://eutrapelia.blogspot.com/2011/08/ron-paul-looking-for-love.html
-
I did not know that Romney was soft on Bernanke.
=================
Texas Gov. Rick Perry scorched the political pot Tuesday with a red-hot rhetorical attack on Fed-head Ben Bernanke. When asked about the Fed's reopening the monetary spigots, Perry said, "If this guy prints more money between now and the election, I don't know what y'all would do to him in Iowa, but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas."
And that wasn't all. In a more controversial slam, Perry said, "Printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history is almost treacherous -- or treasonous -- in my opinion." (Italics mine.)
Pretty rough stuff. Very aggressive language. And undoubtedly way too strong. It was poorly received in the financial world.
No, Ben Bernanke is not a traitor. This is a policy dispute; it's not a matter of patriotism. However, and this is an important however, the rest of Perry's statement suggests that his analysis of Fed policy is right on target. In other words, wrong words, right analysis.
The Texas governor, who by some polls is the new Republican presidential front-runner, went on to say: "We've already tried this. All it's going to be doing is devaluing the dollar in your pocket. And we cannot afford that."
Well, to me that is exactly right.
Let's take a quick look at Bernanke's QE2 record of pump priming: The dollar fell 12 percent on foreign exchange markets. The consumer price index jumped more than 5 percent at an annual rate. And the $600 billion cheapening of the greenback led to skyrocketing commodity prices, including oil, gasoline and food. That oil price shock is one of the principal factors behind the 0.8 percent first-half economic stutter. As a result of the jump in inflation linked to QE2, real consumer incomes slumped badly and consumer spending fell substantially.
Before QE2, the economy was growing about 2.5 percent, even though it already was blunted by numerous tax and regulatory obstacles. But the cheap-dollar oil shock came perilously close to pushing us into recession.
So it turns out that Perry -- even with his overly strong language -- is a pretty sharp economic and monetary analyst.
In fact, Perry's analysis actually channels recent Fed dissents by reserve bank presidents Dick Fisher of Dallas, Charles Plosser of Philadelphia and Narayana Kocherlakota of Minneapolis. They object to a two-year extension of the Fed's zero-interest-rate policy and, in so doing, have set down an opposition marker to a potential new shock-and-awe quantitative easing that many fear will be announced Aug. 26 when Bernanke speaks to the Jackson Hole, Wyo., Fed conference.
What makes Perry's position even more interesting is his disagreement with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. When I interviewed Romney this past April, he essentially defended Bernanke and dollar depreciation. "Well, you know, I think Ben Bernanke is a student of monetary policy," Romney said. "He's doing as good a job as he thinks he can do in the Federal Reserve."
Meanwhile, in tea party circles on the campaign trail, Bernanke is a much-disliked figure. Rightly or wrongly, he is blamed for bailing out Wall Street. Also, many view Bernanke's massive money creation, along with President Barack Obama's massive federal stimulus spending, as another failed big-government attempt to revive the economy.
Tea partyers and many others fervently believe in lower spending, reduced tax burdens and a regulatory rollback to strengthen small businesses and the private economy. They're against Uncle Sam's just throwing money at problems.
So in this sense, Perry's red-hot riposte at Bernanke may be shrewd politics, as well as a much-needed defense of stable money.
The former Air Force captain piloted C-130 missions in Central America, South America and North Africa and all over Europe. He's a fierce devotee of American exceptionalism and greatness. My hunch is that just like Ronald Reagan, Perry views a collapsing-dollar threat as more evidence of American decline. And he is very much opposed to any of that.
-
Some merit in the criticisms here I think, though I disagree with the praise of the questioning; I thought Newt was right.
==========
GOP Should Learn from Debate Mistakes It’s probably a good thing that coverage of the Iowa Straw Poll and Rick Perry’s announcement of candidacy upstaged the discussion about the televised GOP debate two days before. That two hour encounter highlighted profound problems with the Republican field and increased the widespread yearning for some additional Republican choices. In fact, Rick Perry emerged as the clear winner of the debate because he displayed the good sense not to show up.
The losers? All of the eight candidates who stood on the stage, sniping at each other and looking unserious and unpresidential. The Republican Party lost as well: with Americans increasingly sour on Barack Obama, the Ames debate offered an obvious chance to show that the GOP offered constructive, refreshing, hopeful alternatives. Instead the candidates looked petty and petulant and full of bile—angry at the world in general, at their opponents, and, in the case of Newt Gingrich, full of righteous indignation at the moderators from Fox News.
In fact, Chris Wallace and Bret Baier also emerged as conspicuous winners, since their tough, needling interrogation, probing each candidate’s embarrassments, blunders, and contradictions (what Newt described as “gotcha” questions) should serve to rebut ongoing charges from the left that Fox functions as a partisan, cheerleading wing of the Republican Party. If the panel put comparably nasty and insistent questions to President Obama or Vice President Biden, David Axelrod and Jay Carney would no doubt holler foul.
Of course, no one forced the contenders to respond to these challenges in the self-destructive style that most of them chose.When baited to confront each other and to abandon the restraints of “Minnesota Nice,” both Michele Bachmann and Tim Pawlenty promptly and disastrously obliged. Pawlenty in particular felt forced to display a more aggressive style after his widely panned performance in the New Hampshire debate in June, when he pointedly declined to confront Mitt Romney on his health-care reform in Massachusetts. This time he not only stood by his gibe about “Obamneycare” but managed a gratuitous dig at his rival’s wealth: When saying he’d come over and mow the lawn of anyone who could find an Obama plan for economic recovery, he added that if Mitt won the prize he’d only cover the first acre of Romney’s presumably vast swaths of greenery.
Pawlenty also made the fair point that Bachmann had achieved nothing in Congress and that for all her talk about a “titanium spine,” the major fights she emphasizes in her campaign boasts—against TARP, Obamacare, the debt ceiling deal—all proved to be losing battles. It didn’t help T-Paw, however, that Bachmann looked hurt, dazed, and almost deflated at his criticism; she never answered him with a persuasive citation of any legislative accomplishment. Instead, she offered outrageous lies about Pawlenty’s gubernatorial record—claiming he’d said the era of small government was over, or that he imposed cap and trade—that quickly provoked appropriate scolds from some of the truth-squadding crews that try to clean up the factual detritus that follows such events.
Under the “what might have been” category, Bachmann could have enhanced her stature and her status as Iowa front-runner, had she smiled back at the taunts from Pawlenty and the moderators, placing herself above the fray. “Actually, I always supported Tim when he was governor of my state—because he was a good governor,” she could have said. “And I’m surprised to hear him speaking about me as he has tonight, because he’s always provided generous support in all my congressional races. If he really thought I wasn’t accomplishing anything, why did he help campaign for my reelection? And the fact is, Tim and I agree on most issues, as do all of us on this stage. It’s just a question of who can offer the sharpest contrast with Barack Obama—who can paint in bright, primary colors, not pale pastels, as Ronald Reagan used to say. I know I have the passion and the toughness and the clarity on the issues to take the fight to the president.”
Had she responded in that style, she could have empowered her candidacy, as she did in the New Hampshire debate, when she seemed vastly more energetic and zesty and positive. The key difference? This time Bachmann didn’t look as if she were enjoying herself; none of the candidates did.
Perhaps most uncomfortable (and disastrous) of them all was the new kid on the block, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, who badly fumbled a precious opportunity to differentiate himself from his competitors. Questioners pressed him on two issues on which Huntsman’s position corresponds to the American mainstream and even to a plurality of self-described Republicans, according to polls: his support for civil unions for same-sex couples (not gay marriage) and for a path to earned legalization for undocumented immigrants (not blanket amnesty). On both issues, Huntsman could have made firm, conservative arguments on behalf of his positions and come across as a straight shooter—a plain-talking Westerner who might disagree with some primary voters but could still win their respect by courageously and clearly making his case. Instead, he punted and dodged, repeatedly (and irrelevantly) asking people to examine his Utah record to prove his right-wing bona fides. Considering Utah’s status as, arguably, the most rock-ribbed red state in the union, it hardly makes Huntsman a pillar of conservative righteousness that he compiled a more rightist record there than did Pawlenty and Romney in liberal Minnesota and Massachusetts. And speaking of Romney, his polished, suave demeanor served him well, as usual. As the widely perceived front-runner, he gains by avoiding stumbles (as he did) and by his superior mastery of television mechanics (finding the camera, listening earnestly and respectfully to his opponents).
The sad news for Republicans is that the two candidates who gave the most impressive performance in terms of substance and forceful argument, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, have no war chests, no campaign organization, and no chance of winning anything of note in caucuses or primaries.
Meanwhile, the two candidates considered the front-runners for the crucial straw poll in Ames on Saturday, Bachmann and Ron Paul, looked utterly inconceivable as president of the United States. When Paul faced the obvious question of whether he actually expected his radical program (ditching our current monetary system, restoring the gold standard) to miraculously clear a divided Congress, he seemed flustered and disarmed, revealing his underlying aim of advancing ideas rather than winning the White House. The wild cheering from his claque in the big crowd gathered at Iowa State University only added to the sense that Paulestinians represent a quasi-religious cult unconcerned with real-world results, à la the relentless, glassy-eyed followers of Lyndon LaRouche. Paul’s repeated, energetic denunciations of U.S. “militarism” also sounded a jarring note in a party that has always revered our men and women in uniform.
The presence of eight candidates dividing time and attention made each of them seem smaller and reduced the credibility of the more serious contenders by putting them on equal footing with hopeless, long-shot distractions like Paul, Herman Cain, and Rick Santorum, who really should be running to reclaim his Senate seat in Pennsylvania. One can only hope that by the time of the next televised encounter, the field will look more formidable with the addition of Perry (and, very possibly, other fresh faces) and the departure of some of the participants who are bidding for attention more than presidential power.
A version of this column appeared originally in THE DAILY BEAST on August 12, 2011.
-
In Human Events this morning I discuss the plethora of pro-Sharia candidates and hopefuls. Can't we have a few more pro-freedom, anti-Sharia candidates?
Texas Gov. Rick Perry has set many a heart a-flutter by joining the hunt for the Republican presidential nomination, but not so fast: Hard-Left advocacy journalist Justin Elliott of Salon hailed Perry as the “pro-Sharia candidate,” and exulted that Perry “is a friend of the the Aga Khan, the religious leader of the Ismailis, a sect of Shia Islam that claims a reported 15 to 20 million adherents worldwide. Sprouting from that friendship are at least two cooperation agreements between the state of Texas and Ismaili institutions, including a far-reaching program to educate Texas schoolchildren about Islam.”
The Ismailis are a peaceful sect, but such educational efforts are unlikely to be honest about the Islamic texts and teachings that jihad terrorists use to justify violence and make recruits among peaceful Muslims. Nor are they likely to be forthright about Islam’s bloody history of war against and conquest and subjugation of Jews, Christians, Hindus and others. All that is likely to be whitewashed, especially given Perry’s apparent friendship with Republican power broker Grover Norquist.
David Horowitz wrote years ago that Norquist was working with “prominent Islamic radicals who have ties to the Saudis and to Libya and to Palestine Islamic Jihad, and who are now under indictment by U.S. authorities.” Norquist is unrepentant and continues to partner with Islamic supremacists.
Also among the presidential hopefuls, albeit as yet undeclared, is New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who this year appointed a Muslim attorney, Sohail Mohammed, to a Superior Court judgeship in Passaic County. Mohammed was the lawyer for Mohammad Qatanani, a Muslim Brotherhood operative who pleaded guilty to membership in the jihad terror group Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. Christie knew this, yet called Qatanani “a man of great good will” and “a constructive force,” and fought Department of Homeland Security efforts to deport him. When challenged, Christie defended his actions and went out of his way to slam opposition to Sharia in the U.S. as “crap.”
Is Qatanani entitled to legal representation? Of course. Should Mohammed's taking of the case stigmatize him as sympathetic with Qatanani's pro-jihad views and ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood? Certainly not. But when Christie praises Qatanani as a “constructive force” and fights his deportation despite knowing of his membership in a jihad terror group (Hamas) and the Islamic supremacist group par excellence (the Muslim Brotherhood), and then appoints his lawyer to a judgeship, it becomes clear what is going on here.
Then there is Herman Cain, who started out strongly, albeit with some clumsily worded statements, as the only candidate who manifested a deep awareness of the magnitude of the threat from Islamic law, a comprehensive political system that denies the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience and the equality of rights of all people before the law. Islamic law has now been a determining factor in court cases in 23 states, so this is no trivial matter, and Cain seemed determined to resist its advance in the United States.
Determined, that is, until he met with representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood-linked All Dulles Area Muslim Society—the ADAMS Center. Cain then issued a statement saying he was “humble and contrite for any statements I have made that might have caused offense to Muslim Americans and their friends,” and “truly sorry for any comments that may have betrayed my commitment to the U.S. Constitution and the freedom of religion guaranteed by it.”
Betrayed his commitment to the U.S. Constitution by appearing determined to fight against a serious threat to it? Betrayed his commitment to the freedom of religion by resisting a radically intolerant ideology that mandates second-class status for all people who believe differently?
Herman Cain will never be President of the United States, and that’s a good thing. His only distinctive position in this campaign was his opposition to Sharia, and now that he has surrendered to pro-Sharia Islamic supremacists, there is nothing noteworthy about his campaign at all. He joins Perry, Mitt “Jihadism Is Not Islam” Romney, Ron “They’re Terrorists Because We’re Occupiers” Paul and the rest in their general myopia about the nature of the threat we face, and cluelessness about what to do about it.
If any of these woefully inadequate candidates gets the Republican nomination and defeats Barack Obama, the only certainty for the subsequent four years will be more jihad, aided and abetted by shortsighted U.S. policies.
-
This is a pretty good economic analysis of the Texas record addressing some of the accusations made recently against Texas, that it was all government jobs, energy jobs or minimum wage jobs. This is not specifically about Perry, just analyzes the numbers in his time, particularly during the current downturn. Too long and full of charts to do in full but here are a few excerpts. http://www.politicalmathblog.com/?p=1590
Texas job growth under Perry:
(http://www.politicalmathblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/TexasEmployment.png)
Population Growth: Texas isn't just the fastest growing... it's growing over twice as fast as the second fastest state and three times as fast as the third. Given that Texas is...huge, this growth is incredible.
People are flocking to Texas in massive numbers. This is speculative, but it *seems* that people are moving to Texas looking for jobs rather than moving to Texas for a job they already have lined up. This would explain why Texas is adding jobs faster than any other state but still has a relatively high unemployment rate.
----------------
Texas has lots of jobs, but they're mostly low-paying/minimum wage jobs??
Let's look at the data. Here's a link: Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates
Texas median hourly wage is $15.14... almost exactly in the middle of the pack (28th out of 51 regions). Given that they've seen exceptional job growth (and these other states have not) this does not seem exceptionally low.
But the implication here is that the new jobs in Texas, the jobs that Texas seems to stand alone in creating at such a remarkable pace, are low paying jobs and don't really count.
If this were true, all these new low-paying jobs should be dragging down the wages data, right? But if we look at the wages data since the beginning of the recession...it turns out that the opposite is true. Since the recession started hourly wages in Texas have increased at a 6th fastest pace in the nation.
------------------
Texas is oil country and the recent energy boom is responsible for the incredible jobs increase??
"...take the energy sector completely out of the equation and Texas is still growing faster than any other state."
------------------
Texas has 100,000 unsustainable public sector jobs that inflate the growth numbers??
"...in the last year the Texas public sector lost 31,300 federal employees, trimmed 3,800 state jobs..."
[Those Census jobs of 2010 are already gone and were not unique to Texas.]
-----------------
[Final chart] illustrates the effect of population growth on job growth and unemployment numbers, this is what the unemployment rate would be if population numbers had held constant. The job growth in Texas without figuring in the migration of workers to Texas, a largely positive phenomenon, would make Texas unemployment lowest in the nation at 2.3%.
The author does not support Perry for President but closes with this: "My advice to anti-Perry advocates is this: Give up talking about Texas jobs. Texas is an incredible outlier among the states when it comes to jobs. Not only are they creating them, they're creating ones with higher wages."
-
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/08/why-shouldnt-rick-perrys-islamic-ties-be-vetted.html
-
This link lists "Ten things about Rick Perry that may worry some conservatives".
http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2011/08/ten-things-about-rick-perry-that-may-worry-some-conservatives/
And they are in addition to the 'crony capitalism' question raised earlier and the ties to Islam question just posed. Summarized, 1. His strong 10th amendment support means opposing some conservatives on some issues, 2. Immigration, fairly lax on illegals and did not join with Arizona on that controversy, 3. toll roads = back door tax increases, 4. Trans-Texas Corridor, a planned toll road would have resulted in the government seizing through its “eminent domain” powers about 81,000 acres of land, 5. Forced immunization controversy, 6. state debt doubled, 7. some taxes went up (I suppose so, they have no income tax), 8. He endorsed Rudy Giuliani in 2008, 9. He once was a (Texas) Democrat, 10. He endorsed Al Gore, Perry was 1988 Texas presidential campaign chair. (Gore was then considered the most conservative of the Dems running.)
Personally I will not commit to a candidate until after I hear the President's new economic plan after his vacation.
-
"Gore was then considered the most conservative of the Dems running"
I recall listening to Gore back then and he did not sound like the Gore of Clinton. He did sound strong on defense and social values.
The only conceivable Rep candidate I would have trouble voting for Ron Paul.
To vote for him I would have to decide to allow Israel to be destroyed or vote against a Republican.
It is analogous to the situation that liberal American Jews are in now. They apparantly decided to support their party over Israel.
For me to vote for Ron Paul would be the same for me.
He has made his intentions over Israel clear. Additionally I suspect though I guess I have little evidence he simply does not like Jews.
-
CCP, Good news - Ron Paul won't be the nominee though he is more popular than ever. We've been through this before, but isn't it strange that a Republican soft on support for Israel can't be nominated, but an arguably anti-Israel Democrat became President, and Jewish people in majority supported him.
I recall that Israel was at one point about the only place where George Bush had a positive approval rating. He did everything he could do to protect Israel. And American Jews opposed him. :-(
-
We can be a really strange bunch some times , , ,
-
I better not let the strangeness of that one observation sit alone without pointing out the oddities of other groups. U.S. Catholics had a clear choice in Bush-Kerry between pro-life and abortion-rights and split in the exact same percentages as the general electorate. Gays in arguably 'America's gayest city' (http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/113618049.html) vote consistently for Keith Ellison, famous for choosing the religion of stoning gays to death. (Keith Ellison grew up Catholic, now Muslim, supports 'gay rights'. :?) Black Americans with almost unanimity still support the economic system that doubled their unemployment rate. White Americans (how come there is no white congressional caucus?) at least in one election supported the guy who found Reverend Wright to bring him closer to white hatred and blame America politics.
I didn't mean to single out any particular group. :wink:
-
I hope I did not inadvertently communicate that I was taking anything amiss.
-
Nope, not at all. Just clarifying for historians in case I face the scrutiny Glen Beck faced someday. :wink: Also taking the opportunity to ride all the groups for the hypocrisy that I perceive. Who knows whom(?) one might reach.
-
Sounds to me like McCain, or just a little weaker.
WSJ 8/19/2011 Political Diary
Romney vs. Romney
Mitt Romney is campaigning against tax cuts for "the rich." But if he believes that, shouldn't he also support lower taxes on more productive segments of society?
By ALLYSIA FINLEY
Mitt Romney continues to be labeled a weak presidential front-runner who has failed to excite the GOP base, and his comments on tax reform this week help to explain why.
"I'm not for tax cuts for the rich. The rich can take care of themselves," he told an audience in Plymouth, N.H., on Monday. "I want to make sure that whatever we do in the tax code, we're not giving a windfall to the very wealthy."
It appears that Mr. Romney and President Obama don't just have health-care reform in common. Both are also campaigning against tax cuts for "the rich." Mr. Romney of course wouldn't want to sound like the president, which is probably why he added that raising taxes on the wealthy hurts job growth and that the government is "taking too much already." But if he believes that, shouldn't he also support lower taxes on more productive segments of society?
Mr. Romney's position on the Bush tax cuts, which reduced the top marginal rate for the wealthiest Americans to 35% from 39.6%, is likewise unclear. During his a stop in Berlin, N.H., on Tuesday, he spoke favorably of the Bush tax cuts. But as governor of Massachusetts, Mr. Romney refused to endorse them. As the Boston Globe reported in 2003, Mr. Romney told the state's congressional delegation that he didn't support tax cuts for the wealthy and wouldn't be a "cheerleader." By the time Mr. Romney was running for president four years later, he'd come around to supporting the tax cuts.
His stance on reforming the tax code to make it flatter and more efficient is also murky. In 1996, he took out a full-page newspaper ad slamming Steve Forbes's proposed 17% flat tax as a "tax cut for fat cats." Yet this week he said that he planned to announce a tax proposal that would bring "our tax rates down, both at the corporate level and the individual level, simplifying the tax code, perhaps with fewer brackets. The idea of one bracket alone would be even better, in some respects."
Here's hoping that Mr. Romney's newest rival, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, will help the Bay Stater settle on some core convictions.
-
Some random musings , , ,
*It would appear that my $25 to Newt was a complete waste. He's now campaigning with his wife in Hawaii :roll:. Done with you Newt; that was the last burn.
*Bachman will weaken from here; the overlap on the issues and on the executive experience thing alone will bleed out to Perry. Imagine the optics of a picture of the two of them, side by side.
*Ryan smoke signals on the horizon?
*People are looking for candidates willing and capable to face down Baraq. Candidates lacking that fade. Romney? Ryan has smoke signals out there, certainly he dominates the budgetary dimension better than anyone else out there, and, IMHO is capable of utterly bitchslapping His Glibness to the point of lasting humilation.
-
Perry will eat Barry for lunch.
-
At this point, I like having the large number of candidates running. Newt is pulling a Newt, but he also is a historic figure and brings something of substance to the stage. Bachmann and Cain both add significant substance plus take away the only criticism that we otherwise would be hearing, that it is a party only of white, middle aged males. Pawlenty, when he was not trying to be something he isn't, brought another leadership style with experience to the equation. Ryan is the master of just what Crafty said. He sees the big picture and the inner details of the budget. Because his own plan is out there he will be easier to demagogue but very convincing in his own defense. Christy, Palin, who knows, but it does seem to all come down Perry vs. Romney and who is the frontrunner depends on where you are.
One question I have is this: Does the administration fear Perry the most? Just judging by their actions, but we see a campaign war machine suddenly gear up and trash him like we never saw for Romney or Bachmann or any others so far.
-----
That said, what follows is the WSJ editorial 8/19/11 answering some charges leveled against Texas under Perry:
The Texas Jobs Panic
Liberals try to discredit the Lone Star State's economic success.
Rick Perry is not the subtlest politician, but he looks like Pericles next to the liberals falling over themselves to discredit job creation in Texas. We'd have thought any new jobs would be a blessing when 25 million Americans are looking for full-time work, but apparently new jobs aren't valuable jobs if they're created in a state that rejects Obamanomics.
Let's dissect the Texas record. The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas reported this summer that Texas created 37% of all net new American jobs since the recovery began in June 2009. Texas by far outpaced every other state, including those with large populations like New York and California and those with faster-growing economies, like North Dakota. Other states have lower unemployment rates than Texas's 8.2%, though that is below the national average and the state is also adding jobs faster than any other.
Texas is also among the three states and the District of Columbia that are home to more jobs today than when the recession began in December 2007. Without the Texas gains, according to the Dallas Fed, annual U.S. job growth would have been 0.97% instead of 1.17%. Over the past five years, Texas has added more net new jobs than all other states combined.
The critics claim demography is destiny, and of course jobs and population tend to rise and fall in tandem. The number of Texans is booming: According to the Census Bureau, the population grew 20.6% between 2000 and 2010, behind only Nevada, Arizona, Utah and Arizona. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the seasonally adjusted size of the Texas labor force has increased by 5% since December 2007, faster than any state other than North Carolina at 5.4%, though the Tar Heel State has declined 0.4% over the last year. The labor force has shrunk in 28 states since December 2007.
Some of this Texas growth is due to high birth rates, some to immigration. But it also reflects the flight of people from other states. People and capital are mobile and move where the opportunities are greatest. Texas is attractive to workers and employers alike because of its low costs of living and doing business. The government in Austin is small, taxes are low, regulation is stable, and the litigation system is more predictable after Mr. Perry's tort reforms—all of which is a magnet for private investment and hiring.
As for the critics, well, one of their explanations is that Americans are moving to Texas because of the nice weather. The temperature in Fort Worth this week reached 108 degrees.
The critics also claim that Texas's new jobs somehow don't count because the wages are supposedly low and the benefits stingy. Yet BLS pegs the median hourly wage in Texas at $15.14, 93% of the national average, and wages have increased at a good clip: in fact, the 10th fastest state in 2010 at 3.4%.
The Texas skeptics often invoke high energy prices, as if Texas were some sheikdom next to Mexico. But according to the Dallas Fed study, energy jobs accounted for only 10.6% of the new positions. The state economy today is far more broadly based than it was before the early-1980s oil-and-gas bust. For the last nine years, Texas has led the states in exports.
To put a finer point on it, the energy industry isn't expanding merely because of rising oil prices or new natural resources. Technological innovation is also driving the business, such as the horizontal drilling that has enabled shale oil and gas fracking. New ideas are how an economy expands.
Nearly 31% of the new Texas jobs are in health care, many of which are no doubt the product of federal entitlements that go to every state. But the state is also making progress filling in historical access gaps in west and south Texas and the panhandle, where Mr. Perry's 2003 malpractice caps have led to an influx of doctors, especially high-risk specialists. The Texas Public Policy Foundation estimates that the state has netted 26,000 new physicians in the wake of reform, most from out of state.
Liberals do have a point that Texas avoided the worst of the housing boom and bust, in part because of regulations imposed in the S&L backwash that limit mortgage borrowing to 80% of the appraised value of a home. But isn't this smart regulation? These same liberals promoted rules that kept down payments much lower than 20% at federal agencies, and they're now encouraging the Administration to prop up housing to prevent foreclosures and thus prevent the market from finding a bottom.
Mr. Perry's Texas record is far from perfect, as Charles Dameron recently showed on these pages with his reporting on the Governor's politicized venture-capital fund. But the larger story is that Mr. Perry inherited a well-functioning economy and has managed it well, mainly by avoiding the kind of policy disruptions that his liberal critics favor in the name of this or that social or political goal. This achievement may not earn a Nobel prize in economics, but it does help explain why Texas is outperforming the nation.
-
The real humor here (media issue) in a sober, fact filled op-ed is the last line that says 'Paul Krugman is off today'. This columnist is saying to the liberal attack machine and to his GOP rivals, go after Perry personally to get him, don't attack Texas while it is out-performing the other states and the union. Some of his facts seem to come from reading the forum. :wink:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/opinion/messing-with-texas.html?_r=1
Messing With Texas
By ROSS DOUTHAT
Published: August 21, 2011
Gov. Rick Perry of Texas hasn’t lost an election in 10 tries. Among his vanquished opponents, this streak has inspired not only the usual mix of resentment and respect, but a touch of supernatural awe. “Running against Perry,” one of them told Texas Monthly, “is like running against God.”
Perry’s 2012 rivals can’t afford to entertain such thoughts. If either Mitt Romney or Barack Obama hopes to snap the Texas governor’s winning streak, the election will need to become a referendum on Perry himself, in all his heat-packing, secession-contemplating glory. If it becomes a referendum on his home state instead, Perry’s 11th campaign will probably turn out like all the others.
Perry’s critics don’t like to admit this. After he launched his campaign with an extended brag about Texas job creation, there was a rush to cut Texas down to size — to dismiss the Lone Star economic miracle as a mirage conjured by population growth, petro-dollars and low-paying McJobs.
But the more the Internet’s hive mind worked through the data, the weaker this critique looked. Yes, Texas’s growing population has contributed to the job boom, but the boom has driven population growth as well. The influx of people has been too extraordinary to just be chalked up to, say, snowbirds seeking 105-degree retirements. More likely, thousands of Americans have responded to hard times in their home states by moving to Texas in search of work.
As the policy blogger Matthias Shapiro pointed out in an exhaustive analysis, the jobs they’re finding aren’t unusually low-paying: the state’s median hourly wage is close to the national average, and since the recession started, Texan wages have increased at the sixth-fastest pace in the country. Nor are the jobs confined to the oil and gas industries: “Take the energy sector completely out of the equation,” Shapiro noted, “and Texas is still growing faster than any other state.”
On Friday, in a Bloomberg Television interview, Education Secretary Arne Duncan tried to open up another anti-Texan front, saying he feels “very, very badly for the children” in Texas’s supposedly underfinanced public schools. But here, too, the evidence doesn’t back up Duncan’s criticism. Texas does have higher high school dropout rates than the average American state. But then again, Texas isn’t an average state: it’s an enormous melting pot that shares a porous, 1,969-mile border with Mexico. Once you control for demographics and compare like with like, the Texan educational record looks much more impressive.
When a 2009 McKinsey study contrasted Perry’s home state to the similarly sized and situated California, it found that Texas students were “one to two years of learning ahead of California students of the same age, even though Texas has less income per capita and spends less per pupil than California.”
When it comes to minority achievement, Texas looks even better: On the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress math exam, black eighth graders in Texas outscored black eighth graders in every other state.
To be sure, the Texas model doesn’t always impress. (Twenty-seven percent of Texans lack health insurance, for instance, compared with 21 percent of Californians.) But Perry can credibly claim that his state delivers on conservative governance’s two most important promises: a private sector that creates jobs at a remarkable clip, and a public sector that seems to get more for the taxpayers’ money than many more profligate state governments.
The question is whether Perry himself deserves any of the credit. Here his critics become much more persuasive. When Perry became governor, taxes were already low, regulations were light, and test scores were on their way up. He didn’t create the zoning rules that keep Texas real estate affordable, or the strict lending requirements that minimized the state’s housing bubble. Over all, the Texas model looks like something he inherited rather than a system he built.
This means that unlike many of his fellow Republican governors, from Mitch Daniels to Chris Christie to Scott Walker — or a Democratic governor like Andrew Cuomo, for that matter — Perry can’t claim to have battled entrenched interest groups, or stemmed a flood tide of red ink. Instead, many of his policy forays have been boondoggles or train wrecks, from the failed attempt to build a $175 billion Trans-Texas Corridor (the kind of project conservatives would mock mercilessly if a Democrat proposed it) to an ill-designed 2006 tax reform that’s undercut the state’s finances.
But of course none of those reforming governors are currently in the race against him. Instead Perry faces an unloved Republican front-runner, with a weakened incumbent president waiting in the wings.
Which bring us back to that 10-election winning streak. Maybe God really is on Rick Perry’s side. Or maybe Perry just knows how to pick his opponents.
Paul Krugman is off today.
-
He seems to have no chance, but I still like Huntsman. A voice of practical reasonableness.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/22/jon-huntsman-s-reasonable-man-act.html
-
"Newt is pulling a Newt, but he also is a historic figure and brings something of substance to the stage."
Yes. He made a fantastic point about the absurdity of the NEW 6 person "bipartisan" debt panel in advance.
This is genius to cut off the political fiasco of it all by the knees even before it gets off the ground.
The whole idea of it is nonsense and a waste of time. We know what they are going to say. It has all been said before and it is just horse BM.
Newt was brilliant to point it out now so the Repubs can right off the bat let it be known they are not going to be taken for any rides along the socialist pathway based on some silly debt panel commission.
I think Jeb Bush is on the cable again tonight. This is as far as I know the second time on. I wonder if he is trial ballooning.
I agree with Doug's point that G senior was a first rate diplomat but a so so Pres. W. was great with 9/11 but left a big mess after that. Not all his fault of course but...
As for Jeb he may be too moderate but he didn't sound like that a few weeks ago. He was liked in Florida when I lived there.
I remember seeing him campaign with W in Orlando. Most importantly Bo Derek was on stage with them. :-D
-
Huntsman, like Jim Webb or Evan Bayh, Kent Conrad or Byron Dorgan and others, would be a pretty good moderate or centrist alternative to consider in place of the more polarizing candidates, Obama, Perry, Bachmann, etc. I saw him yesterday on ABC's This Week, "Jon Huntsman Comes Out Swinging Against GOP Rivals":
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jon-huntsman-swinging-gop-rivals/story?id=14349989
He makes very clear he is different from the other GOP candidates. He has never made clear, however, why he runs as a Republican. He gave no sign of trust whatsoever in the economic policies of any GOP rival and gives absolutely no indication that if he fails to win the nomination that he would vote for any one of the R contenders over his old boss President Obama.
Video link: http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/interview-jon-huntsman-14349691
His rehearsed slap: he doesn't have time to discuss all Romney's position change because it would take all afternoon - lacked any setup. All he could get was a question about them agreeing on tax policy but he ran with the stale punchline anyway. A decade and half ago Romney opposed a flat tax, in a different context, running for a different office. What was Huntsman's position on the flat tax a decade and a half ago? Nobody knows. Nobody cares? They don't even ask him about China policy or what role (none) he played in formulating Pres. Obama's foreign policy.
-
CCP, Dick Morris said about Newt today, he is the fighter who is behind on points the whole fight but capable of delivering the knockout at any time, he is such a good debater. He is wrong on that optimism IMO. Newt is capable of developing the knockout argument for the eventual nominee, but not capable of winning himself. Don't we already have a knockout argument?
Fred Barnes wrote a good piece about Jeb in 2006: If only his last name was smith': http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/293ppytu.asp (A little reminiscing reading the article, national unemployment was 4.6 as Dems were poised to take over Washington - that's George Bush's fault! In Florida under Jeb it was 3.0!)
Highly qualified and accomplished like Perry. More diplomatic, not as much of a lightning rod. More conservative than W. Bush. Jeb is too 'liberal' for your tastes on immigration policy.
Maybe not Jeb or his successor Crist, but the one who grew to national prominence and future Presidency out of that time in Florida perhaps was (VP nominee?) Sen. Marco Rubio.
-
Huntsman needs to challenge Obama for the nomination.
-
I think if you look at his record as governor you will be satisfied.
Futher, he is the only candidate IMHO with foreign policy experience.
I, and I think a lot of Americans would vote for him. He makes sense.
As a side note, Doug, you should like his pro life position.
-
JDN, Pro-life makes him human, not necessarily Republican or conservative. :wink: I found that brief video to be full of selective outrage and deception.
-
Baraq's Chinese policy is not one that I would consider for general application. Bachman is on the Foreign Intel Committee IIRC, and Perry has had considerable dealings with the Mexico and its govt-- also of huge importance to us.
OTOH IIRC Huntsman regards the Tea Party as extremist, apparently has no problem raising taxes and wants to put the Federal Govt in charge of the planet's weather, and to legalize 12-16 million people here illegally.
================
Herman's Weekly Commentary: "Mr. President, You're Fired"
Published: Sunday, August 21, 2011
Having served on the Board of Directors of several major corporations over the last twenty years, I have had the responsibility of voting to hire a new CEO, and voting to fire a current CEO many times. In both instances the decision was based on assessed potential and performance.
Directors hold CEOs responsible for results, and the prudent use of company resources such as cash, equity and human resources. Specific metrics are established for both annual and multi-year performance, which are evaluated in making the hire or fire decision.
If a CEO is underperforming and on the brink of being fired, then we look to see if he or she has identified the right problem, and, has established a plan of action to get things back on track. If the plan is convincing and the performance metrics were missed by a reasonable amount, then he or she would be given a specific amount of time to get back on track.
The Board has to decide what‚s convincing, what‚s reasonable and how much time should be allowed for a course correction. Then take action.
President Obama‚s economic policies have failed unreasonably. He has no plan for a course correction. He has promised a plan for focusing on job creation since he has been in office. He has had over two and a half years to get it right, and now he wants a month to write another speech, following a three day bus tour that produced nothing but a bunch of photo-ops. We are not convinced we will hear anything new. A Board‚s action would be unanimous.
Mr. President, you‚re fired.
I realize that only the voters can fire President Barack Obama in November of 2012. But his performance and his potential plan for serious economic growth are not likely to change anything. The Board of Directors would have no choice.
But America has a choice. Elect Herman Cain president in 2012.
Here‚s Phase 1 of my economic growth plan. It‚s called the 9-9-9 plan.
A 9% business flat tax
Gross income less all investments, all purchases from other businesses,
and all dividends paid to shareholders.
A 9% individual income flat tax
Gross income less charitable deductions
A 9% national sales tax
This significantly expands the tax base which helps everybody.
This plan has the following advantages:
It is fair, revenue neutral, transparent and efficient
Zero tax on capital gains and repatriated profits
Replaces the payroll tax
Will aid capital availability for small businesses
Saves taxpayers $430 billion in annual compliance costs
It eliminates the uncertainty holding this economy down
Current economic conditions call for bold moves to boost and supercharge this economy. If we are in an economic recovery as the administration claims, this economy is still 6 million jobs below the worst recovery since the Great Depression. The latest evidence shows that we are still in economic decline.
This plan is bold and doable. It has been developed and analyzed by some of the best economic minds in the nation. Remember, I surround myself with good people. That‚s the key to my success and it will continue to be.
I offer this plan to the president, the Congress and the „super committee‰. I could wait until after I am elected president, but America can‚t keep waiting.
Struggling businesses and fifteen million unemployed people can‚t wait.
We need serious economic growth NOW! Please Mr. President, just do it!
###
If you want to send the clear message to President Obama that Americans want a problem solving leader with Common Sense Solutions, support Herman Cain.
-
Perry's dealings with Mexico seem to consist of complaining about the border. Has he even met with the Mexican government? Complaining is not foreign policy experience. And Bachman is an 8 month member on the Intel committee. That's not the foreign affairs committee. Neither have any foreign policy experience compared to Huntsman.
-
JDN writes:
"Perry's dealings with Mexico seem to consist of complaining about the border."
Well yeah. What else is he supposed to do JDN? Look at Arizona. They try to take up border security on their own and Brock takes them to court.
Well Gallup has Perry dead even in a poll for PResident with Brock! He hasn't even gotten off the ground yet and the political assasination attempts by the Democratic party and the MSM so far are failing big time.
Even Romeny is ahead :-D
-
Who does Huntsman think is our enemy is and how does he propose to defeat them?
He offers a 1:37 video at this link that I find to be a start to that answer: http://www.jon2012.com/blog/Tags/Foreign-Policy As it can be said about the other candidates, there is no point in the video where he could interject: "I am the candidate who has experience doing that."
He takes Obama's only success, the bin laden kill operation, and suggests all threat should be handled that way. Gather perfect intelligence without boots on the ground and very sparingly carry out special forces operations at just that moment before real threats attack us inside our borders. Good luck with that!
Huntsman favored the Iraq surge, influenced by his friendship with John McCain, also favored the Afghan surge as far as we know, but would bring all troops out of both Iraq and Afghanistan now regardless of events on the ground. No contradiction there (sarc). He opposed the Libyan intervention and has no real comment on 'Arab spring' or 'Chinese winter'. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/arab-spring-chinese-winter/8601/?single_page=true
That is a coherent foreign policy that would help Republicans win the White House and make the world more secure?? If so, his articulation skills are right up there with W. Bush.
-
Taxing businesses at 9%, personal at 9% and consumption at 9%: Very interesting! I don't endorse his plan but I would admit that:
a) Cain's plan is the best or only real plan for success now on the table from the candidates, b) it is a significant improvement over his previous blind support for the 'Fair tax' that unrealistically requires and assumes repeal of the 16th amendment, the power to tax income federally at all, and c) his plan, if we could stick to it, would grow us out of this mess.
That said, I think the risk of initiating a new federal tax, a national sales tax, without repealing the federal income tax, is not worth the risk in this pendulum political environment where radical the pro-tax, anti-wealth liberals will likely take back over once the job growth record again hits 50 consecutive months.
I would rather see them lower the income tax rates on everything, eliminate illogical loopholes and leave the sales tax base to the states who have their own financial challenges.
-----
Pawlenty's plan of lowering capital gains rates to zero was (also) unrealistic - a critical political error that contributed to the fact that no one took his overall proposal seriously.
-
JDN:
I think you understate what being governor of Texas for 11 years entails in terms of understanding and dealing with Mexico by quite a bit.
Bachman: thanks for the correction on the committee. I assume you are right on the time involved and yes it is very little.
Huntsman: Granted the experience of having been ambassador to China and speaking the language are quite relevant, but exactly what, if anything, has he done/is he responsible for with regard to China other than write ass kissing letters to Baraq?
-
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/08/perrys-pandering.html
-
One unmentioned advantage Perry has over Romney is that he could pick a highly qualified, private sector trained northeasterner for his running mate to balance out that he has too much government executive experience and that he is 'too-Texas' for the rest of the nation, he could pick Mitt Romney.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2011/08/24/who-would-rick-perry-choose-for-vice-president/
-
"he is 'too-Texas'"
You mean like LBjerk?
For me, Brock is too Hahvood.
The liberals sure think they know what is best for the world don't they.
Never enough pinstripes.
-
One unmentioned advantage Perry has over Romney is that he could pick a highly qualified, private sector trained northeasterner for his running mate to balance out that he has too much government executive experience and that he is 'too-Texas' for the rest of the nation, he could pick Mitt Romney.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2011/08/24/who-would-rick-perry-choose-for-vice-president/
I think lots of the rest of America is feeling a bit of Texas.
-
I see Sen. Rubio as a good choice. Free enterprise is not only for white people, good for latino vote and great message for where the Rep party wants to be with Latinos, young, telegenic, and great speaker for the American Creed.
-
The teaser with Rubio is to tempt the Obama team to call a first term Senator unqualified to be Vice President.
Interesting endorsement of Perry by a former adversary. Daily Beast seems like an unusual venue a surprising Perry plug.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/24/kinky-friedman-rick-perry-s-got-my-vote.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Farticles+%28The+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles%29
"he is a good, kindhearted man, and he once sat in on drums with ZZ Top. A guy like that can’t be all bad."
...
"These days, of course, I would support Charlie Sheen over Obama. Obama has done for the economy what pantyhose did for foreplay. "
...
"I agree with Rick that there are already too damn many laws, taxes, regulations, panels, committees, and bureaucrats. While Obama is busy putting the hyphen between “anal” and “retentive” Rick will be rolling up his sleeves and getting to work." - Kinky Friedman
-
Rick Perry this week roared away from the pack. Gallup had him the party favorite, with 29% of Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents saying they're most likely to support him. Next came Mitt Romney with 17%, Ron Paul with 13%, and Michele Bachmann at 10%. All the rest were single digits except for "no preference," which got 17%.
On top of that, Mr. Perry got the much-coveted Kinky Friedman vote. The political gadfly and musician, who in 2006 ran as an Independent against Mr. Perry, wrote in the Daily Beast that he didn't always like the Texas governor. It had in fact been his plan to, upon death, be cremated and have the ashes thrown in Rick Perry's hair. But now he sees Mr. Perry as "a good, kind-hearted man" with a solid economic record. Mr. Friedman admitted he'd vote for Charlie Sheen before Barack Obama, but asked: Could Perry fix the American economy? "Hell yes."
Mr. Perry's primary virtue for the Republican base is that he means it. He comes across as a natural conservative, Texas Division, who won't be changing his mind about his basic premises any time soon. His professed views don't seem to be an outfit he can put on and take off at will. In this of course he's the anti-Romney. Unlike Ms. Bachmann, he has executive experience, three terms as governor of a state with 25 million people.
His primary flaw appears to be a chesty, quick-draw machismo that might be right for an angry base but wrong for an antsy country. Americans want a president who feels their anger without himself walking around enraged.
View Full Image
Associated Press
.Mr. Perry's announcement speech on Aug. 13 was strong and smart. Biography: He's the son of tenant farmers from Paint Creek, a town too small to have a zip code, in the Texas plains. The meaning of the biography: The American dream lives on. "You see," he said, "as Americans we're not defined by class, and we will never be told our place. What makes our nation exceptional is that anyone, from any background, can climb the highest of heights." He laced into the incumbent: "Now we're told we're in a recovery. Yeah. But this sure doesn't feel like a recovery to more than 9% of Americans out there who are unemployed, or the 16% of African Americans and 11% of Hispanics in the same position." The recovery is really a "disaster."
Then, stingingly, "[The president's] policies are not only a threat to this economy, so are his appointees a threat. You see he stacked the National Labor Relations Board with antibusiness cronies who want to dictate to a private company, Boeing, where they can build a plant. No president, no president should kill jobs in South Carolina, or any other state for that matter, simply because they chose to go to a right-to-work state." Mr. Perry was speaking in Charleston, so the Boeing reference had local resonance: But what appears to be the Obama administration's attempt to curry favor with unions by stopping a Boeing plant may have national resonance, too.
More Peggy Noonan
Read Peggy Noonan's previous columns
click here to order her new book, Patriotic Grace
.Mr. Perry's now-famous gaffes, for which he's been roundly criticized, are said to suggest an infelicity of language. But they look more like poor judgement. On Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke: "If this guy prints more money between now and the election, I dunno what y'all would do to him in Iowa, but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas. Printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history is almost treasonous in my opinion." On the subject of secession: "We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that." On President Obama's patriotism—in response to a question from this newspaper's Danny Yadron, who asked Mr. Perry if he was suggesting that Mr. Obama didn't love this country: 'I dunno, you need to ask him.'" On Mr. Obama's lack of military service: "The president had the opportunity to serve his country I'm sure, at some time, and he made the decision that that wasn't what he wanted to do."
The secession reference was off the cuff, not spoken in a speech that had been fully thought through. Still, to refer blithely to secession, even in that context, as anything but tragic—which both it and the potential reasons behind it would be—suggests a lack of reflection, a lack of gravitas, a carelessness. As for Mr. Bernanke, he is an earnest public servant who is either right or wrong in his assumptions and decisions, but certainly not treacherous or treasonous.
Why does this kind of thing matter? Because presidential temperament has never been more important. We can't escape presidents now, they're all over every screen, and they set a tone.
And the nation is roiling and restive. After Mr. Obama was elected, the right became angry, feisty, and created a new and needed party, the tea party. The right was on fire. The next time a Republican wins, and that could be next year, it will be the left that shows real anger, with unemployment high and no jobs available and government spending and services likely to be cut. The left will be on fire. The only thing leashing them now is the fact of Mr. Obama.
So there will be plenty of new angers out there. It probably won't be helpful if the next president is someone likely to add to the drama with a hot temperament or carelessness.
A lesson from the Reagan experience:
In 1980 the American electorate was so disturbed by economic disorder that it took a big leap. The leap was Ronald Reagan, the most conservative president since Calvin Coolidge was elected in 1924. Ronald Reagan was not the moderate in the GOP field, he was not the "establishment candidate." It took a real leap to get to him.
The public was able to make the leap for two big reasons. He represented a conservatism that could be clearly asserted, defended and advanced, and which marked a break from the reigning thinking which had gotten us into trouble. And he was a person of moderate temperament and equability. He was good natured, even-keeled, competent and accomplished. Just because he wanted to do some "radical" things didn't mean he would allow a spirit of radicalism to overtake his personality or essential nature.
And this was important in 1980 because Mr. Carter, at the end of the campaign, tried to paint Mr. Reagan as an angry cowboy with crazy ideas. You don't want that guy with his finger on the button.
It was a serious charge. People would listen, and consider whether there seemed to be truth in it. Then Mr. Reagan would walk out on the TV screen and give a speech or an interview and people would see this benign and serious person and think, "He isn't radical. That's not what radical looks like."
They only lept toward him after they looked.
In 2012, the Republican candidate will be called either mean or dumb, or both. Certainly, his politics will be called mean. And if the candidate is Rick Perry, people will look at him and think: Hmmm, is there something to the charge?
He should keep that in mind as he pops off. If there is a deeper, more reflective person there he'd best show it, sooner rather than later. This is the point where out of the corner of their eye, people are starting to get impressions.
-
Noonan makes a good point about over the top rhetoric not being helpful but completely misses the the real significance of the point Perry made.
The others talk in obtuse terms about what they might do in 1 1/2 years depending on what the circumstances might be then. Perry was the first to put anybody on notice that we don't want any more damage done in this country now, especially in the interest artificially propping up the incumbent.
One thing the Bush-Cheney haters missed last decade was the friendship of Cheney and Greenspan and what role that may have had in him continuing the accommodative monetary policy far longer than they should have, in particular through the 2004 elections. It wasn't lost on Perry.
Perry put the Fed on notice that as the possible next President he expects them to do their job protecting the dollar responsibly. THAT is off limits? Using strong words that gets everyone's attention is a negative?? How so? Check the polls on that, lol.
And then there was secessionism. The founders and framers were secessionists. For one thing, secession to gain freedom from tyranny after trying everything else has nothing to do with secession for slavery. Breaking up the union isn't anybody's first choice. Freedom is.
Personally I favor fixing what is wrong, not leaving. That said, I value freedom of speech and that includes brainstorming among friends about all theoretical ways of not having every decision and choice in your life being ruled by afar. In a moment of extreme frustration, that discussion might include a mention of secession.
So politically we have a guy talking about extreme measures in the pursuit of freedom and he is running against a guy in a candid moment that was caught talking about typical white people, clinging to religion and doing some blow. I can work with that choice and Peggy Noonan can make hers. A wordsmith she is, but if she would look past the deck chairs she might see the iceberg approaching.
-
Well said, Doug!
-
I agree.
-
While I agree that Greenspan accommodated monetary policy too long, his actions were hardly "treasonable". Nor are Bernanke's actions "treasonable"; a very strong and offensive word. You seem to forget the Fed's two mandates are "to promote sustainable growth AND high levels of employment". "Protecting the dollar" only applies as it falls within the above.
As for the "mention of succession" I think as a country we tried that once; it didn't work out too well. I doubt if the idea has any more appeal to the nation than it did back then.
While I have nothing against Perry, I'm looking forward to learning and seeing more of him, he might work on his choice of words; what works in Texas might not work or appeal to the rest of America or on the World's stage.
-
JDN:
I'd like to suggest that you go back and see what actually was said; your words here misportray things.
Working from memory, what Perry said was that IF Bernanke further damaged the dollar by printing more money for the political purpose of getting Baraq elected, THEN that would be near-treasonous.
THAT is QUITE a bit different from what you just posted.
-
Republicans must not let MSM and right elistist like the Bush people distract from the task at hand.
Stop worrying and hand wringing about minor issues like ocassional choice of words.
We must have a man/woman who as Doug rightly pointed out can stand right next to Brock and point out where he is lying, where he is wrong and starkly contrast why he is purposely taking this country in a direction that is wrong.
See my post from the Hillsdale college piece that beautifully shows how we are on a path to dismal mediocracy and probably eventiual ruin like in Europe.
JDN wants a paternalisitic security driven economy and welfare state. I don't. And I believe most people in America who truly understand what it means don't.
As for the immigrants the legal ones are not the same as the illegal ones. The ones who are illegal clearly don't give a shit about our laws, our culture, our society. They are here for jobs, to siphon off money to send back home and get whatever they can in the way of giveaways. They are tilting the balance in favor of a welfare state.
This may very well be the last stand as the Hillsdale piece suggests. Soon more than 50% of our population will receiving bribes.
The whole system will come crashing down eventually.
-
JDN:
I'd like to suggest that you go back and see what actually was said; your words here misportray things.
Working from memory, what Perry said was that IF Bernanke further damaged the dollar by printing more money for the political purpose of getting Baraq elected, THEN that would be near-treasonous.
THAT is QUITE a bit different from what you just posted.
And I still disagree; IF Bernanke decides it is in the best interest of America (and he has repeatedly said so) to "print more money" "to promote sustainable growth AND high levels of employment" that is NOT a "treasonable" action. Nor were Greenspan's actions "treasonable". Of course, you can disagree with their actions, but neither were "treasonable". Such irresponsible language from a potential president seems inappropriate to me as does foolish and perhaps offensive talk of succession. As I side note, I find it interesting that Bernanke was appointed to be head of the Fed by Republican President Bush and only reappointed by Obama.
That said, as CCP quoted, "We must have a man/woman who as Doug rightly pointed out can stand right next to Brock and point out where he is lying, where he is wrong and starkly contrast why he is purposely taking this country in a direction that is wrong."
Nothing wrong with that. But language is important.
-
Yes language is important. That is why you should not misportray this:
"what Perry said was that IF Bernanke further damaged the dollar by printing more money for the political purpose of getting Baraq elected, THEN that would be near-treasonous."
I would rather he not have put things like that, mostly because some people :wink: will be determined to misportray it.
-
"I would rather he not have put things like that, mostly because some people will be determined to misportray it."
Exactly. The main reason it is important so as not to give political adversaries fodder.
In a side note but related, it has been interesting to see Bushies like Rove become adversaries. I ask who elected him?
He damaged O'Donnel and now Perry.
I saw Jeb Bush on Fox again. He is definitely NOT the Republican this country needs. He sounded like the appearer of the past not like I sounded last week.
His families political "accomodating", if you will, has in retrospect, clearly helped lead us into the mess we are in now.
We don't need niceness. We need someone who can express and explain the urgency/emergency we are in and give us a clear path out without appeasement.
No appeasement. Respectful ok. But strict and clear. If we can't stop it here it is probably over. As Doug also pointed out, here we are in the wrost economic crises in a lifetime and Brock still has a 50/50 chance of winning. If that doesn't make it clear what we are up against (the welfare state) than nothing will.
-
"He sounded like the appearer"
should have been appeaSer. Sorry.
-
Looks to me like Rove cannot bring down Perry. Rove, like Newt, was the genius for a time, but he was not the genius when he left power. I like to read him and listen to him for his electoral insights, but he wields no direct power. The openness of the feud and differences between the Bush and Perry camps is exactly what Perry needs for his separation from the past. If Perry was a Bush prodigy groomed and advanced by Bush Rove Cheney, he would not even be considered. He is a bit too rough around the edges for Peggy Noonan types and that makes him anti-establishment, which in this moment is a huge positive.
Words: I can't follow a discussion about the importance of words that goes on to ignore their precise meanings. 'Almost treasonous' means not treasonous because treason has a specific meaning and 'almost' means some element of that is missing. Obama and Bernancke have pursued policies that brought epidemic levels of unemployment, inflation impending, debt beyond wildest imagination, generational theft, destruction of our productive capability, deprivation of our citizens and industries of the energy necessary to succeed - they have caused as much economic carnage in this country as any enemy ever has in any direct attack. They are one discovered email or FBI taped meeting away from us finding out it was intentional or conducted in collusion with some enemy of the United States. The damage is our worst enemy's dream come true; a felony except for missing the proof of intention. Almost treasonous is as accurate as any description I have seen.
Was Noonan up in arms when Obama said 'enemy' for political opponent, when Biden called Republicans 'terrorists', when the left called intensive questioning 'torture' or when the entire left said 'lied about WMD' which means knowingly and intentional when it was neither. They tried to try their predecessors as war criminals, then tell us to talk nice, don't say something strong but absolutely true that could be misportrayed. If the sides were reversed they would fall off their desks to hear conservatives even say 'nearly lied' if a different administration turned out to be partly wrong about WMD.
The central policies and direction of Obama and of the left are known to be anti-growth economic policies. They are adding regulations daily to an already strangulation level of regulatory burden. They have accelerated spending and borrowing on steroids. They added two dozen new taxes through Obamacare and want other taxes to go up. Where we have racial unrest they doubled black unemployment. They continue to put up roadblocks to producing energy at home while praising and funding the same projects in Brazil. All these moves are known to kill jobs and they did. It kills off investment. It enriches the people who bet against our economy like the buyers of gold. The only close model for it is the Great Depression and in fact the more that FDR's policies made things worse and prolonged the carnage, the more power he acquired.
Bernancke is complicit in it all. They don't spend a trillion and half more than they take in if he doesn't provide the money. Housing didn't go up where it did if he didn't fund it. Gold and oil don't get bid up to those levels if he didn't monetize it. Where did that money go? They say high energy prices helped some in Texas. Maybe so. Try also looking at places like Putin's Russia. Our failed policies enrich him and expand his power and influence. Also Chavez, Libya, Iran, all of OPEC etc.
People look at all the unemployment and wealth destruction and think the words used to describe it all are the problem?? Good grief.
I say stop the destruction and then stop the harsh words. Instead President Obama is gearing up for another round of desruction - after this brief intermission to silence the critics.
"what works in Texas might not work..."
Looks like it IS working.
-
http://factcheck.org/2011/08/what-perry-really-said-about-secession/
What Perry Really Said About Secession
August 23, 2011
The Obama team falsely suggests Texas Gov. Rick Perry advocated secession. Perry's actual remarks have been mischaracterized. Perry entertained a reporter's question about secession after a tea party rally in 2009, and warned that "if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what may come out of that?" But he's made clear all along that "we've got a great union" and there is "no reason to dissolve it."
Perry has carelessly commented that Texas has a unique right to secede from the union, having once been an independent republic. That's a myth, historians say. But Perry never advocated secession.
Perry Never Advocated Secession
Perry has been dogged by mischaracterizations of his secession comments ever since he made them. But with Perry recently declaring himself a Republican candidate for president, those attacks have been ramped up by opponents trying to marginalize his candidacy by dismissing Perry as the guy who once talked about Texas seceding from the union.
In an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Aug. 21, Robert Gibbs, a former White House spokesman and now an adviser for the Obama reelection campaign, was asked about Perry's thinly veiled suggestion that President Barack Obama didn't love his country.
Gibbs, Aug 21: Well, two things come to mind. Rick Perry is the governor who, two years ago, openly talked about whether or not Texas should leave the union. So I think for Rick Perry to, at one point, talk about secession from the union as early as–or as far back as only 2009, I think it's good that he's professed his love for this country. But I'll be honest with you, Savannah, I think the American people are tired of the politics where, if you and I don't agree on something, I question your love of country and your patriotism.
A week earlier, White House spokesman Jay Carney took a similar jab, when he was asked by New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd what he thought about Perry's comment that it would be "treasonous" for Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke to print more money.
Carney, Aug. 16: We may disagree with our political opponents, but we certainly think they’re all patriots — even those who wanted to secede from the union.
Perry's secession comments came after a tea party event in April 2009. They quickly went viral on the Internet and touched off a firestorm of media scrutiny.
Here's the full exchange, which you can watch here, with Associated Press reporter Kelley Shannon:
Shannon: Some have associated you with the idea of secession or sovereignty for your state. …
Perry: I think there’s a lot of different scenarios. Texas is a unique place. When we came in the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that.
You know, my hope is that America and Washington in particular pays attention. We’ve got a great union. There is absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what may come out of that? But Texas is a very unique place and we’re a pretty independent lot to boot.
Some Perry critics have also pointed to another statement from Perry, this time to a group of tech bloggers taking a tour of his Capitol offices the month before the tea party interview. At one point, according to audio posted on YouTube, Perry tells the group, "When we came into the nation in 1845, we were a republic. We were a stand-alone nation. And one of the deals was, we can leave any time we want. … So we're kind of thinking about that again."
The line was met with laughter, suggesting it was not meant as a serious position statement.
"You do that and I'll move in!" someone is heard to joke back, to more laughter.
Some may question the prudence of Perry entertaining the suggestion of secession, or talking too loosely about such a radical idea, but any fair-minded reading of Perry's fuller quote, and its context, makes clear that Perry was not advocating for Texas to secede. And Perry has repeatedly said since then that he did not, and does not, advocate secession.
Asked about his comments in a Newsweek interview a year later, Perry told Evan Smith of the Texas Tribune, "I said that we live in an incredibly wonderful country, and I see absolutely no reason for that to ever happen. But I do understand people's concern and anger about what this administration is doing from an economic standpoint–in particular, the long-term debt that's being created for not only them but for future generations."
Can Texas Opt Out?
So Perry has been wrongly portrayed as a secession advocate. But he is wrong when he claims Texas has some unique arrangement that would allow it to secede at will.
Perry's comments suggest the deal was part of the Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States, which was approved March 1, 1845. But the document neither talks about nor conveys any such right to secede.
“That’s a myth and not based on any historical reality,” said Walter L. Buenger, a professor of history at Texas A&M University and author of the book “Secession and the Union in Texas,” in an interview with FactCheck.org.
And then there's the matter of the Civil War.
“Among scholars, the consensus is that the Civil War settled all these issues," Harvey Tucker, professor in the political science department at Texas A&M, told us. "Texas does not have the right to secede.”
Buenger also pointed to a Supreme Court case in 1869, Texas v. White, in which the court ruled that unilateral secession by any state was unconstitutional.
“On all counts, this is a total fabrication,” Buenger said. “And it reflects poorly on our state that our governor would insist on this.”
The Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States does talk about allowing Texas to split into five states (four new states plus the State of Texas). But that's different than secession.
And it'll never happen, Tucker said, joking that “we can’t afford to dilute our football talent that way.”
“There is no doubt whatsoever that Texas does not have a reserved right to secede," said Sanford Levinson, professor of government at the School of Law at the University of Texas at Austin, in an exchange of emails with FactCheck.org. "One could argue that the state does have a reserved right to split into five separate states (and thus get a total of ten senators), but, interestingly enough, not even Tom DeLay suggested that.”
– Robert Farley
-
So he said "almost treasonous", which means not treasonous, and he said he doesn't favor secession. You'd think media attacks would be aimed at the misportrayers instead of the misportrayed. Unless the deception is intentional.
-
Too bad he is so tone deaf to reality on foreign affairs (not to say he is 100% wrong on everything, indeed occasionally some of his criticisms are well-founded but on the whole on foreign affairs he is a one note melody.) That said, this is the best interview I've seen him give. Chris Wallace- no easy touch!- seems to be increasing his respect for RP.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yzbmU2W4C8
-
PERRY VS. ROMNEY ON ECONOMY
By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann08.30.201130 8 84Share125Share
Now here comes Rick Perry challenging Mitt Romney’s record on job creation. The stats are definitely in his favor. Between June of ’09 and June of ’11, 50% of the net new jobs created in the United States were in Texas, making Texas number one in job growth by a loooooooooong shot.
Under Romney, Massachusetts’ record was terrible by comparison. The Bay State ranked 47th in job growth with employment rising less than one percent from ’03 to ’07 – his years in office (during which US job growth was 5 percent).
Governor Perry clearly did better than Governor Romney at creating jobs. But it is not two governors who will square off over the issue, it is two men with two lifetimes of experience to look at.
Ever since President Clinton drummed the concept of net job creation into our heads with his mounting claims of the millions of jobs “I created,” we have become accustomed to monitoring this figure as evidence of executive economic skill. But, in this case, Romney can point to a lifetime of actually creating jobs while Governor Perry can only cite his role in presiding over their creation as head of state.
It’s quite a difference. Perry’s Texas has had historically low taxes for decades and is one of only a handful of states without an income tax. In 1970, for example, Texas had 11 million people and Michigan had 10 million. Now Texas has 25 million while Michigan cannot find jobs for its current population of 11 million. The credit for Texas’ low taxes belongs not just to Perry, but to Governors George W. Bush and Bill Clements before him. (And even a nod is due Governor Ann Richards in between).
The job creation record is partially due to a surge in oil demand (one quarter of the new Texas jobs are in the energy sector) and some of the new jobs are due to the efforts of former Governor (and client) Mark White in getting the chip research industry to locate in Austin in the 80s.
Romney has actually, personally, financially created tens of thousands of jobs. His record of buying companies, fixing them up, selling off the unprofitable parts, obtaining financing to grow the money-making parts is invaluable in helping us to get out of the current job creation funk.
Any good Republican president will hold down taxes and block new regulations. But it may take a businessman with Romney’s skill set to dig down into the bureaucracy and understand precisely how bank regulation or EPA controls stop job creation. Romney needs to make the case that we need more than broad brush policy strokes to get the job machine running again. It is not enough to have been a good driver of the economic engine. You need to be a mechanic who knows how it works.
-
Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Wednesday, August 31, 2011 -- 12:41 PM EDT
-----
President Obama to Address Congress on Jobs and Economy on Sept. 7
President Obama is requesting a joint session of Congress for next Wednesday — at 8 p.m., exactly the same time as the scheduled Republican presidential debate, as it happens — to give a much anticipated speech outlining his proposals to boost employment and the economy.
In a letter to the leaders of both houses of Congress on Wednesday, Mr. Obama said it is his “intention to lay out a series of bipartisan proposals that the Congress can take immediately to continue to rebuild the American economy by strengthening small businesses, helping Americans get back to work, and putting more money in the paychecks of the middle class and working Americans.”
That Mr. Obama was going to make his speech next week was expected. But it is remarkable that he would choose to do so in such an elevated setting, and at the same time that Republican candidates for president will be laying out their own vision for how to get the country out of the economic doldrums.
Read More:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/31/obama-seeks-joint-session-for-jobs-speech/?emc=na
-
Spokesman Carney says the organizers of the debate are free to "adjust the timing of their debate".
http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0811/a_question_of_timing_370151e1-8b24-4482-800c-1c43a65c1485.html
Obvious from the reaction that this petty move was intentional. If Boehner accepts this I will support a new Speaker to work with the new President.
How do spell Chutzpah? I guess he did promise audacity.
Same guy would not allow a debate change that conflicted with the national emergency of the 2008 financial crisis.
-
What should we not expect during next summer's presidential campaign, given what was put off-limits in 2008 and later?
There is much talk about what some are perceiving as the fringe religiosity of possible Republican primary candidates such as Michele Bachman and Rick Perry. But the media established the precedent four years ago that no candidate can be held responsible for his church. Barack Obama's pastor of more than 20 years, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, was an unapologetic racist and anti-Semite, and a raving conspiracy theorist whose parishioners gave him standing ovations for his hate-filled "G-d damn America" rants.
Prior education and college preparation should not be 2012 issues either. Recent articles have referred to a leaked Texas A&M undergraduate transcript of Texas Gov. Rick Perry, showing some dismal grades and thus apparent proof that Perry was not much of a past student -- or current thinker. But in this regard, Obama has never released either his Occidental or Columbia transcripts. In response, the media in 2008 shrugged and chose not to pursue the matter the way it had with the C-grade records of George W. Bush, Al Gore and John Kerry. Apparently Obama has established another wise precedent that long-ago college transcripts, like churchgoing, are irrelevant.
Civility is off the table, too. Candidate Obama once called sitting president Bush "unpatriotic" for borrowing $4 trillion in eight years -- a sum he matched in less than three. He advised Latinos to "punish our enemies" and mocked opponents for wanting to put "alligators and moats" on the border. Obama's advisors reportedly promised to "Kill Romney." So civility is out the window, and 2012 will once again be a typically American no-holds-barred slugfest of anything goes from both sides.
Public campaign financing won't come up either. Both sides will raise obscene amounts of money. You see, in 2008, Obama set another election precedent: He was the first president in the history of public campaign financing laws to shun federal money and oversight in the general election, largely because he wanted -- and got -- a record level of private cash, much of it from Wall Street.
The old bogeyman George W. Bush won't matter much either by 2012. Since 2008, Obama has blamed Bush for chronic high unemployment, record annual deficits, massive national debt, the erratic stock market, credit downgrading, a continuing housing slump and near nonexistent growth. But even the president's supporters confess that Obama finally now "owns" the economy, especially given the newly elected president's boast in early 2009 that if he didn't fix things in three years, he would not deserve re-election.
In the 2008 campaign, Obama derided the war on terror as either ineffective or unconstitutional. That issue in 2012 will be ancient history, too, since President Obama has simply embraced all the major Bush-Cheney antiterrorism protocols and wars, and expanded many of them, from renditions to Predator drone targeted assassinations to a third war in Libya. Obama's campaign commercials will highlight the commander in chief who ordered the successful hit on bin Laden, not the civil libertarian who closed Guantanamo Bay as promised.
A supposedly do-nothing Congress that thwarted Obama -- like an earlier Republican one that had blocked "Give 'em Hell" Harry Truman -- won't come up much either. Remember, Obama had large majorities in both the House and Senate until January 2011. That's how he rammed through everything from Obamacare to trillion-dollar subsidies along strictly partisan majority votes. The "do-nothing" Congress of Obama's first two years that failed to pass alien amnesty and cap-and-trade legislation and failed to grow the economy was controlled by his fellow Democrats. Even now, the loud but largely still impotent Republicans only control one-half of one-third of the U.S. government.
So if we know what won't be campaign issues, what exactly will be?
The economy. If the current bleak picture stays the same or gets worse, Obama will be forced to argue, as did incumbent Herbert Hoover in 1932, that after four years his borrow/print/spend remedies still have not kicked in. And so he will claim that he needs eight years, not four, for Keynesian economics to finally work. Good luck with that silly argument.
But should things improve somewhat over the next year, then Obama will insist that his spending tonic is at last working, and he deserves another term to further nurse the recovering economy.
It is that simple: Almost every campaign issue other than the economy either will be off the table or irrelevant -- thanks largely to the past protocols of Barack Obama himself.
-
Doug, some time ago you acknowledged Huntsman is qualified, but wanted to know specifically what his position was on various issues. I agreed
while I happen to like Huntsman, the details are important.
Well, it seems he is trying to be specific. Whether you agree (I think you will on most items) or disagree, it's good to see it all laid out. In detail.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/09/jon-huntsman-jobs-plan.html
-
Thanks for that JDN, I heard on one of the FOX shows that Huntsman had the misfortune to announce his plan on a day when something else sucked the oxygen from the room , , , and given his polling number of 1% he doesn't get much oxygen to begin with. :lol:
As I read the plan my reaction is "Not bad!" thought I didn't really care for the Simpson-Bowles Commission stuff.
That said Huntsman simply is not the man to lead the charge against Bankruptcy Baraq.
-
JDN, First,. must note the humor that the LA Times headline says 'Straightforward and common sense'. If the Perry plan is identical I expect a different headline even though presumably they are only quoting the candidate. There is zero chance that the LA Times will be endorsing this plan over Obama in 2012. (Happy to being proven wrong!)
I agree with all the economic points made in the article about his plan. I still have foreign policy questions for him but this plan pretty much locks in my vote for him IF he is nominated. Real tax reform, repealing Obamacare and reining in the EPA at least clarify for us why he ruins as a Republican. Strange that for 2 1/1 months close observers weren't clear on that until now. It would seem to me that, like what Romney went through in 2008, Huntsman now feels a need to reach rightward. Instead of looking for contradictions, I would like to say welcome. Is JDN reaching rightward too or will you now look for a different centrist moderate? :-)
Note that the LA Times skipped this one:
Eliminate The Taxes On Capital Gains And Dividends In Order To Eliminate The Double Taxation On Investment. Capital gains and dividend taxes amount to a double-taxation on individuals who choose to invest. Because dollars invested had to first be earned, they have already been subject to the income tax. Taxing these same dollars again when capital gains are realized serves to deter productive and much-needed investment in our economy.
http://www.jon2012.com/
Pawlenty had that proposal too and maybe this vidicates himeven though his plan went by largely unnoticed. I think the reasoning is largely true but unrealistic; it goes too far though I like the way he is thinking. Locking in current rates or calling for another small, permanent decrease would be a huge victory over the prospects investors have faced constantly since the Pelosi-Reid-Obama electoral takeover of Nov. 2006.
As these economic plans begin to look similar, it will come down to who can win and who will actually get these things done. That will come down to who can persuasively articulate why these things NEED to be done. Posting them with solid reasons as he did on his position statement is a start.
-
Republican Presidential candidate and former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman is lagging in the polls, but the economic agenda he rolled out this week may start getting him more attention. And deservedly so.
The heart of the plan lowers all tax rates on individuals and businesses. Mr. Huntsman would create three personal income tax rates—8%, 14% and 23%—and pay for this in a "revenue-neutral" way by eliminating "all deductions and credits." This tracks with the proposals of the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson commission and others for a flatter, more efficient tax system.
That means economically inefficient tax carve outs for mortgage interest, municipal bonds, child credits and green energy subsidies would at last be closed. The double tax on capital gains and dividends would be expunged as would the Alternative Minimum Tax. The corporate tax rate falls to 25% from 35%, and American businesses would be taxed on a territorial system to encourage firms to return capital parked in overseas operations.
Mr. Huntsman would repeal two of President Obama's most economically debilitating creations, ObamaCare and the Dodd-Frank financial regulation law. Mr. Huntsman has it right when he says, "Dodd-Frank perpetuates 'too big to fail' by codifying a regime that incentivizes firms to become too big to fail." He'd also repeal a Bush-era regulatory mistake, the Sarbanes-Oxley accounting rules, which have added millions of dollars of costs to businesses with little positive effect.
Mr. Huntsman says he'd also bring to heel the hyper-regulators at the Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration and the National Labor Relations Board, all of which are suppressing job-creation. The Huntsman energy policy promises to block impediments to producing oil in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska (see editorial above), while encouraging the safe deployment of fracking for natural gas in the states. Mr. Huntsman dabbled with green energy subsidies as Governor when those were the political fashion, but perhaps he's learned watching the failures of the last two years.
Mr. Huntsman's proposal is as impressive as any to date in the GOP Presidential field, and certainly better than what we've seen from the front-runners. Perhaps Mr. Huntsman should be asked to give the Republican response to the President's jobs speech next week. The two views of what makes an economy grow could not be more different.
-
Doing business with China is like playing pool or cards with a guy named after a geographical feature. You damn well better know what you are doing.
Having lived in China and Taiwan, knowing the players, and being able to speak Mandarin puts Huntsman one up IMHO.
I like, as I've expressed, Huntsman. He's straightforward, logical, and somehow more believable and than the remaining candidates.
I'ld vote for him and I think a lot of independents and even democrats who are tired of the situation would vote for him.
-
And in the debates Baraq would whip out his ass-kissing letters to Baraq, , ,
-
And in the debates Baraq would whip out his ass-kissing letters to Baraq, , ,
Hell, those letters would make for a great commercial for him.
-
And in the debates Baraq would whip out his ass-kissing letters to Baraq, , ,
Hell, those letters would make for a great commercial for him.
Woof,
And that's also why so many Dem's and lib Independents would vote for him, he's a lib too. If Hillary put an R by her name it would be the same. :-P
P.C.
-
And in the debates Baraq would whip out his ass-kissing letters to Baraq, , ,
Hell, those letters would make for a great commercial for him.
Woof,
And that's also why so many Dem's and lib Independents would vote for him, he's a lib too. If Hillary put an R by her name it would be the same. :-P
P.C.
Huntsman served his country; he served his President. I'm not sure that is all bad. And no, he didn't diss his boss; not to smart and it doesn't show any class. Frankly, I respect him more for that. Robert Gates served Bush and Obama; he too is a class act and I don't think any less of him for whom he served or didn't serve.
As for being a "lib", well, have you even looked at his record as REPUBLICAN governor of Utah? He did a great job.
Or did you read Crafty's post from the WSJ? They love his CONSERVATIVE fiscal plan.
Besides that he's experienced, bright, pragmatic, and realistic.
His only problem as Crafty points out is that if he doesn't get out of the (low) single digit ratings in the poll he will be history
like Pawlenty. But he's got the personal money to hang around and see what happens.
As someone else posted, what has Perry done? He inherited low taxes, oil, etc. And he's really not too bright. At least
Romney has accomplished something (see previous post). I'm not a fan of Romney, but he's not bad. I miss Pawlenty. Newt is the brightest best qualified remaining, but he's shot himself in the foot, or is it his own balls? In contrast, Huntsman is a class act.
Don't count Huntsman out yet. And as a country, we would be lucky to have him as President.
-
Woof,
If Perry or Bachmann isn't the nominee for the Republican's, I'll vote for Obama. At least I know what to expect from him and it will be better than getting stabbed in the back by these "snake in the grass" lib's with R's by their name's. :-P Which, by the way, is why I stopped giving any money directly to the RNC and the Congressional champaign general funds; I want to make sure none of my contributions goes to help re-elect someone like Olympia Snowe. For any of you Conservative's out there, please contribute directly to the canidate you want to see in office and send a message to the Party leadership that we don't support Liberal, Progressive ideas regardless of Party lines.
P.C.
-
"As someone else posted, what has Perry done? He inherited low taxes, oil, etc. And he's really not too bright."
Wow. JDN parroting leftist talking points, who would have expected this? Perry has actually done things, unlike the affirmative action baby you voted for. There is much more reason to question Buraq "57 states, Austrian language, corpse-man" Obama's intelligence than Perry's.
-
It was CCP quoting Dick Morris,
"It’s quite a difference. Perry’s Texas has had historically low taxes for decades and is one of only a handful of states without an income tax. In 1970, for example, Texas had 11 million people and Michigan had 10 million. Now Texas has 25 million while Michigan cannot find jobs for its current population of 11 million. The credit for Texas’ low taxes belongs not just to Perry, but to Governors George W. Bush and Bill Clements before him. (And even a nod is due Governor Ann Richards in between).
The job creation record is partially due to a surge in oil demand (one quarter of the new Texas jobs are in the energy sector) and some of the new jobs are due to the efforts of former Governor (and client) Mark White in getting the chip research industry to locate in Austin in the 80s."
The point was "What has Perry actually done"? And the answer was, "Very little". CCP's article praised Romney.
Obama too has done a lot. You just might not agree with what he has done. :-D
As for comparing Obama academic (IQ) intelligence and accomplishment to Perry, you must be kidding.
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omHUsRTYFAU[/youtube]
Yes, his raw intellect is impressive. Breathtaking, isn't it, JDN?
Why are his academic records a state secret?
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr7zhnctF4c[/youtube]
Wow, he is smart, isn't he, JDN?
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws&feature=related[/youtube]
How many of the 57-58 states do you think he'll lose in 2012?
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlkK65y_-T4[/youtube]
I'm the pre-si-dent? :?
-
:? :? :?
You must be kidding right?
Admitted to Occidental College (happens to be nearby my place); an excellent college.
Transferred and Graduated from Columbia; a superb school (ask Crafty).
Then, Admitted and Graduated with Magna Cum Laude Honors from Harvard Law School.
Head of the Law Review at Harvard Law School
Professor for 10 years at Chicago University Law School.
Yeah, I guess I would say "his raw intellect is impressive. Breathtaking" :-D
That said, "raw intellect" and wisdom and street smarts are all different. I also happen to live close to Cal Tech,
one of if not the most intellectually gifted schools in America. High School Valedictorians are often rejected; near
perfect or perfect SAT scores especially in the math section are the norm, not the exception. A genius IQ doesn't even
stand out. That said, few of them rise to higher management levels.
-
Admitted to Occidental College (happens to be nearby my place); an excellent college. Affirmative Action
Transferred and Graduated from Columbia; a superb school (ask Crafty). Again, Affirmative Action, not merit (talking about Buraq, not Crafty)Then, Admitted and Graduated with Magna Cum Laude Honors from Harvard Law School. Again, Affirmative Action
Head of the Law Review at Harvard Law School Where he published nothing, because he got the job because he was black, not because he was smart. Which is pretty much how he became president.
Professor for 10 years at Chicago University Law School. Make-work Affirmative Action/Chicago graft political payoff job.
The only thing dumber than Obama is someone who voted for him.
-
Professor at the University of Chicago Law School for 10 years....
He was offered tenure, but turned it down. That's not a;
"Make-work Affirmative Action/Chicago graft political payoff job." :?
You said, "The only thing dumber than Obama is someone who voted for him."
I suppose you voted for McCain?
His class rank at the Navel Academy was 894 out of 899.
And oh yeah, and how did he even get in to the Naval Academy?
"Following in the footsteps of his father and grandfather, McCain entered the United States Naval Academy....." :-D
The only one dumber than McCain is Palin (who he chose for his VP). She's off the charts (on the low end). :evil:
ps I liked and respected McCain. If he had chosen a better VP I would have voted for him.
-
McCain was a war hero.
What awards did Obama win? Order of the golden coke spoon? The Jermiah Wright hate sermon good attendance award?
Let's compare Alaska under Palin to your crashing 3rd world cesspool of a state. Underwater on your McMansion yet?
-
PC: You surprise me man :-o :-o :-o
GM, JDN: While I'm willing to not place much importance on screw-ups on the campaign trail (it is a humanly exhausting experience) I do find credibility in the notion that affirmative action in conjunction with progressive "teamwork" explains more than a little of Baraq's resume and I think it a fair point to note just how much of it we don't really know. More to the point, apart from my profound differences on the merits of the issues, I'm not seeing that much proof of intelligence in his performance as President, unless one subscribes, as I confess I am sometimes tempted to do, to the idea of him as some sort of agent of malevolent forces.
Concerning Columbia, I am no longer particularly proud of that. On the whole I find the institution riddled with offensive levels of anti-Americanism.
-
McCain was a war hero.
What awards did Obama win? Order of the golden coke spoon? The Jermiah Wright hate sermon good attendance award?
Let's compare Alaska under Palin to your crashing 3rd world cesspool of a state. Underwater on your McMansion yet?
"McCain was a war hero".
With all due respect, so what? Does that make him qualified or intelligent enough to be President?
I've never questioned his sincerity and I acknowledged that I respected him as a person.
But I notice you are off the "intelligent" comparison. :-)
It's easy to criticize Obama. But his raw intelligence is not the issue. I concede, you have lots of other areas to focus though.
And Palin did what? Please don't tell me she wins the Republican nomination. I'll be forced to vote for
Obama again. :evil:
As for CA, that has what to do with the intelligence level of anyone being discussed?
However, as a side note, even in a sinking mess, cream still floats. Certain areas, affluent areas, have noticed minimal depreciation.
Other areas in Southern California are a ghost land. Average to below average socioeconomic areas have been hard hit by the
housing collapse. But I'm fine, thank you for asking. :-)
-
A war hero has no meaning (but eating in real Chinese restaurants with the proper utensils is foreign policy experience) - with only that information I believe I could pick the poster out of lineup. :wink:
Neither side has any recent track record of moving rocket scientists to the top of the ticket - Dole-Bush-McCain, the only things worse were Gore, Kerry and even the scholar Obama -they have all tried to hide their lousy records. There is hardly grounds for partisan bragging in either direction. You have to go back to Clinton being a Rhodes Scholar and still he still learned more in one day about economics by losing congress than he did in all of college and DLC thinktankland.
I'm not endorsing Palin, nor is she running(?), but (JDN) to say you would choose Obama over Palin while endorsing the economic plan of Huntsman, the polar opposite of Obama and likely to the right of Palin, is to me to have no interest in policies or governing philosophy. I suspect a hate crime in progress.
Palin is an intuitive conservative, not a scholar or academic. She was competent in her executive position before Governor and highly rated and approved before the ups and owns of national stardom.We don't any of us know how good a President she would be but her insights and directions on policies have been far more informed than the incumbent IMO. I don't want her to run because she didn't finish the job that gives her the credibility to be considered. (Neither did Obama BTW) She offers at least some upside risk of being a good President and he does not.
To trivialize (Perry) the leadership of a state the economic size of (G8) Russia for the longest duration of anyone in history and have a strong record of performance ahead of the other 49 states doing that is to (further) trivialize this discussion. If chief executive of one the largest states for a long steady duration and having an excellent track record isn't a pretty good qualification... what is?
Perry has weaknesses, I have posted 12 of them. Why trivialize his strengths? If doing less with government is what improved private sector economic results, maybe there is something there you are missing... If producing oil and natural gas and not having big government choke that off was economically helpful, again, maybe you are missing something with his record.
Wouldn't we have a better chance at success for this country in the White House with a random name out of the phone book than with the one person proven to stubbornly and dogmatically lead us in the wrong direction no matter the consequences?
On Tuesday Romney will weigh in with his economic/jobs plan. On Thursday we will see Obama's. We have seen Pawlenty, Huntsman and Cain. I have posted mine for the most part. I would love to hear what others here, moderates, especially moderate Dems, favor for an economic plan going forward at this point in American history. Is it more borrow and spend? Have government go even further picking winners and losers?
-
As is well documented here, I had and have a rather low opinion of McCain. That said, concerning "War Hero" IMHO it is something that shows character and character is more important than IQ.
For example, here are some indications of something quite distinctive about Baraq's character:
To the King of Saudi Arabia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fd425zfw5Ew&feature=related
To the Emperor of Japan with comparisons of how leaders of other countries handle introduction:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5U6fL7Y4BZA&feature=player_embedded
To Chinese leader http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2NtkYOeWow&NR=1 and a second occasion with the Chinese Leader http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2010/04/hu-too-obama-bows-to-chinese-leader-hu-jintao-again/
To the Mayor of Tampa FL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2NtkYOeWow&NR=1 this one contains clear shot as a still photo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXNMLf9yAS0&feature=related and one in context http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKeE4dFqmiE leaving now doubt of the bow
-
While I agree character is most important, being a "war hero" does not qualify you for being President or anything else. You can be a sargent, risk your life, charge the hill and win the Medal of Honor. While of course I respect you, it doesn't mean you are qualified to be president of a small business, much less President of the United States.
Regarding character, while I'm sure you can find numerous faults with Obama, what in the world matters IF he bows a little to the Saudi
King, the Chinese Leader, the King of Saudi Arabia or even the Mayor of Tampa? He's President, not Pope or King. If he thinks it makes his host/guest feel more comfortable, well, why not. He's not being subservient, nor agreeing to obey them, he's merely being polite. If anything, being President, he is showing character by putting the other party are ease.
If you do business in Asia you see it all the time. It's like shaking hands here. Or shouldn't the President shake hands with anyone either? :-)
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5U6fL7Y4BZA&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5U6fL7Y4BZA&feature=player_embedded
You obviously don't know much about doing business in asia, JDN.
-
GM; no offense, but I have forgotten more than you will ever know about doing business in Asia (China, Korea, and Japan). :-)
-
Really? If you did, you'd know that bowing is something you as a non-asian don't do. Mainland China got out of the bowing business quite a while ago, though I'm sure they take great pleasure watching Obama debase himself and America with his pathetic groveling.
I guess you managed to forget all the important things.
-
Actually GM non Asians if they have any manners bow. It's a sign of respect and courtesy. But most Americans don't know how to bow. It's actually a learned skill; different with the person's position and the relationship and the issue at hand. Americans seem to prefer to hug or shake hands. It's pretty funny watching the American trying to hug the Asian, while the Asian squirms and tries to escape.
Now a days you see a silly combination of handshake and bow. I agree, bowing is not as popular in Mainland China (it still is in Taiwan), however even there among older affluent and educated people, a bow is always appreciated. It shows respect. American's want the deal, so do Asians, but Asians place on importance on respect as well. America is transactional, Asia is based upon relationships. We used to do business that way, remember when the banker knew his customer? but those days are long gone.
And in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan, well bowing is still quite prevalent in business and social situations among adults.
Don't worry GM, I still remember the "important" things..... :-) Like courtesy and respect.....
I think we should drop the subject; it doesn't have anything to do with 2012 Presidential.
-
"I agree, bowing is not as popular in Mainland China"
It's not a matter of not being popular, it's just not done by the Mainland Chinese anymore than it's done by midwestern Americans. Being polite and showing respect is fine, but you don't bow. If you are bowing in Japan, not being Japanese, you are certainly fcuking it up, but the Japanese are too polite to correct your big-nosed barabarian self, though I'm sure it's a source of some amusement for them.
-
Hmmm I don't agree. Those in WI and MN don't bow, most don't even know how, and older people and educated people in China may or may not (it's still very popular in Taiwan, Korea and Japan), but they will still respect you and appreciate it if you do. Just do it casually and comfortably. Within reason; it's like trying to speak their language. If you are truly terrible, and can't pronounce anything, don't do it. Better to avoid than make a fool of yourself. But if you can pronounce it reasonably well, a few words, a greeting perhaps, again shows warmth and respect. Then quickly revert back to your interpreter. :-) The same is true of bowing. No one expects a perfect bow. But don't make a fool of yourself either. Amusing for them is a hug. Save the hugs for family and I don't even mean in-laws. Frankly, once you get used to it, bowing isn't so bad. All this touchy-feely stuff in public and with strangers is overrated.
-
JDN,
I'd like you to take your ideas into a basketball court in Compton. You can walk onto the court and say "Wassup mah brothas" and try to get some daps.
Nah, keep your multicultural fumbling confined to the Japanese. It's safer.
-
I think we are getting on a tangent here gentlemen. Let's return to the merits please. My point with the multiple bowing clips is that they seem to reveal something about Obama himself. JDN, For the sake of argument, lets put aside the bows to the Chinese leader, the emperor of Japan, and the King of Saudi Arabia-- why on earth would he bow to the mayor of Tampa?!? As one of the clips clearly shows, he greeted several people normally, then, when he got to the Asian woman, he bowed. Does this not seem weird too you?
-
An Asian woman? No that doesn't seem weird to me. An AMERICAN Asian woman? The lowly Mayor of Tampa? That's weird. :-o
That said, and REALLY stretching the point, if she is from and/or born in Taiwan, or Japan, or Korea, maybe.....
But the President, bowing to a nobody (no offense to her) American Mayor? In America? I get your point....
It's kinda (IS) "Weird"... :-)
By the rules, she should be bowing first (she's not) and a lot deeper IF there is going to be any bow at all.
Just very Weird.....
That all said, I don't think it shows lack of character. That was your point that I disagreed with; now weird,
maybe we can agree! :-)
-
The mayor of Tampa at that time was Pam Iorio, a daughter of an Italian immigrant father. That makes sense, we all know how the Italians are big on ceremonial bowing.
Buraq must have been stoned out of his gourd in some undergrad cultural anthopology 101 course and developed this delusional behavior thinking somehow it demonstrated his cultural sensitivity. :roll:
-
(http://www.redstate.com/streiff/files/2010/01/tampa.jpg)
O-BOW-ma
It's an Italian courtesy.
-
(http://www.pamiorio.com/img/pam.jpg)
Oh yeah, she could easily be confused as being asian. He was just tired from doing coke all night traveling and though she was a communist dictator or some other enemy of America he needed to use his "gift" on.
-
I think we are getting on a tangent here gentlemen. Let's return to the merits please.
:-D
-
"Buraq must have been stoned out of his gourd in some undergrad cultural anthopology 101 course and developed this delusional behavior thinking somehow it demonstrated his cultural sensitivity."
Inuitively to me this seems pretty close to the mark.
"The mayor of Tampa at that time was Pam Iorio, a daughter of an Italian immigrant father. That makes sense, we all know how the Italians are big on ceremonial bowing."
She looks Asian in the picture with Obowma, but not in the headshot provided by GM.
All in all, WEIRD-- and , , , out of character for what we want in a President of the United States of America. :cry: :x :x
-
Rick Perry's "Fed Up!" may actually win him some votes
Unlike the bulk of campaign books, Rick Perry's "Fed Up!" has something to say – and is winning some praise in the press.
States, Perry thinks, are simply more capable at solving problems, than the federal government. “Most problems get better solutions when they’re solved at the local level,” he writes in "Fed Up!".
By Husna Haq / August 16, 2011
You can’t judge a book by its cover, but you may be able to judge a campaign by its book.
Political books, those god-awful, ghostwritten, self-aggrandizing publicity contraptions masquerading as books are usually, well, awful. The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein calls them "autohagiography," since most politicians are about as close to being saintly as Thaddeus McCotter is to winning the GOP nomination.
“These books are autohagiography,” writes Mr. Klein. “[T]hey have to appeal to everyone, exalt the author (or supposed author), and offend no one. That’s basically impossible. So they throw the need to be appealing overboard and instead settle for boring.”
Take former Minnesota governor (and now former GOP presidential candidate) Tim Pawlenty’s recent book, “Courage to Stand,” as Klein suggests. In the following passage, Pawlenty describes meeting Ronald Reagan (well, sort of):
10 best classic political novels
“I didn’t have a chance to interact with him, but it was meaningful to me just to be in his presence.... What struck me most as President Reagan spoke to that crowd was his smile. He seemed genuinely happy and joyful and pleasant.”
Genuinely dull. Boring. Uninspired. A flop. Kind of, sadly, like Pawlenty’s campaign, which crashed this weekend before it even took off.
“Pawlenty’s attacks are fairly limited,” Politifact writes about T-Paw’s tome. “[H]is book is hardly the full-throated attack on a political opponent like Romney’s 'No Apology' was. It’s not a law professor-ish primer on policy positions, either, like Barack Obama’s 'The Audacity of Hope.' And it doesn’t have the campaign trail scoops and score-settling digs of Sarah Palin’s 'Going Rogue.' ”
He’s no Romney. Certainly not Obama. Not even Palin. Sounds like Pawlenty.
“I tried to read former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty’s ‘Courage to Stand,’ book,” writes Klein, “which was perhaps the worst book I ever read in my life.”
Pawlenty became the first GOP hopeful to bow out when he exited the race this past weekend. If we had read his book, we might have seen it coming.
Meanwhile, a new cowboy – er, candidate – has entered the ring, toting his own political book. Incredibly, according to some reviews, it’s not half-bad, either.
As soon as Texas governor Rick Perry entered the race this Saturday, his book moved into the top 400 on Amazon.com and is out of stock until Friday.
“ 'Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington,' ” is Perry’s 240-page manifesto on turning America around, Perry-style. (Ironically, the book’s forward is written by Newt Gingrich, now Perry’s rival in the GOP race. Klein suggests, Perry’s book is essentially about the Tenth Amendment, the one that states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
And unlike Pawlenty, Perry takes a stand. A pretty radical, one in fact.
He thinks Congress and the federal government should butt out of regulating the environment. And regulating guns. And protecting civil rights. And Medicare and Medicaid. And minimum wage laws. And labor laws. And education.
States, Perry thinks, are simply more capable at solving problems, than the federal government. “Most problems get better solutions when they’re solved at the local level,” he writes.
To his credit, Perry stands by his bold proposal.
In a November 2010 interview with NPR, he offers a state-led solution to the healthcare crisis.
Rather than forcing people to buy health insurance from a "Washington-devised program," he said on the show, states should be allowed to compete to devise the best programs.
"You let California, New Mexico, New York, Texas and Florida compete against one another, and they'll be laboratories of innovation," Perry said in the interview. "They will come up with the best way to deliver health care."
And in a fall 2010 interview with Newsweek, he didn’t budge when Newsweek’s Andrew Romano pressed him to explain how programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security would work without federal government involvement.
“I think the states are the ones who should be making the decision on whether or not they want to be spending their dollars on those types of programs – not having it made in Washington, D.C.” Perry said. “I would suggest a legitimate conversation about [letting] the states keep their money and implement the programs.” He continued, “But I didn’t write the book and say here are all the solutions. I think the first step in finding the solutions is admitting we have a problem – and admitting that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.”
Brash? Maybe. But it’s big, bold, and, to borrow a word that was once associated with our current commander-in-chief, audacious.
Let’s see if Perry can say as much of his campaign.
Husna Haq is a Monitor contributor.
P.C.
-
By STEVE PEOPLES - Associated Press |
Republican presidential candidate, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, speaks to guests at a house …
MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) — He may have been 2,000 miles from the border, but Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry's immigration record in Texas quickly became the focus in New Hampshire Saturday afternoon.
Speaking to hundreds of Granite State voters at a private reception, the Texas governor was asked whether he supported a fence along the Mexican border.
"No, I don't support a fence on the border," he said, while referring to the long border in Texas alone. "The fact is, it's 1,200 miles from Brownsville to El Paso. Two things: How long you think it would take to build that? And then if you build a 30-foot wall from El Paso to Brownsville, the 35-foot ladder business gets real good."
Instead, Perry said he supported "strategic fencing" and National Guard troops to prevent illegal immigration and violence from Mexican drug cartels.
The answer produced an angry shout from at least one audience member. And it exposed an ongoing rift with some conservative voters over Perry's immigration record.
Tea party activists in Texas have been particularly upset by his steady opposition to the fence. He also signed a law giving illegal immigrants in-state tuition for Texas universities. And Texas tea party groups sent Perry an open letter this year expressing disappointment over his failure to get a bill passed that would have outlawed "sanctuary cities," municipalities that protect illegal immigrants.
Perry has surged to the lead in national polls since joining the presidential race just three weeks ago. But New Hampshire Republicans are just getting to know him.
"I think there are a lot of questions out there still," said tea party activist Jerry DeLemus, chairman of the Granite State Patriots Liberty PAC. "We don't know him very well."
Even in New Hampshire, he said illegal immigration is a key issue with his members and raised concerns about Perry's immigration policies. DeLemus said a border fence should be part of any policy.
"Any deterrent is a good deterrent," he said after Perry's second private reception in Chichester.
Saturday's visit marks the third time Perry visited the first-in-the-nation primary state since joining the race.
Despite having deep Southern roots and conservative social positions, the Texas native has indicated he will compete aggressively in New Hampshire, where both Republicans and independents vote in the primary election.
[The above is why I prefer Bachmann over Perry. I don't want another Bush, that thinks a weak border and 20 million illegal aliens running around is A' O.K.]
P.C.
-
by Michele Bachmann
A More Secure Nation:
Beyond the basic task of defending our borders and our homeland, it doesn’t take a Nobel Peace Prize to recognize that preserving our security comes down to one simple maxim: stand up for our friends … stand up to our foes … and know the difference.
Understanding those tenets is especially important at a time of unprecedented flux and instability in the Middle East and the rise of powerful competitors including China and Russia.
Instead, we have a President who devalues the special relationship with our most trusted ally, Britain, even as he bows to kings, bends to dictators, bumbles with reset buttons, and babies radical Islamists. We have a President who tells our true friend, Israel, that it must surrender its right to defensible borders to appease forces that have never recognized that nation’s right to exist.
We have a President who stumbles into Libya, without a clear mission or exit strategy, to protect its population, but can’t or won’t devise a strategy to secure our borders. We have a President who has taken his eye off the ball when it comes to the true threat in the Middle East: a potentially nuclear-armed Iran.
We have a President who – in unprecedented fashion – is ravaging our military strength and structure at a time of war, while elevating political correctness over readiness in its ranks. And we have a President who is declaring a premature end to the war on terror against the advice of his own generals.
As Commander-in-Chief, I will do whatever it takes to fulfill the federal government’s foremost responsibility under the Constitution: to keep you safe in an increasingly dangerous world. I will uphold America’s values by standing shoulder-to shoulder with those who share those values and our interests and standing tall against those who don’t. I will devote the resources necessary to maintain our fighting forces as second-to-none, while being judicious in the use of our power. I will ensure our borders are fully secured. And I will not rest until the war on terror is won.
Michele Bachmann for President:
Michele Bachmann is running for president to bring a new voice to the White House - a voice of constitutional conservatism, limited government, and a safe and secure America.
Elected in 2006, Michele is the first Republican woman to be elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Minnesota. From the beginning, she has demonstrated bold reform, pushing to fix Washington's broken ways.
Michele is a leading advocate for tax reform, a staunch opponent of wasteful government spending, and a strong proponent of adherence to the Constitution, as intended by the Founding Fathers. She believes government has grown exponentially, with Obamacare being the most recent example of its uninhibited growth. Michele wants government to make the kind of serious spending decisions that many families and small businesses have been forced to make. She is a champion of free markets and she believes in the vitality of the family as the first unit of government. She is also a defender of the unborn and staunchly stands for religious liberties.
Prior to serving in the U.S. Congress, Michele was elected to the Minnesota State Senate in 2000 where she championed the Taxpayers Bill of Rights. Before that, she spent five years as a federal tax litigation attorney, working on hundreds of civil and criminal cases. That experience solidified her strong support for efforts to simplify the Tax Code and reduce tax burdens on family and small business budgets. Michele also led the charge on education issues in Minnesota calling for the abolishment of Goals 2000 and the Profiles of Learning in its school. She recognized the need for quality schools and subsequently started a charter school for at-‐risk kids in Minnesota.
Michele sits on the Financial Services Committee (FSC) and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. This experience has given her keen insight into the housing crisis and credit crunch, leading Michele to be a staunch opponent of the taxpayer-‐funded bailout of Wall Street and the Dodd-‐Frank legislation. Serving on the Intelligence Committee, she has consistently advocated peace through strength to ensure America's national security. She has proudly taken a vow to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
In July 2010, Michele hosted the first Tea Party Caucus meeting. She is seen as a champion of Tea Party values including the call for lower taxes, renewed focus on the Constitution and the need to shrink the size of government.
Michele is a graduate of Anoka High School and Winona State University. She received her J.D. at the O.W. Coburn School of Law at Oral Roberts University and an L.L.M. in Tax Law at the College of William and Mary. She has been married to Marcus for more than thirty years and they live in Stillwater where they own a small business mental health care practice that employs nearly 50 people. Michele and Marcus have five children, Lucas, Harrison, Elisa, Caroline, and Sophia. In addition, the Bachmann family has opened their home to 23 foster children, which has inspired Michele to become one of Congress' leading advocates for foster and adopted children, earning her bipartisan praise for her efforts. Michele Bachmann: A Leader with Midwestern Roots
Elected in 2006, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is the first Republican woman to be elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Minnesota. In only her first term, Congresswoman Bachmann developed a reputation as a "principled reformer" who stays true to her conservative beliefs while pushing for real reform of the broken ways of Washington. Her strong advocacy for her constituents earned her additional terms in Congress in 2008 and 2010.
Bachmann for President
P.O. Box 96891 | Washington, D.C. 20090-6891
855-624-7737 | 855-MB4-PRES
info@michelebachmann.com
Paid for by Bachmann for President
Not produced at government expense. Contributions to Bachmann for President are not tax deductible for federal income tax purposes.
Michele Bachmann for President
P.C.
-
PC: You surprise me man :-o :-o :-o
Crafty-Dog
Woof,
It's just that I'm tired of being forced to vote for watered down Republicans that are more Progressive than Conservative, that despite their assurances that they believe in smaller government, individual freedoms, and the principles' of the Founding Fathers when it comes to applying the Constitution, act in a manner that is the exact opposite of those principle's. It's like standing neck deep in horse crap then having someone scream, "duck!", when a bucket of sheep sh%t is thrown at you. If there are that many Republicans that think Progressive, Liberal, Socialist ideas are O.K. just so long as those ideas are inside the head of someone that has a an "R" by their name then I think they need a wake up call.
Look at the mess we are in right now with Obama and his ideas, his agenda. They are the exact same ideas and agenda that are in the heads' of people like Snowe and McCain and yes Huntsman. It's my opinion that voting for one of them encourages more of the same and I don't want any part of that. If my fellow citizens can't see how bad these ideas are right now, maybe it will take four more years of Obama to convince them that these ideas in any form, coming from any head, watered down or dressed with an "R", will ultimately destroy our Constitutional Republic. So yes, I will vote for Obama if there is not a Conservative on the Republican ticket because evidently things are going to have to get even worse before people start to see these ideas as the poison they are, and one drop of a poisonous lie can contaminate a whole lake of truth. The Republican Party has been contaminated and if I'm going to be forced to dunk my head in horse sh%t I want it to be from a Liberal Thoroughbred not a jackass that thinks like one.
P.C.
-
PC:
To quote my 1992 Congressional campaign slogan as a Libertarian candidate, "If you continue to vote for the lesser of two evils, you will continue to get the evil of two lessers" so I get what you are saying , , , in part. Where I think you go off course though is in saying that you would vote for Obama. On the whole, politicians are whores who go where the votes are. To vote for the anti-American liberal fascist crap of His Glibness is to feed the system a profoundly wrong signal. If you can't bring yourself to vote for a particular Republican, then at least vote for a third party candidate whose positions on the whole you do respect.
Concerning Bachman and Perry: I like Michele a lot. The utter lack of executive experience is a real problem though and it is why Perry is sucking up her oxygen. Not only is it quite sound, but I think Perry's Tenth Amendment strategy has the potential to be rather , , , crafty; it allows him to finesse contentious issues that in some states could be a problem for a conservative Republican candidate e.g. leave gay marriage to the states (though I gather he has waffled on this a bit.)
-
Woof Guro Craftydog,
Shock is exactly what I'm going for here; people need to be shocked into realizing that it's not Obama the person that's the problem, it's the failed ideology. The same failed ideology that is shared by Liberal Republicans and I'm making the point that voting for one of them is just as bad as voting for Obama. Do you really think we would be in better shape had McCain won? He was trying to out do Obama with stimulus proposal's. At that time, before he did his chameleon trick and changed back into a Conservative to save his Senate seat, he was all for open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens (and he still is). He wanted to close Gitmo. He wanted to pull out of Iraq. He wanted to scale down operations in Afghanistan. He likes the UN, gun control, and on and on. Why? Because he is just as big a Lib as Obama! Wake up folks. It's the same mindset, the same ideas with the same results. You might as well be voting for Obama. It was the same with Schwarzenegger; Physical Conservative my ass, he's a Lib that doesn't mind lying to get Republicans to vote for him. Huntsman and these others are no different, if you vote for them you are voting for the same ideas that got us into this mess.
For you doe eyed Republicans out there that think you are protecting the Constitution and defending freedom when you pull the lever or push the button to elect one of these lowlife Lib, political Trojan Horses, you couldn't be more wrong and we can't afford your gullibility anymore. So hear this, you are part of the problem and you are helping to destroy our Republic. Please don't let these lying hacks fool you just because they have an "R" by their name.
P.C.
-
A fair point, but my point remains. If you vote for Baraq you send the message to the sluts that run for office that the fascist-socialist excrement is what wins. By all means vote for third party, but don't vote for fascism-socialism
-
Woof,
Hopefully a Conservative will get the nomination and enough Independents will have their fill of Obama to stop the lemmings' race over the cliff but I'm telling you if the Republicans put up a snake in the grass Lib, I'm voting for the candidate that can defeat them and if that's B.O., so be it, then I'll do my best to make sure he's locked up on the Hill by supporting Conservative Senators and Representatives across the country and do my best to unseat any Libs with an "R" by their name. I'll remind everyone that it was Lib Republicans that gave Obama the cloture vote to bring the Healthcare bill to a vote. :x :-P
P.C.
-
Though we agree on most things, I am not persuaded in the slightest by your reasoning on this point at all.
TAC!
-
Woof,
In the normal course of things I would agree with you too but the Republican leadership and these Lib Republican candidates are syphoning off funds and misleading the rank and file and they are coming into the Party in record numbers. We need to get their attention somehow and if by making sure they don't get into office and sending copies of the checks I send to Obama to the RNC with a note telling them why and enough people do it then we might win the Party back. There is no viable third Party and if we are not willing to fight to get control of the Republican Party then all is lost and the Libs know it.
P.C.
-
Tea party bulling its way into 2012 GOP race
By MICHAEL R. BLOOD - Associated Press,STEVE PEOPLES -
BERLIN, N.H. (AP) — Bulling its way into 2012, the tea party is shaping the race for the GOP presidential nomination as candidates parrot the movement's language and promote its agenda while jostling to win its favor.
That's much to the delight of Democrats who are working to paint the tea party and the eventual Republican nominee as extreme.
"The tea party isn't a diversion from mainstream Republican thought. It is within mainstream Republican thought," Mitt Romney told a New Hampshire newspaper recently, defending the activists he's done little to woo, until now.
The former Massachusetts governor is starting to court them more aggressively as polls suggest he's being hurt by weak support within the movement, whose members generally favor rivals such as Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann.
Romney's shift is the latest evidence of the big imprint the tea party is leaving on the race.
Such overtures come with risks, given that more Americans are cooling to the tea party's unyielding tactics and bare-bones vision of the federal government.
After Washington's debt showdown this summer, an Associated Press-GfK poll found that 46 percent of adults had an unfavorable view of the tea party, compared with 36 percent just after last November's election.
It could give President Barack Obama and his Democrats an opening should the Republican nominee be closely aligned with the tea party.
Yet even as the public begins to sour on the movement, Romney and other GOP candidates are shrugging off past tea party disagreements to avoid upsetting activists.
That includes Perry, who faced a tea party challenger in his most recent election for governor and who has irked some tea partyers so much that they are openly trying to undercut his candidacy. Instead of fighting back, Perry often praises the tea party.
In his book "Fed Up!" Perry wrote: "We are seeing an energetic and important push by the American people — led in part by the tea party movement — to give the boot to the old-guard Washington establishment who no longer represent us."
There's a reason for the coziness. Voters who will choose the GOP nominee identify closely with the movement.
A recent AP-GfK survey showed that 56 percent of Republicans and GOP-leaning people identified themselves as tea party supporters. Also, Republicans who back the tea party place a higher priority than other Republicans on the budget deficit and taxes, issues at the center of the nomination contest.
Last year, the tea party injected the GOP with a huge dose of enthusiasm, helping it reclaim the House and end one-party rule in Washington. These days, they are firing up the campaign trail in early-voting Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.
It's little wonder, then, why many of the White House aspirants are popping up at rallies by the Tea Party Express, a Sacramento, Calif.-based political committee that's in the midst of a 30-city bus tour. That tour ends Sept. 12 in Tampa, Fla., where the group will team with CNN to sponsor a nationally televised GOP debate. Every Republican candidate faring strongly in the polls is set to participate.
Some grass-roots activists will cringe. They consider the Tea Party Express uncomfortably close to the GOP establishment. Nonetheless, "it's a moment of political arrival" for the tea party, says Bruce Cain, a University of California, Berkeley political scientist.
Five months before the first voting in the nomination fight, a Gallup survey of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents last week found Perry pulling strong support from voters who identify themselves as tea party supporters, with 35 percent, followed by Romney and Bachmann at 14 percent.
That may help explain why Romney decided to speak Sunday at a Tea Party Express rally in New Hampshire and appear Monday at a forum in South Carolina hosted by GOP Sen. Jim DeMint, who oversees a political committee that has supported tea party candidates.
DeMint said the tea party is "one of the best things that's happened to our country and to politics, because there's a broad cross-section of Americans involved in citizen activism today. And some are called Tea Party; some are not."
Rather than anointing any candidate, DeMint said Sunday on ABC's "This Week" that he's looking to see which one "really catches the attention and inspires the average American, who has gotten involved with politics and the political process."
Perry, Bachmann and others in the 2012 planned to appear at DeMint's event.
Some tea party groups plan to protest Romney's appearances. They are irked that as governor, he signed a bill that enacted a health program mandating insurance coverage. It served as a precursor to Obama's federal measure that the tea party despises.
"Mitt Romney is a poser," said Andrew Hemingway, chairman of the New Hampshire Liberty Caucus, which helped coordinate an anti-Romney rally in Concord. "He's a fraud trying to stand on a tea party stage."
Romney has stepped up his courtship in recent weeks. At a veterans' hall in Berlin, N.H., a voter asked how Romney would handle the "right-wing fringe" that, the questioner said, had taken over the GOP.
Romney's answer: "I'll take a bit of exception with that. ... You're not going to see me distance myself from those who believe in small government, because I believe in it too."
Other candidates are also rushing to defend the tea party.
Rick Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator, recently ridiculed a Democratic congresswoman who said the tea party should "go straight to hell." Americans on the political left "absolutely despise the founding principles of this country," he said.
When Democrats accused the tea party of holding the GOP hostage during the debt debate, Bachmann sent out a fundraising letter that said, "Only in the bizarro world of Washington is fiscal responsibility sometimes defined as terrorism."
The tea party is felt in other ways.
At an Iowa debate in August, every candidate on stage signaled opposition to a debt-reduction deal if it included as much as $1 in tax increases for every $10 in spending cuts. Tea party groups oppose tax increases.
The early exit of former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty from the race can be attributed in part to his failure to earn credibility with the tea party movement. Bachmann's entire candidacy could, perhaps, be attributed to encouragement she received from tea party backers; she's courted them since the party's founding.
Each time a candidate is linked to the movement, the Democratic National Committee gleefully works to brand the candidate, and the Republican Party in general, as outside the mainstream.
Tea party activists are emboldened after helping get 30 like-minded House members elected last fall. Their victories changed the direction of Congress so much that demands from tea party-aligned lawmakers nearly halted government during this summer's debt debate.
Aside from the presidential race, tea party leaders have no less than 100 congressional primaries in their sights as they look to expand their influence on Capitol Hill.
Whatever happens, the party is leaving a stamp on the presidential race, and Democrats hope it will last.
P.C.
-
Amen on the Tea Party, but this:
"We need to get their attention somehow and if by making sure they don't get into office and sending copies of the checks I send to Obama to the RNC with a note telling them why and enough people do it then we might win the Party back. There is no viable third Party and if we are not willing to fight to get control of the Republican Party then all is lost and the Libs know it."
seems a temper tantrum to me. Increasing the vote for Baraq seems a really counter-productive way to me to increase the ideological clarity of the Rep Party. Again, the message received will be that the TP is too fg radical. The Libertarian Party may not be "viable", but there is little doubt what a vote for it, what a check to it, means.
-
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/poll-81-say-obama-economic-policies-not-working
Poll: 81% say Obama economic policies not working
by Byron York Chief Political Correspondent
Follow on Twitter:@byronyork
There's a lot of terrible news for President Obama in new polls by the Washington Post-ABC News and the Wall Street Journal-NBC News. The number of Americans who say the country is on the wrong track has risen to its highest level since just before Obama took office -- into what one commentator calls the "incumbent death zone." His job approval rating is down. The number of people who disapprove of his handling of the economy is rocketing upward. And then there is this question, asked by the Post-ABC:
Do you think Obama's economic program is making the economy better, making it worse, or having no real effect?
Just 17 percent say the president's program is making the economy better, while 34 percent say Obama's program is making the economy worse and 47 percent say it is having no real effect. Combine those last two numbers, and 81 percent say the Obama economic program is not working -- a devastating number in a country in which economic concerns top all other issues in voters' minds.
-
I watched Huntsman on Piers Morgan the other day and saw much there to like. Apart from the issues on which we disagree, he was absolutely horrendous on last month's game of chicken over the budget-- parroting hook, line, and sinker the Dem talking points about how the Tea Party and radical Republicans were willing for the US to default and how he was the only Rep candidate to oppose that. There was something else that slips my mind at the moment that I also found quite bad, but overall his schpiel about Reps being too radical really grates for me. The truth is that they are not radical enough-- as we are about to discover when Boener's "super committee" fails to come to terms leading to the gutting of US military , , , all for $21B in cuts this year.
PS: On the human side I was pleasantly surprised to discover that he had dropped out of school to try to become a rock musician (keyboards) and that his favorite musician was , , , drum roll please , , , Captain Beefheart!-- about whom he spoke knowledgeably-- quite surprising for a Mormon! Both Huntsman and his daughter played some piano and both are seriously good.
=================
By JON HUNTSMAN
Last week, immediately after I announced my vision for economic revival in America, we saw the report that zero jobs were created during the month of August. Zero. This number isn't simply depressing. It's unacceptable. It represents the final verdict on this administration's failed policies and the overall lack of leadership in Washington.
Behind our nation's unemployment numbers are human tragedies: families torn apart, relationships pushed to the brink, and men and women struggling to maintain self-esteem and the pride that comes with self-sufficiency.
President Obama believes we can tax and spend and regulate our way to prosperity. We cannot. We must compete our way to prosperity. To do that, we must equip the American worker and the American entrepreneur with the tools to compete in the global economy.
Restoring our competitiveness will not be possible without first recognizing our constitutional commitment to limited government, a precondition for unleashing the spirit of American entrepreneurialism.
In the long term, this will mean dramatic education and immigration reform, but in the short term, tax simplification, regulatory reform, and changes in energy and trade policy will jump-start the American economy and allow us to export more and import less, creating sustainable growth and jobs.
We need a revenue-neutral tax overhaul modeled after Ronald Reagan's 1986 tax reform package—which will require taking on sacred cows. This means eliminating special interest carve-outs, loopholes and deductions while lowering rates across the board so our tax code is flatter, fairer, simpler and more conducive to growth.
This is similar to the reforms we implemented in Utah, which allowed our state to lead the nation in job creation and our economy to grow at triple the national rate.
For individual taxpayers, we will introduce three drastically lower rates of 8%, 14% and 23%. Eliminating deductions and credits in favor of lower marginal rates will yield a simpler and more efficient system, decreasing the taxpayer burden. We'll also use the increased revenue from closing loopholes to make business tax rates globally competitive and eliminate double taxes on investment, both measures that will encourage hiring.
Our entrepreneurs are harmed as much by overregulation as by overtaxation. One recent example is the National Labor Relations Board's effort to prevent our largest exporter, Boeing, from operating a plant in South Carolina because of its right-to-work law. As president, if the NLRB were to continue pursuing this antijobs policy, I would replace its general counsel, who has not been confirmed, and also its board if necessary. The Dodd-Frank financial regulation law is another regulatory sin—a 1,600 page monstrosity that creates massive compliance costs.
Dodd-Frank also perpetuates "too big to fail," all but guaranteeing more bailouts, massive regulatory oversight and preferential funding for the biggest banks. Protecting taxpayers, community banks and their small-business customers will ultimately require the biggest banks, which are in danger of becoming public utilities, to choose between downsizing or facing much higher capital ratios to fend off more public rescues and even more regulation.
We cannot stabilize our economy without stabilizing the housing market. Washington inflated the housing bubble in part through the misuse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Today, the White House continues to use these institutions to perpetuate a failed intervention in the housing market that is preventing a natural stabilization. As president, I will privatize Fannie and Freddie, and let the housing market clear in order to lay the groundwork for renewed growth.
With respect to energy independence, the Environmental Protection Agency can fulfill its mission of guarding America's clean air and water by increasing opportunities for clean, domestic fuels. Every year America sends more than $300 billion overseas for oil, much of it to unstable and unfriendly regimes. That accounts for half of our trade deficit. We can redeploy that capital in this country, immediately creating jobs by harnessing domestic energy opportunities and eliminating subsidies and regulations that discourage clean American energy sources and technologies such as natural gas, biofuels, coal-to-liquids and electric cars.
As president, I would expedite the approval process for safe, environmentally sound projects involving our oil and gas reserves in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska and appropriate federal lands. I would offer continued support for the Keystone Pipeline, which brings oil from Canada. We will also remove barriers between those resources and consumers such as the Obama administration's newly issued fuel economy regulations, which effectively bar heavy-duty trucks from converting to cleaner, domestic natural gas.
Despite the fact that 95% of the world's customers live outside our borders, the U.S. is party to only 17 of the more than 300 existing trade agreements world-wide. Opening more markets for American businesses will immediately spark growth. For two and a half years, the president has failed to act on trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama. I'd make them a priority.
We must also seek new trade opportunities, giving American businesses and workers access to consumers around the world whom are eager for quality American products. We are right to pursue a Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, but this is not ambitious enough. As president I will immediately start pursuing free-trade agreements with India, Japan and Taiwan and strengthen our relationship with our European trading partners, who will be critical to America's success in the years ahead.
Around the world, other nations are making the tough choices necessary to compete in the 21st century economy. America must do the same.
Mr. Huntsman, formerly a governor of Utah, Huntsman Corporation executive and ambassador to China and Singapore, is seeking the Republican presidential nomination.
-
second post of morning:
By LARRY J. SABATO
Straw polls, real polls, debates, caucuses, primaries—that's the public side of presidential campaigns 14 months before Election Day. But behind the scenes, strategists for President Obama and his major Republican opponents are already focused like a laser on the Electoral College.
The emerging general election contest gives every sign of being highly competitive, unlike 2008. Of course, things can change: Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were both in trouble at this point in their first terms, and George H.W. Bush still looked safe. Unexpectedly strong economic growth could make Mr. Obama's re-election path much easier than it currently looks, as could the nomination of a damaged Republican candidate. But a few more weeks like the past couple, and Mr. Obama's re-election trajectory will resemble Jimmy Carter's.
Both parties are sensibly planning for a close election. For all the talk about how Hispanics or young people will vote, the private chatter is about a few vital swing states. It's always the Electoral College math that matters most.
Voting is predictable for well over half the states, so even 14 months out it's easy to shade in most of the map for November 2012.
Barring a Carter-like collapse, President Obama is assured of 175 electoral votes from 12 deep-blue states and the District of Columbia: California (55 electoral votes), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (20), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (11), New Jersey (14), New York (29), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), Washington state (12) and Washington, D.C. (3). Three more states are not quite as certain, but still likely Democratic: Maine (4), Minnesota (10) and Oregon (7). Even though Minnesota is competitive enough to vote Republican under the right set of conditions, it is the state with the longest Democratic presidential streak, dating to 1976.
Enlarge Image
CloseGetty Images/Stock Illustration Source
.Four other states usually vote Democratic for president, but they're hardly a sure thing: Michigan (16), New Mexico (5), Pennsylvania (20) and Wisconsin (10). A low Hispanic vote in 2012 could flip New Mexico, as Al Gore carried it by only 366 votes in 2000 and a dedicated effort by George W. Bush flipped it in 2004. In Michigan, economic problems might cause voters to cool on Democrats. Wisconsin, narrowly Democratic in 2000 and 2004, is a cauldron of unpredictable countertrends. And although Pennsylvania has frustrated all GOP attempts to win it over since 1988, recent polls have shown weakness for Mr. Obama there. These 51 electoral votes will be GOP targets if conditions in the fall of 2012 approximate today's.
Meanwhile, the Republicans have their own firewall. Almost any sentient GOP nominee will carry Alabama (9), Alaska (3), Arkansas (6), Idaho (4), Kansas (6), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (8), Mississippi (6), Montana (3), Nebraska (5), North Dakota (3), Oklahoma (7), South Carolina (9), South Dakota (3), Tennessee (11), Utah (6), West Virginia (5) and Wyoming (3). These 18 states have 105 electoral votes.
The Obama forces have bravely boasted that they can turn Arizona (11), Georgia (16) and Texas (38), mainly because of growing Latino voting power. But with the economy in the tank, electoral claims on these big three will likely go the way of John McCain's early declaration in '08 that California was within his grasp. Count another 65 red votes here.
Four years ago, even optimistic Democrats didn't think they would pick up Indiana (11), North Carolina (15), or an electoral vote in Nebraska (which like Maine awards one vote per congressional district), yet all three went for Mr. Obama by small margins. In 2012, Indiana is likely to desert him, as is the one Cornhusker district. To keep North Carolina, the Democrats chose Charlotte for their national convention and will make a big play statewide. As of now, it looks tough for them. Thus Republicans are in the lead to win 26 more electors. Missouri was the sole squeaker that went for McCain; few believe it will be tight next year, so the GOP will likely have those 10 votes, too.
Republicans therefore are a lock or lead in 24 states for 206 electoral votes, and Democrats have or lead in 19 states for 247 electoral votes. That's why seven super-swing states with 85 electors will determine which party gets to the magic number of 270 electoral votes: Colorado (9), Florida (29), Iowa (6), Nevada (6), New Hampshire (4), Ohio (18) and Virginia (13).
Prior to Obama's 2008 victories in each of these states, several had generally or firmly leaned Republican since 1980. Virginia, which hadn't voted Democratic since 1964, was the biggest surprise, and its Obama majority was larger than that of Ohio, which has frequently been friendly to Democrats in past decades. Massive Hispanic participation turned Colorado and Nevada to Mr. Obama, and it helped him in Florida.
The GOP has gotten a quiet advantage through the redistricting following the 2010 Census. The Republican nominee could gain about a half-dozen net electors from the transfer of House seats—and thus electoral votes—from the northern Frostbelt to the southern and western Sunbelt. Put another way, the Democrats can no longer win just by adding Ohio to John Kerry's 2004 total. The bleeding of electoral votes from Democratic states would leave him six short of 270.
Of course, the best-laid plans of Electoral College analysts can be undone overnight by the rise of one or more third-party or independent candidates, as shown by George Wallace from the right (1968), Ross Perot from the middle (1992), and Ralph Nader from the left (2000).
Right now, though, a troubled President Obama—so far unopposed for re-nomination—has the luxury of keeping both eyes on the Electoral College, planning his trips and policies accordingly. By contrast, the leading Republican contenders are forced to focus their gaze on delegate votes in a handful of early-voting states such as Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Still, quietly they're already seeking admission to the only college that can give them the job they want.
Mr. Sabato is director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, author of Pendulum Swing (Longman, 2011), and editor of the Crystal Ball newsletter, www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball.
-
"Republicans therefore are a lock or lead in 24 states for 206 electoral votes, and Democrats have or lead in 19 states for 247 electoral votes. That's why seven super-swing states with 85 electors will determine which party gets to the magic number of 270 electoral votes: Colorado (9), Florida (29), Iowa (6), Nevada (6), New Hampshire (4), Ohio (18) and Virginia (13)."
Depressing that it is close at all. Big or little government is not winning the debate.
It should be a landslide. The repubs still don't get it.
-
First re. super swing states: "Colorado (9), Florida (29), Iowa (6), Nevada (6), New Hampshire (4), Ohio (18) and Virginia (13)."
If this is a landslide, those and more (new Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan...) all go one way, it's just about 14 months too early to say that. States like MN and CA are meaningless only because if Republicans win them, it was already clinched in the above.
--------------------
A couple of signs that Romney has finally started to run for President from very different sources Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/romney-has-his-best-outing-in-south-carolina/2011/03/29/gIQAZHt44J_blog.html and this from Byron York in the Washington Examiner.
I am not endorsing, just trying to get to know the candidates. I am happy to see any positive signs coming out from any or all of them. Romney has a 59 point plan coming out today ahead of the debate and the Obama speech.
------------
After Perry bails, Romney shines in South Carolina forum
By: Byron York | Chief Political Correspondent | 09/05/11 8:05 PM
...
Had Perry shown up (missed to deal with Texas wild fires), he would have had his hands full dealing with Mitt Romney. The former Massachusetts governor originally turned down DeMint's invitation and decided to appear only after seeing Perry rocket to the front of the Republican pack. But once on stage, especially when faced with a series of questions on financial regulation -- Dodd-Frank, Fannie and Freddie, the Community Reinvestment Act, Sarbanes-Oxley -- Romney delivered a masterful performance. Asking Romney about financial matters and the economy is like asking former Sen. Rick Santorum about abortion -- it's something he seems to understand deep inside himself.
And even on the issue of abortion, on which he has famously flip-flopped, Romney found a way to shine. Conservative Princeton professor Robert P. George, one of the questioners, asked each candidate about a hugely unlikely scenario in which Congress, relying on the 14th Amendment, would pass a law overturning Roe v. Wade and set up a constitutional showdown with the Supreme Court over abortion. Repeated over and over, the question had the feel of a personal cause rather than an urgent national issue. Romney's carefully phrased answer was, in effect, no thanks. "I'm not looking to create a constitutional crisis," he told George.
Could Perry have outperformed Romney? After the forum, one Perry partisan said the Texas governor could have "out-commonsensed" Romney. Perry would certainly have scored some points, and perhaps delivered a good show, but it's hard to see him beating Romney on the substance of the issues.
...
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/09/after-perry-bails-romney-shines-south-carolina-forum#ixzz1XC9zO8NR
-
Interesting.
Someone have a URL of the whole debate?
-
Amen on the Tea Party, but this:
"We need to get their attention somehow and if by making sure they don't get into office and sending copies of the checks I send to Obama to the RNC with a note telling them why and enough people do it then we might win the Party back. There is no viable third Party and if we are not willing to fight to get control of the Republican Party then all is lost and the Libs know it."
seems a temper tantrum to me. Increasing the vote for Baraq seems a really counter-productive way to me to increase the ideological clarity of the Rep Party. Again, the message received will be that the TP is too fg radical. The Libertarian Party may not be "viable", but there is little doubt what a vote for it, what a check to it, means.
Woof Guro Crafydog,
Not to worry, if things keep going the way they are now the check will bounce anyway. :lol:
P.C.
-
http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2011/09/video-full-palmetto-freedom-forum-from-columbia-sc/
-------
Romney Economic Plan:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/Romney%20for%20president%20jobs%20plan.pdf
If elected, Romney says he would submit a jobs package on his first day in office consisting of five proposals. That legislation would reduce the corporate income tax rate to 25 percent; implement free trade agreements with Columbia, Panama, and South Korea; and direct the Department of the Interior to work with energy companies to survey energy reserves and lease all areas currently approved for exploration.
He would also immediately cut non-defense spending by 5 percent, reducing the federal budget by $20 billion. He would also cap spending at 20 percent of the country’s Gross Domestic Product.
Romney also reiterated that he would work to repeal Obama’s health care law, as well as the “Dodd-Frank” Wall Street reform law co-authored by US Representative Barney Frank of Newton.
Romney would also restructure the tax code, eliminating the so-called estate taxes on inheritances, as well as taxes on interest, dividends, and capital gains for low- and middle-income taxpayers. His plan does not offer a specific plan on the marginal income tax rate, saying only that he would “explore opportunities” to lower it.
-
Mitt Romney rolled out a major chunk of his economic agenda yesterday, and we'll say this for it: His ideas are better than President Obama's. Yet the 160 pages and 59 proposals also strike us as surprisingly timid and tactical considering our economic predicament. They're a technocrat's guide more than a reform manifesto.
***
The rollout is billed as Mr. Romney's "plan for jobs and economic growth," and it rightly points out that to create more jobs requires above all faster growth. This may seem like common sense, but it's a notable break from the Obama Administration's penchant for policies that "target" jobs rather than improving overall incentives for job creation. So we have had policies for "green jobs," or construction jobs, or teaching jobs, or automobile jobs, or temporary, targeted tax cuts for jobs—even as the economy struggles.
Enlarge Image
CloseGetty Images
Mitt Romney signs copies of his jobs plan for supporters in North Las Vegas, Nevada, on Tuesday.
.Mr. Romney seems to understand that the private economy will inevitably produce millions of new jobs—in industries and companies we can't predict—when it resumes growing at 3% or more. This is an important philosophical distinction that drives most of the Romney agenda.
So it's good to see the former Massachusetts Governor endorse the House GOP effort to review and approve major new regulations that cost more than $100 million. Mr. Romney also joins the other GOP candidates in vowing to repeal ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank. He'd pull the Energy Department from the role as venture capitalist that it has pursued since the Bush Administration, re-focusing it back on basic research, rather than backing solar companies that go bankrupt.
His section on "human capital" is also laudable, pointing out how little sense it makes to educate the world's smartest young people in our universities only to send them home after they graduate. He'd offer more visas to keep more of them here. The former Bain Capital executive would also apply his management skills to revamping the vast federal job-training archipelago, with its 47 programs. His proposal for "personal reemployment accounts" for laid-off workers isn't a new idea but it is worth trying.
Where the Governor is less persuasive is on the larger issues of taxes, spending, entitlements and trade. Here he ducks and covers more than he needs to.
Related Video
Editorial board members Mary Kissel, Mary O'Grady and Joe Rago on Mitt Romney's economic plan.
..On taxes, Mr. Romney would immediately cut the top corporate income-tax rate to 25% from 35%. His advisers say there's already a bipartisan consensus that the U.S. rate hurts American companies, and they're right. Even Mr. Obama agrees.
But on other taxes, Mr. Romney shrinks from a fight. He says he favors tax reform with lower individual tax rates but only "in the long run." His advisers say that means in the first two years of his Presidency, but then why not sketch out more details?
The answer may lie in his proposal to eliminate the capital gains tax—but only for those who earn less than $200,000 a year. This eviscerates most of the tax cut's economic impact and also suggests that he's afraid of Mr. Obama's class warfare rhetoric. He even picked Mr. Obama's trademark income threshold for the capital gains cut-off.
If Mr. Romney thinks this will let him dodge a class warfare debate, he's fooling himself. Democrats will hit him anyway for opposing Mr. Obama's proposal to raise taxes on higher incomes, dividends and capital gains in 2013. Perhaps Mr. Romney feels that his wealth and background make him especially vulnerable to the class charge, but if he won't openly make the economic case for lower tax rates he'll never get Congress to go along.
On spending, Mr. Romney joins the GOP's "cut, cap and balance" parade, setting a cap on spending over time at 20% of GDP. What Mr. Romney doesn't do is provide even a general map for how to get there, beyond cutting spending on nonsecurity domestic programs by 5% upon taking office.
He praises Paul Ryan for making "important strides" on Medicare but says his plan "will differ," without offering details. He also says there are a "number of options" to reform Social Security without endorsing any of them. We are told those specifics will come later. It's hardly unusual for candidates to avoid committing to difficult proposals, but it won't help Mr. Romney contrast his leadership with Mr. Obama's.
By far the most troubling proposal is Mr. Romney's call for "confronting China" on trade. This is usually a Democratic theme, but Mr. Romney does Mr. Obama one worse by pledging to have his Treasury brand China a "currency manipulator" if it doesn't "move quickly to bring its currency to full value." He'd then hit Beijing with countervailing duties.
(Marc: I am not without sympathy to this idea)
Starting a trade war is a rare policy mistake that Mr. Obama hasn't made, but Mr. Romney claims it is a way to faster growth. His advisers say he doesn't favor a 25% tariff on Chinese goods as some in Congress do, but once a President unleashes protectionist furies they are hard to contain.
His economic aides say this idea comes directly from Mr. Romney himself, which is even less reassuring. It looks like a political maneuver to blunt the criticism he'll receive because some of Bain Capital's companies sent jobs overseas, or perhaps this is intended to win over working-class precincts in Pennsylvania and Ohio. But giving Americans the impression that a trade war will bring those jobs back to the U.S. is offering false hope. It also distracts from the other fiscal and regulatory reforms that are needed to attract capital and create jobs.
***
The biggest rap on Mr. Romney as a potential President is that it's hard to discern any core beliefs beyond faith in his own managerial expertise. For all of its good points, yesterday's policy potpourri won't change that perception.
-
I'm listening to the Tea Party "debates" (actually a series of job interviews). I'm very pleased with the format, the quality of the questions, and the quality of the answers so far (good job by Cain btw) -- just starting to listen to Newt.
-
One of the great things about President Reagan was that he WAS willing to compromise.
The real Ronald Reagan may not meet today's GOP standards
The pragmatic side of the former president, who was willing to compromise when necessary, is overlooked as he becomes a conservative icon.
By Mark Z. Barabak, Los Angeles Times
4:51 PM PDT, September 6, 2011
When the Republican presidential hopefuls gather to debate Wednesday night in Simi Valley, one thing seems certain: Lavish tribute will be paid to Ronald Reagan.
That is fitting: The event is being held at Reagan's presidential library and burial ground, high on a bluff overlooking the Santa Susana Mountains.
It's also smart politics. Reagan has become a sainted figure within the GOP who, not incidentally, is the most successful and popular of the party's modern presidents.
But the Reagan reverie will doubtless overlook much of the Reagan reality.
As president, the conservative icon approved several tax increases to deal with a soaring budget deficit, repeatedly boosted the nation's debt limit, signed into law a bill granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants and, despite his anti-Washington rhetoric, oversaw an increase in the size and spending of the federal government. Before that, as California governor, he enacted what at the time was the largest state tax increase in American history. He also signed into law one of the nation's most permissive abortion bills; any Republican who tried that today would be cast out of the party.
The fact that Reagan often took the actions grudgingly speaks to what, by modern Republican standards, may be one of the greatest heresies of all: At bottom, Reagan was a pragmatist, willing, when necessary, to cut a deal and compromise.
"He had a strong set of core values and operated off of those," said Stuart Spencer, a GOP strategist who stood by Reagan's side for virtually his entire political career, starting with his first run for governor. "But when push came to shove, he did various things he didn't like doing, because he knew it was in the best interests of the state or country at the time."
Spencer, with characteristic bluntness, dismissed the current vogue of Reagan revisionism: "A lot of those people running out there don't really understand what he did. It's just a matter of attaching themselves to a winner."
Reagan's transformation from man to myth is, to some degree, calculated. The passage of time almost invariably casts a warm (or at least warmer) glow on recent past presidents. Thanks to their good works, Democrats Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter have risen in the public's esteem. Even Richard Nixon, who resigned in disgrace, has ticked up in opinion surveys.
In Reagan's case, there has been an orchestrated campaign over the last several years by acolytes eager to glorify his image and affix his name to as many public markers — airports, mountains, roads, bridges, buildings — as possible.
But Reagan is also celebrated because he achieved big things, both domestically, where he revived the nation's flagging self-confidence, and abroad, where he helped drive the Soviet Union to extinction.
After a deep and stubborn recession early on, the economy thrived for much of Reagan's two terms and, though partisans may debate the causes and the ultimate costs of that boomlet, those frothy times compare quite favorably with today's anxiety-ridden environment.
"It wasn't like pushing a button and the machine just took off," said Lou Cannon, a retired Washington Post reporter who wrote several books chronicling Reagan's career, starting with his two terms in Sacramento. "It took some calibration" — the top income tax rate was cut drastically while various tax breaks and loopholes ended — "but Reagan was practical and willing to calibrate."
Many also extol Reagan for his command of the presidency — both its power and trappings — in further contrast, they say, with the current occupant of the White House.
"He came into office with a strong set of principles and, with some digressions and a few failures, fought for them, represented them and stood by them," said Ken Khachigian, a former Reagan speechwriter and political strategist. (Reagan was also a fabulously gifted politician, even if that description made him blanch. "He had a way of seeming steadfast," Khachigian said, "even when he was bending.")
The Republican Party has obviously changed greatly since Reagan first ran for president in 1968, and even since he left office with a solid 63% approval rating in January 1989. It is hard to imagine a governor with Reagan's record on taxes and abortion faring very well in today's GOP nominating fight, even if he did repudiate those positions.
Reagan's willingness to compromise has also fallen badly out of favor in a Republican Party fired up by its give-no-quarter "tea party" ranks.
"People that pragmatic now are what they call RINOs," said Spencer, using the epithet, "Republican in Name Only," that is flung by keepers of the faith at those deemed less than pure.
If, however, the Reagan of real life seems less welcome on Wednesday night's debate stage than the Reagan the candidates are likely to conjure, not every admirer seems as ready to restyle the 40th president to suit today's political fashion.
"You can make someone so iconic and so near divine that you lose the essence of the man," said Craig Shirley, a longtime conservative strategist and Reagan biographer. "If you are faithful and you want to do the man justice, then you have to accept the whole body of knowledge," compromises and all.
"I don't think," Shirley said, "you should cherry-pick history."
-
Partially true.
a) "After a deep and stubborn recession early on, the economy thrived for much of Reagan's two terms and, though partisans may debate the causes and the ultimate costs of that boomlet, those frothy times compare quite favorably with today's anxiety-ridden environment."
Snarky and inaccurate. Volcker, listening to Dem foolishness that tax rate cuts would be inflationary, slammed on the monetary brakes and politically Reagan had to phase in the tax rate cuts over three years, thus prolonging the recession as many business decisions were postponed in order to take advantage of impending tax rate decreases. The acid test came the January when the final cut became effective. Milton Friedman predicted a contraction, Jude Wanniski and the other supply siders predicted a big surge. Working from memory, the surge was something like 10% growth! Supply side was vindicated and monetarism had to get back to the lane where it has relevance.
b) Worth noting that Reagan's compromise on illegal aliens included Dem promises to control the border. I suspect at this point he would say "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
c) Reagan's mental acuity was beginning to decline at the time of the 1986 compromises on the tax code and illegal aliens.
=================
If nominated, this business about Perry not believing in evolution is going to hurt him in the general election I think, especially when coupled with the turbulent state of public thinking about global warming.
Cheap shot by Romney on Perry's "Ponzi scheme" comment on SS. It IS a Ponzi scheme-- but if Perry is not careful this will get painted as meaning PERRY wants to welch on SS.
==========
An internet friend keeps sending me material on this: www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2011/09/the_real_perryaga_khan_curriculum_is_bad_for_children.html
Any thoughts?
-
Posing an obvious question here that follows from the discussion on Glibness and Energy:
JDN, Your writings of your views on economics, taxation and now energy IMHO fit far better with Obama than with Huntsman. Unless other big differences emerge, these are the key issues. You can handle that dissonance any way you want, but from nearly everything you write I would say that Republicans once again would gain nothing by offering up a so called moderate. We should continue to vet out a real conservative leader to nominate for President, let all the left leaning voters go all the way left, and then defeat them all the way up and down the ballot and begin to rebuild the foundations of this once great country. :-)
-
"Cheap shot by Romney on Perry's "Ponzi scheme" comment on SS. It IS a Ponzi scheme-- but if Perry is not careful this will get painted as meaning PERRY wants to welch on SS."
It's worse than a Ponzi scheme, a Ponzi scammer can't use the force of law to compel you to participate in it.
-
Crafty posted this link to a piece soft on Islam in Teas curriculum asking for comment:
http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2011/09/the_real_perryaga_khan_curriculum_is_bad_for_children.html
-------
If the main job of a President was how to teach people about Islam, this piece might expose naivete and weakness. Considering this election is going to be about shrinking government other than defense and growing the economy and jobs, I highly doubt this will derail anything.
If Perry looked weak on defense, weak on the war against terror or weak on support for Israel, this might be used to undercut him. I don't think he has those vulnerabilities.
Most people don't want to learn or believe that Islam is by definition a war against us. People want to believe, even if false, that the violent few are misinterpreting the teachings. Writings in our own Holy Books are not assumed by most to be taken 100% literal. Any candidate who attacks him against the peaceful side of Islam will become the one painted as extreme IMO. And no one will.
The piece is interesting to me because it is the first I have read that explains the allegedly controversy that he has. Perry has either a friendship or political tie to anti-tax advocate Grover Norquist, a Methodist whose wife is of Palestinian descent That was the onlything I saw previously that showed some tie to Islam. Especially as compared to his general election opponent. Perry looks rock-solid on his faith and that allows him to move forward to other issues. There are leftists, atheist and moderates who hate Christians, buy they wouldn't be voting for him on the issues either.
One of Perry's good qualities has been the ability to say he was wrong as he did with the forced immunization issue. If a missing chapter in a Texas k-12 textbook becomes the key issue and there is something fundamentally wrong here, he can apologize, separate himself from it and move on, because it didn't fit some pre-conceived image or weakness he was trying to shake. (IMHO)
-
What's the left going to do, accuse Perry of being soft on the global jihad? :roll:
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/276859/perry-and-ponzis-stanley-kurtz
September 12, 2011 4:00 A.M.
Perry and the Ponzis
Until a half a minute ago, liberals called Social Security a Ponzi scheme, too.
Is Texas governor and Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry a courageous and welcome truth teller for calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme, or is he being needlessly provocative instead? Or maybe you think Perry’s Ponzi comparison is just plain wrong. I favor the truth-teller option, but the debate will surely go on.
In any case, it’s certain that Perry’s Ponzi-scheme claim is in no way original. Not only have a raft of conservatives called Social Security a Ponzi scheme over the years, quite a few very respectable liberals have done so as well. It is clearly wrong either to treat the Ponzi-scheme analogy as unprecedented or to rule it altogether out of legitimate public debate. A historical tour of the use of the Ponzi-scheme metaphor will make the point.
Jonathan Last has already identified a 1967 Newsweek column by liberal economist and Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson as perhaps the earliest use of the Social Security/Ponzi-scheme comparison in public argument. Samuelson was actually drawing on the Ponzi analogy to defend Social Security. His claim was that the perpetual succession of human generations establishes the conditions for a sustainable Ponzi scheme. Regardless of whether Samuelson was the first commentator to use the Ponzi analogy, he has clearly been the most influential. Policy briefs and books churned out by conservative think tanks such as Heritage and Cato have cited Samuelson’s Ponzi column for years. This is likely how the comparison made its way into public debate.
Samuelson’s idea that Social Security could best be understood as an enduring and rational Ponzi scheme grew out of his “overlapping-generations model,” introduced in a seminal 1958 paper. Samuelson’s model implied that public debt in general, and Social Security in particular, could be financed over successive generations without major tax increases. In the 1980s, Samuelson’s overlapping-generations model was seized upon by Keynesian economists to serve as a microeconomic foundation for their favored theories and plans.
The unfortunate weakness of Samuelson’s model is its assumption that a growing economy will produce continual population increase. In an April 1978 follow-up in Newsweek to his original 1967 column, Samuelson acknowledged that demographic reality was disproving this assumption. Samuelson repeated his use of the Ponzi analogy and continued to defend his hopes for Social Security as best he could. While Samuelson hung onto some slim indications in 1977 that U.S. fertility might be on the upswing, it grew increasingly clear to critics that the post–Baby Boom decline in births was not going to be reversed. Increasingly, Samuelson’s Ponzi-scheme analogy was seized upon by those who doubted Social Security’s long-term soundness.
In an April 1999 Los Angeles Times op-ed titled “Ponzi Game Needs Equitable Solution,” for example, Stanford University economists Victor Fuchs and John Shoven hark back to Samuelson’s 1967 column, noting that his demographic optimism had proved wrong. While turning the Ponzi analogy into a criticism of Social Security’s soundness, Fuchs and Shoven nonetheless argue against private investment accounts — a favorite solution of conservatives. Fuchs is hardly a rightist; for instance, he co-authored an ambitious and controversial universal-health-care proposal with Obamacare architect Ezekiel Emanuel. Apparently, Samuelson’s Ponzi analogy has shaped the Social Security debate for figures across the political spectrum.
A watershed moment in the public realization that low population growth spells trouble for Social Security was the 1987 publication of Ben Wattenberg’s book The Birth Dearth. Wattenberg, who once worked for Lyndon Johnson and Hubert Humphrey, was by the late 1980s a centrist Democrat, hawkish on defense and otherwise alternately allied with the right or left, depending on the issue. Although many rejected Wattenberg’s claim in The Birth Dearth that a crisis of population decline loomed, time has vindicated his warning.
In a U.S. News & World Report cover story excerpting The Birth Dearth, Wattenberg sums up his argument by saying: “In short, Social Security is a Ponzi game, a pyramid scheme, a chain letter.” In a December 1995 column, Wattenberg makes the point again, calling both Social Security and Medicare “chain letter games.” Implicitly echoing Samuelson, Wattenberg adds, “There’s nothing inherently wrong with a Ponzi game. Life itself is such a game.” The problem, Wattenberg continues, is that the success of the Ponzi game called life hinges on higher birth rates than we’ve been able to produce.
**Read it all.
-
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/perry-campaign-remember-when-romney-compared-social-security-criminal-enterprise_592931.html
The Perry campaign blasts out a pretty clean hit on Mitt Romney:
Last night, Romney said, “Under no circumstances would I ever say, by any measure, it’s a failure. It is working for millions of Americans.”
However, in his book “No Apology: The Case For American Greatness”, which was published just last year, Romney compared those managing Social Security to criminals, saying:
“Let’s look at what would happen if someone in the private sector did a similar thing. Suppose two grandparents created a trust fund, appointed a bank as trustee, and instructed the bank to invest the proceeds of the trust fund so as to provide for their grandchildren’s education. Suppose further that the bank used the proceeds for its own purposes, so that when the grandchildren turned eighteen, there was no money for them to go to college. What would happen to the bankers responsible for misusing the money? They would go to jail. But what has happened to the people responsible for the looming bankruptcy of Social Security? They keep returning to Congress every two years.”
Even better, the Perry campaign points out that Romney said just two weeks ago that he didn't know of a single Republican who actually wants to cut Social Security or Medicare for people in or near retirement:
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_saUN4j7Gw[/youtube]
He's usually not this dynamic.
-
Republicans have been more frustrated than usual with their Presidential candidates, and last Tuesday's debate exchange on Social Security between Rick Perry and Mitt Romney shows why. One candidate seemed to taunt his critics by showing disdain for anyone who supports the entitlement for seniors, while the other candidate sounded like a Democrat defending it.
Mr. Perry was asked about a passage from his recent book in which he called Social Security a Ponzi scheme. The question was inevitable, yet the Texas Governor gave the impression he hadn't given it more than a few moments of thought.
"Anybody that's for the status quo with Social Security today," he said, "is involved with a monstrous lie to our kids, and it's not right." Young people who "expect that program to be sound, and for them to receive benefits when they research retirement age" should be disabused of that notion, Mr. Perry added, repeating the "lie" bit as if he had little more to say.
Give Mr. Perry credit for addressing one of the third rails of American politics, but that doesn't mean he has to invite electrocution. The problem with his hot rhetoric is that it can turn off many voters before they even get a chance to listen to his reform proposals, assuming he eventually offers some.
He's even technically right that Social Security is a species of Ponzi scheme (if not a criminal enterprise) in the sense that young people today are putting more into the system than they can possibly get out in retirement.
Enlarge Image
CloseAssociated Press
Mitt Romney and Rick Perry.
.Part of the problem is that current seniors get more than they put in thanks to the formula for increasing benefits over time. Eugene Steuerle and Stephanie Rennane of the Urban Institute estimate that a two-earner couple both earning an average wage who retire in 2010 will get $906,000 in benefits having paid $588,000 in payroll taxes. The same couple who retires in 2030 will get $1.23 million (in constant dollars) while having paid $796,000.
Even a pyramid system such as this could be solvent if it took advantage of compound interest. But the overriding problem is that not a dime of the payroll contributions the government collects over a lifetime is saved and invested for a worker's retirement. Social Security's pay-as-you-go financing model means that 12.4% of all wages are transferred to current beneficiaries, the surplus dollars are spent by Congress on other things, and Social Security gets an IOU from the Treasury.
In other words, the program is building up debt even as benefits become less sustainable as the baby boomers begin to retire and the ratio of workers to seniors shrinks. The feds will then have to pay out of other tax revenue to meet Social Security's obligations. This is the long-range problem Mr. Perry should attempt to explain, and the danger is that his rhetoric will scare the elderly rather than reassure them that reform is necessary for the sake of their grandchildren. He's now running to represent Republicans as their Presidential nominee, not hawking a book on conservative talk radio.
As for Mr. Romney, he seems to be taking Social Security assaults a notch or two beyond even the Democratic playbook. At the debate he implied Mr. Perry was "committed to abolishing Social Security," and he has since made this a major campaign theme.
His press shop followed up with a memo claiming Mr. Perry "Believes Social Security Should Not Exist," and Mr. Romney told a talk radio show that "If we nominate someone who the Democrats can correctly characterize as being opposed to Social Security, we would be obliterated as a party."
We'd give Mr. Romney more credit for his professed political prudence if he were at least proposing some Social Security reforms of his own. But his recent 160-page economic platform avoids anything controversial on the subject. If Mr. Romney rides to the nomination by sounding like President Obama on Social Security, he will make any reform he would eventually need to attempt that much harder to accomplish.
The key point is that, unlike a Ponzi scheme, Social Security can be reformed and it will have to be if current workers are to receive any return on their current taxes. Everyone serious knows what the reform options are—from changing the benefits schedule, to "progressive indexing," to raising the retirement age. We'd prefer private accounts so that young people could build wealth as a property right and not depend on the promises of politicians, while the money would be put to productive economic use in the meantime. Herman Cain mentioned it in last week's debate. But if that's too politically adventurous for the two Governors, maybe they can meet somewhere in between their rhetorical positions.
-
Question to whoever:
Do you feel like the Republican party is too divided to beat Obama? According to Brian Williams the other night, Obama would lose to a generic Republican candidate, but is still leading either Romney or Perry.
Is the idea of a generic Republican dead right now? I feel like the Tea Party has divided the GOP enough that "generic Republican" means very different things to the different people.
Is there any hope of a new candidate that will appeal to moderate Republicans and the Tea Party?
I still think the GOP plans on losing this election and are just sacrificing all their crappy people to Obama.
-
As Obama continues to fail, anyone on the ballot will beat him.
-
"Question to whoever:"
If I am not mistaken, that should be "whomever" :evil: :lol:
"Do you feel like the Republican party is too divided to beat Obama?"
I see the risk as a matter of incompetence more than division.
"According to Brian Williams the other night, Obama would lose to a generic Republican candidate, but is still leading either Romney or Perry."
The polls I am seeing showing R or P winning by a point or two, but the larger point is valid: Baraq is shockingly strong when he goes head to head with a Rep candidate.
"Is the idea of a generic Republican dead right now? I feel like the Tea Party has divided the GOP enough that "generic Republican" means very different things to the different people."
IMHO the Tea Party is has energized the Rep Party. You think a party of Poener and wuzzhisface in the Senate, Mitch O'Connel inspires anyone?
"Is there any hope of a new candidate that will appeal to moderate Republicans and the Tea Party?"
A good question.. Perry;s "Fred Flintstone theory of evolution is going to cost him plenty of votes.
"I still think the GOP plans on losing this election and are just sacrificing all their crappy people to Obama."
Well, the Reps certainly have an amazing cpacity for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory , , ,
-
"A good question.. Perry;s "Fred flintstone theory of evolution is going to cost him plenty of votes."
Really? I think Obama's marxist theory of economics is more destructive.
-
WASHINGTON | Tue Sep 13, 2011 8:03am EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama faces deep skepticism from swing voters who see the Republican party as more in tune with their concerns about government spending, according to a poll released on Tuesday.
These undecided voters, who could determine whether Obama wins re-election next year, believe Republicans are more serious about reducing budget deficits and more aligned with them ideologically, according to the centrist Democratic think tank Third Way.
The poll focused on voters who had backed Obama in the 2008 presidential election but voted for Republican candidates in the 2010 congressional elections. They make up about 20 percent of the electorate in the handful of hotly contested states that will likely dictate the outcome of the 2012 election.
-
They were baited into attacking each other instead of taking turns showing the country how they would conduct a general election campaign against President Obama and how they galvanize the people around an agenda and mandate for recovery and prosperity.
Pawlenty and Bachmann had a similar snippy exchange against each other and now both are irrelevant.
Romney believed he needed to take Perry down a notch, but others across the spectrum were already doing that. Only problem with attacking him on SS comments is that Romney has used the exact same words. Romney makes the distinction that congress raiding the funds is what he was calling the criminal enterprise, but congress raiding the funds IS the status quo that Perry was attacking. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/12/romney_and_perry_argue_over_social_security_at_tea_party_debate.html
Perry drew attention to the problem magnificently, as if he were about to announce the solution, and then didn't.
Romney drew attention to his 59 point economic plan ahead of the President's speech and left the key points vague and uncommitted.
My advice to all of them at the beginning of all this was to pursue clarity. Still waiting.
-
GM 9/12/11: "It's worse than a Ponzi scheme, a Ponzi scammer can't use the force of law to compel you to participate in it."
Chcago Tribune Editorial 9/13/11: "The Texas governor owes a big apology to Charles Ponzi. Sure, Ponzi fleeced investors, but they at least had a choice about participating. Social Security operates on a compulsory basis."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-socialsecurity-20110913,0,6514632.story
That's the President's home town paper admitting the so-called right wing extremist in the race didn't go far enough. Who says we aren't making a difference. :-D
-
Heh. Crafty should check his logs to see if the Chicago Trib's IP has been hitting this forum. :-D
-
:-D
I read that Perry defended subsidizing college tuition for illegals. :x
Several people have really ticked me off on Perry's SS comments. Despite similar words to similar effect of his own, Romney (aided and abetted by supporter Tim Pawlenty) is now doing his best to establish a scurrilous meme to the effect that Perry's words means he wants to welch on SS. I understand politics is hardball, but not only is this a lie, but it also serves the Dems. Not that I liked Romney before, but this lowers my opinion of him as a man. I heard, but have not seen for myself, that Bachman has played this game a bit too.
-
I heard, but have not seen for myself, that Bachman has played this game a bit too.
I think they were talking about this on Neil Bortz yesterday. I heard the same thing somewhere there I believe.
-
Poll: 81% say Obama economic policies not working
by Byron York Chief Political Correspondent
Follow on Twitter:@byronyork
There's a lot of terrible news for President Obama in new polls by the Washington Post-ABC News and the Wall Street Journal-NBC News. The number of Americans who say the country is on the wrong track has risen to its highest level since just before Obama took office -- into what one commentator calls the "incumbent death zone." His job approval rating is down. The number of people who disapprove of his handling of the economy is rocketing upward. And then there is this question, asked by the Post-ABC:
Do you think Obama's economic program is making the economy better, making it worse, or having no real effect?
Just 17 percent say the president's program is making the economy better, while 34 percent say Obama's program is making the economy worse and 47 percent say it is having no real effect. Combine those last two numbers, and 81 percent say the Obama economic program is not working -- a devastating number in a country in which economic concerns top all other issues in voters' minds.
As far as the traditional right-track/wrong-track question is concerned, 77 percent of those surveyed by the Post-ABC say the country is on the wrong track, while just 20 percent say it is on the right track. The last time that number was so high in the Post-ABC poll was January 16, 2009, on the eve of Obama's inauguration, when 78 percent of those surveyed said the country was on the wrong track. If Obama does not reverse the trend in the wrong-track number, it could approach the levels it reached in the last months of the George W. Bush administration, when it topped 80 percent.
As for opinion on how Obama is handling the economy, 62 percent disapprove of his job performance on economic issues in the new Post-ABC poll, while just 36 percent approve. In the Journal-NBC poll, those numbers are 59 percent disapproval versus 37 percent approval. Finally, on the question of general job approval, Obama is down to 43 percent approval in the Post-ABC poll and 44 percent in the Journal-NBC poll. His disapproval ratings are 53 percent and 51 percent, respectively.
All that adds up to a president in major trouble as he faces re-election next year.
Yeah, I think whatever ACORN is called now better start working on Operation Vote Fraud very soon.....
-
10. Many Mexican Drug Cartels still woefully underarmed.
9. Hundreds of luxury resorts Michelle hasn't had a change to visit yet.
8. Bo loves airplane rides.
7. Obama merchendise plummeting in price.
6. Obama hasn't had the chance to bow before the new generation of Chinese leaders.
5. Dollar still hasn't been totally destroyed.
4. Union thugs threatened with having to get real jobs.
3. Hundreds of democrat donors that still haven't gotten their beaks into taxpayer money yet.
2. He's starting to get the hang of it.
1. Michelle doesn't want him spending ALL of his time golfing.
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kuTG19Cu_Q&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
Patriot!
-
Thread Nazi here. This thread is not for any and all nonsense pertaining to Baraq. This would have been better in Cognitive Dissonance.
-
Thread Nazi here. This thread is not for any and all nonsense pertaining to Baraq. This would have been better in Cognitive Dissonance.
Just poking holes in the "Obama is unbeatable" meme.
The dems are sweating losing Anthony "Littlefinger" Weiner's seat to a republican tonight. What does that say?
-
When Gov. Rick Perry obstructed an investigation into the execution of a man experts say was innocent, he committed a crime against all Texans. State executions are carried out in our names, collectively and individually. Subverting the truth in such a matter is a betrayal of the public trust that is difficult to describe or comprehend.
But Perry may have also committed a crime against the U.S., and I’m not talking about his secession threats. He may have violated federal law, U.S.C. 18.1001. This is no trivial matter. An innocent man was executed. Federal laws and guidelines are in place to keep that from happening. Perry may well have violated those laws and guidelines, for which there are criminal penalties.
Last night, CNN commentator, Texas hero and political strategist Paul Begala wrote us at DogCanyon with the following observation about our post earlier yesterday...
The rest is here : http://www.dogcanyon.org/2009/10/02/perrys-crime/
As soon as Rick Perry threw his hat into the 2012 electoral ring, anti–death penalty critics brought up his staggering execution record as governor of Texas: 234 prisoners have been put to death under Perry’s watch, a number of whom had serious innocence claims. Most famous among them is Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed in 2004 and whose case opened up an investigation that Perry has taken aggressive—and largely successful—measures to squash.
But a lesser-known case could also haunt the governor if it reaches his desk: that of Larry Swearingen, convicted and sent to death row for the kidnapping, rape and murder of a 19-year-old college freshman named Melissa Trotter in 1998. Like Willingham, Swearingen was convicted largely on circumstantial evidence and a history of run-ins with the law. But Willingham was convicted based on the inexact science of arson investigations, whose flawed assumptions have been slow to evolve. The scientific evidence in Swearingen’s case, medical experts say, is beyond dispute—and it proves his innocence.
More at : http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/02/opinion/main20100776.shtml
-
How exactly is Perry supposed to have obstructed an investigation?
-
Guess who said this:
"Social Security is structured from the point of view of the recipients as if it were an ordinary retirement plan: what you get out depends on what you put in. So it does not look like a redistributionist scheme. In practice it has turned out to be strongly redistributionist, but only because of its Ponzi game aspect, in which each generation takes more out than it put in. Well, the Ponzi game will soon be over, thanks to changing demographics, so that the typical recipient henceforth will get only about as much as he or she put in (and today's young may well get less than they put in)."
Same douchebag that said this:
So where do claims of crisis come from? To a large extent they rely on bad-faith accounting. In particular, they rely on an exercise in three-card monte in which the surpluses Social Security has been running for a quarter-century don’t count — because hey, the program doesn’t have any independent existence; it’s just part of the general federal budget — while future Social Security deficits are unacceptable — because hey, the program has to stand on its own.
It would be easy to dismiss this bait-and-switch as obvious nonsense, except for one thing: many influential people — including Alan Simpson, co-chairman of the president’s deficit commission — are peddling this nonsense.
And having invented a crisis, what do Social Security’s attackers want to do? They don’t propose cutting benefits to current retirees; invariably the plan is, instead, to cut benefits many years in the future. So think about it this way: In order to avoid the possibility of future benefit cuts, we must cut future benefits. O.K.
What’s really going on here? Conservatives hate Social Security for ideological reasons: its success undermines their claim that government is always the problem, never the solution. But they receive crucial support from Washington insiders, for whom a declared willingness to cut Social Security has long served as a badge of fiscal seriousness, never mind the arithmetic.
And neither wing of the anti-Social-Security coalition seems to know or care about the hardship its favorite proposals would cause.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/paul-krugman-social-security-ponzi-scheme-and-will-soon-be-over
-
Oh Hilllary.....
I wonder if Evan Bayh or other, more mainstream dems are getting some phone calls from frightened DNC bigwigs today.
-
Evan Bayh, yes. Kucinich from the left. What does he have to lose? Jim Webb's name (D-VA) came up on the board - he's not afraid of offending anyone. We were arguing about whether Gov. Huntsman uses chopsticks properly; Sen. Webb was Secretary of the Navy.
-
Oh Hilllary.....
I wonder if Evan Bayh or other, more mainstream dems are getting some phone calls from frightened DNC bigwigs today.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63466.html
HOWARD BEACH, N.Y.—The Democratic Party’s rare loss of a congressional seat in its urban heartland Tuesday, accompanied by a blowout defeat in a Nevada special election, marked the latest in a string of demoralizing setbacks that threatened to deepen the party’s crisis of confidence and raise concerns about President Barack Obama’s political fortunes.
In New York, Republican Bob Turner soundly defeated Democrat David Weprin in a House contest that — in the view of party leaders, at least — featured an anemic urban machine, distracted labor unions and disloyal voters. In Nevada, a consequential state for the president’s reelection strategy, Democrats suffered a runaway loss rooted in a weak showing in Reno’s Washoe County, a key bellwether.
Even before the polls closed, the recriminations — something short of panic, and considerably more than mere grumbling — had begun. On a high-level campaign conference call Tuesday afternoon, Democratic donors and strategists commiserated over their disappointment in Obama. A source on the call described the mood as “awful.”
“People feel betrayed, disappointed, furious, disgusted, hopeless,” said the source.
Less expansive but equally telling were the remarks of House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, who in a conversation with reporters Tuesday morning said bluntly that Obama would take some blame for the two special election losses.
“I think every election reflects on the person in charge, but do I think it is an overall statement on the president alone? No,” said Hoyer. “Do I think it will be interpreted as being a statement on Obama? That’s probably correct.”
A senior Hill Democratic aide was more direct in attempting to explain the New York loss: “The approval ratings for the guy at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue cratered.”
A Turner consultant, Steve Goldberg, validated that assessment: “It was all Obama — not even a thought of anything else.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63466.html
-
:-D :-D :-D
I look forward to reading more analysis about this and am totally astounded. This IS a big deal (big "f" deal to quote the quotable VP Biden :-D). Apparantly many of my fellow Jewish Americans are waking up to the realization they are being used:
***NO DEMOCRAT IS SAFE
By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann09.14.2011
The smashing victory of Republican Bob Turner in the special election for the Congressional seat held for decades by Chuck Schumer and Anthony Weiner sends a pointed warning to House Democrats who were formerly comfortable in their “safe” Democratic districts: No Democrat is safe!
Behind the incredible upset — this was the first time the district went Republican since it was created — lies the massive and growing animosity toward Obama by Jewish Democrats. This Administration’s deliberate insults against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, its sympathy with the radical Islamists, and its support for a return to 1967 borders for the Jewish State have cost it the support of its once second most loyal voting group (after African-Americans).
According to John McLaughlin, the star political strategist who helped pilot Turner to victor, the Republican candidate spent about $60,000 on media in the final week compared to over a million for the defeated Democrat Weprin. The Democrats flooded the district with workers and money but were not able to stem the avalanche.
Turnout among Latino and African-American voters was very low and the outpouring of Jewish and white Catholic voters against Obama’s candidate was truly impressive.
This victory for Republicans is, in its own way, as inspiring for conservatives and as deflating for liberals as the 2010 victory of Scott Brown in the Massachusetts Senate race. The message it sends is that Obama’s policies have made all liberals and all Democrats vulnerable even in the bastions of Democratic liberalism.
Thank you to the people who donated key funding to the Turner campaign through DickMorris.com in the pivotal last few days of the race. You made a big difference and can feel justifiably proud in the result!
Copyright © 2011 DickMorris.com | Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions | Log in***
-
**Can you imagine the screams if Bush had done anything like this?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/attack-watch-new-obama-campaign-site-to-fight-smears-becomes-laughing-stock-of-the-internet/2011/09/14/gIQAspHDSK_blog.html
Posted at 12:56 PM ET, 09/14/2011
Attack Watch, new Obama campaign site to ‘fight smears,’ becomes laughing stock of conservatives
By Elizabeth Flock
GALLERY: Click to view images of Obama's jobs promises.
As the 2012 presidential campaign heats up, President Obama’s campaign team has set up a new Web site, AttackWatch.com, to challenge negative statements about the president made by Republican presidential candidates and conservatives.
Obama for America national field director Jeremy Bird told ABC News that the site’s goal is to offer “resources to fight back” against attacks. Mostly, that means fact checking statements from the likes of GOP presidential contenders Mitt Romney and Rick Perry and conservative commentator Glenn Beck and offering evidence to the contrary. The site is designed in bold red and black colors, and uses statements like “support the truth” and “fight the smears.”
The response to the site has been less than stellar.
(Image via Twitter) On Twitter, where the Web site has an account to help Obama supporters submit evidence of “attacks” on the president using the hashtag #attackwatch, nearly every tweet about the site — mostly from conservatives — has ridiculed it.
“There's a new Twitter account making President Obama look like a creepy, authoritarian nutjob,” an Arizonan tweeted. “In less than 24 hours, Attack Watch has become the biggest campaign joke in modern history,” a contributor to conservative blog The Right Sphere wrote. The contributor linked to the following parody commercial for Attack Watch:
Tommy Christopher of Mediaite noted sarcastically of the site, “Great. Sounds like a terrific content-generating resource for right-wing bloggers, too. Everybody wins!”
While the initiative is reminiscent of a similar online effort launched during the 2008 campaign, called Fight the Smears, the intimidating design and language of the new site seems to be what’s causing a bigger ruckus.
Fight the Smears looked and felt far less scary, quoting Obama at the top of its page in a classic hope-change statement: “What you won’t hear from this campaign or this party is the kind of politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon — that sees our opponents not as competitors to challenge but enemies to demonize.”
Attack Watch, on the other hand, uses the shorter tagline, “Get the Truth. Fight the Smears.”
It’s safe to say that in its 24 hours of existence, Attack Watch has already backfired, becoming a tool for conservatives to use against Obama 2012. A tweet by conservative author Brad Thor summed up the critics’s argument: “Wow, not only are Obama & Co. incredibly thin-skinned, they're paranoid.”
Update, Wednesday, 5:11 p.m.
Obama 2012’s press office just returned an earlier request for comment. According to deputy press secretary Katie Hogan, 100,000 people signed up for the site in the first 24 hours.
“This site is a tool providing our supporters with the facts they need to fight back against lies and distortions about the President’s record,” Hogan said.
-
(http://michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/ZZ75671ACD.jpg)
-
(http://michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/ZZ43A95397.jpg)
-
Just a little red X in a little box showing in the last two entries.
-
Just a little red X in a little box showing in the last two entries.
They loaded for me. :?
You can view them at the link below.
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/09/14/attaaaaack-waaaaaaatch/
-
Krugman: (GM posted this previously in the thread) "Social Security...in practice it has turned out to be strongly redistributionist, but only because of its Ponzi game aspect, in which each generation takes more out than it put in. Well, the Ponzi game will soon be over, thanks to changing demographics..."
----
How about Chris Matthews and ... Tim Russert:
Mr. Russert: "Everyone knows Social Security, as it's constructed, is not going to be in the same place it's going to be for the next generation, Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives."
Mr. Matthews: "It's a bad Ponzi scheme, at this point."
Mr. Russert: "Yes."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904060604576570670305899208.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_RIGHTBelowPepperandSalt
----
The list of who compared Social Security to Ponzi might be limitless. But if SS is a Ponzi scheme and everyone knows it, why is it off-limits for a serious candidate to say aloud what a Nobel Naureate and Meet the Press star host also have said.
What article in the constitution gives congress that power anyway?
-
Ponzis are illegal unless it is through the US government.
Republicans are not allowed to call it what it is. Only liberals.
-
Obviously this could go on the Israel thread, but because of its implications for the election, I place it here. Comments in this thread should focus on its US political implications please. Comments on the substance should go in the Israel thread.
By RICK PERRY
The historic friendship between the United States and Israel stretches from the founding of the Jewish state in 1948 to the present day. Our nations have developed vital economic and security relationships in an alliance based on shared democratic principles, deep cultural ties, and common strategic interests. Historian T.R. Fehrenbach once observed that my home state of Texas and Israel share the experience of "civilized men and women thrown into new and harsh conditions, beset by enemies."
Surrounded by unfriendly neighbors and terror organizations that aim to destroy her, the Jewish state has never had an easy life. Today, the challenges are mounting. Israel faces growing hostility from Turkey. Its three-decades-old peace with Egypt hangs by a thread. Iran pursues nuclear weapons its leaders vow to use to annihilate Israel. Terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians from Hezbollah and Hamas continue. And now, the Palestinian leadership is intent on destroying the possibility of a negotiated settlement of the conflict with Israel in favor of unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state by the United Nations.
Enlarge Image
CloseGetty Images
A young boy in east Jerusalem
.The Palestinian plan to win that one-sided endorsement from the U.N. this month in New York threatens Israel and insults the United States. The U.S. and the U.N. have long supported the idea that Israel and its neighbors should make peace through direct negotiations. The Palestinian leadership has dealt directly with Israel since 1993 but has refused to do so since March 2010. They seem to prefer theatrics in New York to the hard work of negotiation and compromise that peace will require.
Errors by the Obama administration have encouraged the Palestinians to take backward steps away from peace. It was a mistake to call for an Israeli construction freeze, including in Jerusalem, as an unprecedented precondition for talks. Indeed, the Palestinian leadership had been negotiating with Israel for years, notwithstanding settlement activity. When the Obama administration demanded a settlement freeze, it led to a freeze in Palestinian negotiations. It was a mistake to agree to the Palestinians' demand for indirect negotiations conducted through the U.S., and it was an even greater mistake for President Obama to distance himself from Israel and seek engagement with the hostile regimes in Syria and Iran.
Palestinian leaders have perceived this as a weakening of relations between Israel and the U.S, and they are trying to exploit it. In taking this destabilizing action in the U.N., the Palestinians are signaling that they have no interest in a two-state solution. The Palestinian leadership's insistence on the so-called "right of return" of descendants of Palestinian refugees to Israel's sovereign territory, thereby making Jews an ethnic minority in their own state, is a disturbing sign that the ultimate Palestinian "solution" remains the destruction of the Jewish state.
The U.S.—and the U.N—should do everything possible to discourage the Palestinian leadership from pursuing its current course.
Related Video
Deputy editorial page editor Bret Stephens on whether any of the GOP candidates are fit to be commander-in-chief.
..The U.S. should oppose the statehood measure by using our veto in the Security Council, as President Obama has pledged to do, and by doing everything we can to weaken support for the unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood in the General Assembly. The U.S. must affirm that the precondition for any properly negotiated future settlement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority is the formal recognition of the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state behind secure borders.
Since the Oslo accords were signed in 1993, the U.S. has provided more than $4 billion in aid to the Palestinian Authority. This year alone, the Obama administration is seeking to secure $550 million in funding for Palestinians. The U.S. has an interest in the development of Palestinian civil society and institutions. We should encourage Palestinians who are more interested in building a prosperous future than in fueling the grievances of the past.
Our aid is, and must remain, predicated on the commitment of the Palestinian leadership to engage honestly and directly with the Israelis in negotiating a peace settlement. Their threatened unilateral action in the U.N. signals a failure to abide by this commitment.
We must not condone and legitimize through our assistance a regime whose actions are in direct opposition to a peace agreement and to our vital interests. The Palestinian people should understand that their leaders are now putting this much-needed support in jeopardy and act in their own best interests—which are also the interests of peace.
Mr. Perry, the Republican governor of Texas, is running for president of the United States.
-
I don't normally watch Jay Leno, but last night I saw Michelle Bachman was on so I watched.
Jay can often be an easy going interviewer, but he was very aggressive with her. He opened gently teasing her about her way of waving her hand in greeting to a crowd.
He questioned her quite hard on her opposition to the HPV vaccinations (the thing about which she clashed with Perry) - why she was against vaccinating against cancer? why had she quoted that unknown woman who said the vaccination had caused her daughter to go retarded? Why had she not gotten the woman's name? Did she not know that there was no science to support the claim?
I thought her responses quite weak.
Then he went after her very strongly on the gay marriage issue with a "What skin is it off your nose if two gays marry?" line of questioning.
I thought her responses quite weak.
I like Michelle, but her lack of presidentiality is growing more and more evident. Frankly I think of her more as a MILF :lol:
-
At this time she needs to stay in Congress. I hate to say it but she has this look that reminds of Pelosi.
As for Leno I don't recall he moonlights as a journolist. Why is he even grilling her with questions? I don't watch him or his ilk but could anyone imagine him grilling Brock or Pelosi like that?
Just more Hollywood crap as far as I am concerned.
-
I don't normally watch Jay Leno, but last night I saw Michelle Bachman was on so I watched.
Jay can often be an easy going interviewer, but he was very aggressive with her. He opened gently teasing her about her way of waving her hand in greeting to a crowd.
He questioned her quite hard on her opposition to the HPV vaccinations (the thing about which she clashed with Perry) - why she was against vaccinating against cancer? why had she quoted that unknown woman who said the vaccination had caused her daughter to go retarded? Why had she not gotten the woman's name? Did she not know that there was no science to support the claim?
I thought her responses quite weak.
Then he went after her very strongly on the gay marriage issue with a "What skin is it off your nose if two gays marry?" line of questioning.
I thought her responses quite weak.
I like Michelle, but her lack of presidentiality is growing more and more evident. Frankly I think of her more as a MILF :lol:
I think her HPV "retardation" claim was a fatal mistake for her run.
-
Home foreclosures may haunt Obama in battleground states
By Nancy Benac
Associated Press
Article Last Updated: Friday, September 16, 2011 5:58pm
Associated Press
Many of the states with the highest underwater mortgage rates also are political battleground states: In Nevada, 60 percent of homeowners are upside down; Arizona, 49 percent; Florida, 45 percent; and Michigan, 36 percent.
WASHINGTON – Barack Obama’s road to re-election is lined with lots of boarded-up homes.
Though the high unemployment rate dominates talk in Washington, for many 2012 voters the housing crisis may well be a more powerful manifestation of a sick economy. And, in an unfortunate twist for Obama, the problem is at its worst in many of the battleground states that will be decisive in determining whether he gets another term.
Swing states Florida, Arizona, Nevada, Ohio and Michigan – they all pulse red-hot on a foreclosure rate “heat map.” And by themselves those five add up to 80 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency.
Mortgage default notices surged nationally last month. One in every 118 homes in Nevada received a foreclosure filing in August, according to the foreclosure listing firm RealtyTrac. One in 248 in Arizona. One in 349 in Michigan. One in 376 in Florida. And so on.
A foreclosure’s impact is visceral and outsized, rippling far beyond one household.
“Entire neighborhoods see what’s going on,” says Bill Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former Clinton administration official. “The visibility contributes to the psychology of continued economic troubles.”
There’s the in-your-face eyesore sometimes created by a vacant house next door sprouting weeds on the front lawn.
There’s the downward pressure on housing values that can follow for everyone else in the neighborhood.
There’s the welling frustration felt by neighboring homeowners who may owe more on their own mortgages than their homes are worth.
Nearly a quarter of all U.S. homeowners with mortgages are now underwater, representing nearly 11 million homes, according to CoreLogic, a real estate research firm.
Again, many of the states with the highest underwater mortgage rates also are political battleground states: In Nevada, 60 percent of homeowners are upside down, according to CoreLogic. Arizona is at 49 percent; Florida, 45 percent; Michigan, 36 percent.
Obama will need swing-state voters more than ever in 2012 because of the tougher political climate for Democrats this election season.
Politically, it all adds up to “the thousand-pound gorilla in the room,” says Roy Oppenheim, a Florida foreclosure defense attorney who speaks of “suburban blight” in his home state, of gutted homes, of entire neighborhoods where banks are bulldozing foreclosures.
Obama set high expectations for turning things around, Oppenheim says, and hasn’t been able to deliver, leaving people disillusioned.
“At some point, you don’t judge people by how well they speak, you judge them by their actions,” says the attorney, who backed Obama in the 2008 presidential race. “I continue, I guess, to support him, but I do it very reluctantly.”
-
Leno may not be a journalist, but he regularly invites major candidates on his show. The nature of the format (less gotcha, more human) is such that many people form important impressions of candidates from what they see on the show. Michelle let Jay define the conversation and handled poorly questions she should expect anywhere she goes. The retarded retard comment was but a final nail in the coffin. Perry has already sucked up most of her oxygen.
-
I've always liked Cain, but frankly have wondered his mental heft more than once.
That said, I was genuinely impressed by him in his interview yesterday with Chris Wallace. His 9-9-9 Plan is very intriguing and IMHO with a bit of luck could catch public attention. ON THIS SUBJECT I felt him to be of presidential timber, including in his ability to present his thoughts in potentially politically successful themes.
At the time of the interview, when pressed by Wallace Cain said felt he could not name his advisors without their permission, but hoped to have their permission quite soon. Perhaps this could provide the spark to get things going?
-
As written, the Cain 9-9-9 plan it is far better than today's tax system. Problem is that bill on the drawing table isn't identical to the law that gets passed or the law as it evolves 30 years and 50 years later. Social security was to be a 1% tax rate only up to a cap of $1400 income.
From a letter today in the WSJ: "Mr. Cain's plan has all the potential to make his 9-9-9 Plan a 29-29-29 Plan following the European welfare state." In other words, don't open that door!
The idea behind the 'Fair Tax' that made it unworkable was that it required the repeal of the amendment authorizing the income tax. Otherwise you just end up with more of all the taxes once the political pendulum swings back the other way.
In defense of Cain, 9% on business and 9% on individuals is all we collect now so it is not outrageous to consider making that the rate on each and get rid of the deductions.
But in this era of divided government where half the voters want tax rates raised on the rich, we aren't about to from 40% income tax to 9.
Herman Cain, like some others, is not going to be the nominee or the President, but at this point in the race it is good thing to put out the idea that we could be taxed at far lower rates, take in more revenues and prosper again.
-
"Mr. Cain's plan has all the potential to make his 9-9-9 Plan a 29-29-29 Plan following the European welfare state." In other words, don't open that door!"
Mr Cain himself already opened that door when he said the plan could always be adjusted and gave as an example to 8-8-8 for certain groups or situations!
Don't forget it was reported he also has stage 4 colon cancer. I am saddened to say by definition that is not curable.
-
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/romney-palestinian-statehood-bid-culmination-obamas-israel-policy_593955.html
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has just released a statement on the Palestinian statehood bid at the United Nations, blasting President Obama's policies toward Israel for the situation. “What we are watching unfold at the United Nations is an unmitigated diplomatic disaster," Romney said in a statement. "It is the culmination of President Obama’s repeated efforts over three years to throw Israel under the bus and undermine its negotiating position. That policy must stop now."
Romney, it seems, has not lost all hope--he makes several recommendations for President Obama to deal with the situation he's helped create. "In his speech to the U.N. this week, President Obama must unequivocally reaffirm the United States’ commitment to the security of Israel and its continued existence as a Jewish state," Romney said. "And he must make clear that if the Palestinian Authority succeeds in gaining any type of U.N. recognition, the United States will cut foreign assistance to the Palestinians, as well as re-evaluate its funding of U.N. programs and its relationship with any nation voting in favor of recognition. Actions that compromise the interests of the United States, our allies, and all those who desire a lasting peace must have consequences.”
-
WOOF!
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8EL5Atp_vF0[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8EL5Atp_vF0
-
Emotionally he seems to be in the right place, but I'm still looking for more substance from Perry. Cain has put forth his very interesting 9-9-9 plan, Romney has his 59 point plan, etc. I was glad to see Perry speak strongly and clearly for Israel the other day, but I'm not sensing yet any depth on foreign affairs e.g. his comments on Afpakia in the most recent debate. I continue to doubt that most of the Reps have yet thought out the implications of the passing of the American uni-polar moment and to have a vision to communicate to the American people. Indeed, I think a lot of Americans are burnt out on the Bush-Republican vision.
-
I think most Americans are focused on jobs/economy. Unfortunately, geopolitical concerns are way down the list until we get hit with another hard dose of reality.
-
That doesn't mean that we of the American Creed don't need to be getting our thinking current. Indeed, while the issues are somewhat out of the spotlight is a better time to do the work.
-
I trust Perry, and most any Texan to do the right thing on Nat'l Security without being a wonk on the topic.
-
Bush made Pakistan the North Star of our Afpakia strategy. How's that working out for us?
-
Bush made Pakistan the North Star of our Afpakia strategy. How's that working out for us?
Initially well, when we told them we'd nuke them if they fcuk'ed with us. Once they felt comfortable, not so much.
-
Any comments on the debates last night?
-
I watched part of it. Perry was not articulate or polished. Newt and Cain sounded good. Huntsman and Santorum not too bad. Bachman pretty good. Paul is Paul. At this point I would have to go with Romney. I hope Perry can polish up. I still like Newt but it seems he has no chance. I agree with Crafty he also does not seem to be really involved - goes to Hawaii when he should be out campaigning? I generally like Santorum's views but for some reason, I am not clear why, he turns a lot of people off - at least the beltway elite. I thought it interesting Meghan Kelly wore a dress that was even brighter red than Bachman. What is she running for? :wink:
***(ORLANDO, Fla.) -- This was not a good debate for Rick Perry. But it also wasn’t a slam-dunk win for Mitt Romney either.
The two frontrunners have been on the same debate stage three times now. And here’s what we’ve learned.
Mitt Romney is very good at debating. He’s comfortable. He’s pithy. He’s confident.
Rick Perry is not a good debater.
Or maybe he’s just not practiced enough (remember, before these three debates, he’d only participated in five debates in Texas). Whatever it is, he has yet to find his footing. Even after three debates, Perry has yet to find a coherent response to the attacks he knows are coming: most obviously his past statements on Social Security. And, he stumbled badly on a question he wasn’t expecting -- but probably should have: what to do when that 3 a.m. call comes with an international crisis.
At the spin room after the debate, Romney campaign strategist Eric Fehrnstom called the Texas governor’s response to a question about what to do if he was told that Pakistan had lost control of its nuclear weapons at the hands of the Taliban “completely unintelligible.” Perry’s answer to the question started with “obviously before you get to that point you have to build a relationship in that area” -- a big no-no for someone looking to be commander-in-chief -- and ended with talk about selling India “upgraded F-16s.”
He even whiffed on what should have been a home run -- calling out Romney as a flip-flopper. He rambled and stumbled and ultimately lost any chance he had to get in a clean swipe. As with his previous debates, Perry seems to run out of steam about 45 minutes into the night.
Even so, the Perry team can console themselves with this: there’s no correlation between being a strong debater and winning the nomination. That and the fact that very few voters are actually tuning into these early back and forth between these candidates.
Moreover, Romney looked stronger because Perry tripped over his own feet, not because Romney pushed him.
This goes back to Romney’s fundamental problem: Can he only win if Perry loses it?
As a relatively unknown candidate, Perry does have to worry that these debates are going to start to define him in the exact opposite way than he is trying to portray himself.
In real life, Perry projects a swagger and a confidence. On stage, he looks unsure and small.
These debates take on a huge level of importance now, in part because there’s nothing else really going on. As the year goes forward, outside groups are going to start spending money on ads, candidates will be sending out mailers, and world events will affect the debate in ways that we can’t predict.
Copyright 2011 ABC News Radio****
-
My sense of things is that Perry is weakening and that in the second tier Cain, Santorum, Newt, Paul, did well. Romney may have "won" last night, but loyalty to him is very shallow. Generally, the candidates seemed looser and more human. Good to see several of them saying that any of them would be better than Baraq.
-
Drudge:
Christie running? :-o
He was in my town recently doing a town hall mtg.
I could have stopped and gone in while driving by 2 minutes from my house. :cry:
-
Woof Guro Craftydog,
I'm with you, the field is wide open and too many people have already voted against Mitt in prior elections for him to take the nomination this time or anytime. He's where he's at because of the proping up done by Party leadership, he shouldn't even be in the race.
P.C.
-
Of course I like Christie for his plain speaking but IMHO it would be quite silly for him to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate.
Santorum has shown the substance he showed at the end of his time in the Senate but hasn't a prayer. Huntsman would make a responsible Democratic candidate. Paul has become MUCH more polished and his articulateness on economic and constitutional issues hleps stiffen the spine of the others and makes hardcore American Creed positions more palatable to the masses. Bachman? Says many things I like, but too many weaknesses (No executive experience, innoculations causing retardation brain fart, too MILF to be taken seriously as a president, etc). Newt? I confess to hoping lightning will strike and he will catch fire. Cain is doing better and better, his 9-9-9 plan seems both sound and appealing to voters to me, but NO depth on foreign affairs.
The more I think about it, the more I think Perry hurt himself last night. At the moment Romney is doing a fairly good job of pivoting right until he gets the nomination.
-
By MERRILL MATTHEWS Dallas
To highlight the problems facing Social Security, Texas Gov. and Republican presidential hopeful Rick Perry is pointing to three Texas counties that decades ago opted out of Social Security by creating personal retirement accounts. Now, 30 years on, county workers in those three jurisdictions retire with more money and have better death and disability supplemental benefits. And those three counties—unlike almost all others in the United States—face no long-term unfunded pension liabilities.
Since 1981 and 1982, workers in Galveston, Matagorda and Brazoria Counties have seen their retirement savings grow every year, even during the Great Recession. The so-called Alternate Plan of these three counties doesn't follow the traditional defined-benefit or defined-contribution model. Employee and employer contributions are actively managed by a financial planner—in this case, First Financial Benefits, Inc., of Houston, which originated the plan in 1980 and has managed it since its adoption. I call it a "banking model."
As with Social Security, employees contribute 6.2% of their income, with the county matching the contribution (or, as in Galveston, providing a slightly larger share). Once the county makes its contribution, its financial obligation is done—that's why there are no long-term unfunded liabilities.
Enlarge Image
CloseAssociated Press
Presidential candidates Rick Perry and Mitt Romney spar Thursday night.
.The contributions are pooled, like bank deposits, and top-rated financial institutions bid on the money. Those institutions guarantee an interest rate that won't go below a base level and goes higher when the market does well. Over the last decade, the accounts have earned between 3.75% and 5.75% every year, with the average around 5%. The 1990s often saw even higher interest rates, of 6.5%-7%. When the market goes up, employees make more—and when the market goes down, employees still make something.
But not all money goes into employees' retirement accounts. When financial planner Rick Gornto devised the Alternate Plan in 1980, he wanted it to be a complete substitute for Social Security. And Social Security isn't just a retirement fund: It's also social insurance that provides a death benefit ($255), survivors' insurance, and a disability benefit.
Part of the employer contribution in the Alternate Plan goes toward a term life insurance policy that pays four times the employee's salary tax-free, up to a maximum of $215,000. That's nearly 850 times Social Security's death benefit.
If a worker participating in Social Security dies before retirement, he loses his contribution (though part of that money might go to surviving children or a spouse who didn't work). But a worker in the Alternate Plan owns his account, so the entire account belongs to his estate. There is also a disability benefit that pays immediately upon injury, rather than waiting six months plus other restrictions, as under Social Security.
Those who retire under the Texas counties' Alternate Plan do much better than those on Social Security. According to First Financial's calculations, based on 40 years of contributions:
• A lower-middle income worker making about $26,000 at retirement would get about $1,007 a month under Social Security, but $1,826 under the Alternate Plan.
• A middle-income worker making $51,200 would get about $1,540 monthly from Social Security, but $3,600 from the banking model.
• And a high-income worker who maxed out on his Social Security contribution every year would receive about $2,500 a month from Social Security versus $5,000 to $6,000 a month from the Alternate Plan.
The Alternate Plan has demonstrated over 30 years that personal retirement accounts work, with many retirees making more than twice what they would under Social Security. As Galveston County Judge Mark Henry says, "The plan works great. Anyone who spends a few minutes understanding the plan becomes a huge proponent." Judge Henry says that out of 1,350 county employees, only five have chosen not to participate.
The Alternate Plan could be adopted today by the six million public employees in the U.S.—roughly 25% of the total—who are part of state and local government retirement plans that are outside of Social Security (and are facing serious unfunded liability problems). Unfortunately this option is available only to those six million public employees, since in 1983 Congress barred all others from leaving Social Security.
If Congress overrides this provision, however, the Alternate Plan could be a model for reforming Social Security nationally. After all, it provides all the social-insurance benefits of Social Security while avoiding the unfunded liabilities that are crippling the program and the economy.
If the presidential candidates, including President Obama, stop bickering about who wants to "save" or "destroy" Social Security and begin debating reform constructively, examining the Alternate Plan would be a good place to start.
Mr. Matthews is a resident scholar with the Institute for Policy Innovation in Dallas.
-
"WASHINGTON — A gay soldier’s question about the end of the military’s "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy elicited boos from the audience at Thursday’s Republican candidates debate, and a promise from Rick Santorum to reinstate the policy if elected.
In a video submission, Stephen Hill tells the Republican presidential candidates he "had to lie about who he was" when he was deployed to Iraq in 2010 because of his sexual orientation, and his fear that he would "lose my job."
"My question is, under one of your presidencies, do you intend to circumvent the progress that’s been made for gay and lesbian soldiers in the military?" Hill asked.
Loud jeers were heard immediately from the crowd at the debate site in Orlando, Fla., marking the third straight debate when the audience’s reaction overshadowed the candidate’s.
That reaction was not immediately acknowledged by the Fox News Channel moderators, as NBC’s Brian Williams did in the Reagan Library debate when the crowd applauded the number of executions in Texas under Rick Perry.
In last week’s CNN "tea party" debate, some in the audience supported the notion that a sick person should be allowed to die if he or she had no health care.
Answering Hill, Santorum said that "sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military," and said the repeal of the "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy, which took effect this week, was injecting "social policy into the military."
"What we’re doing is playing social experimentation with our military right now, and that’s tragic," Santorum said.
Asked how he would answer soldiers like Hill, Santorum said he would not "throw them out."
"But we would move forward in conformity with what was happening in the past, which is, that sex is not an issue," he said. "Leave it alone, keep it to yourself, whether you are a heterosexual or a homosexual."" - http://news.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20110923at_gop_debate_crowd_boos_gay_soldiers_dont_ask_dont_tell_question/
__________________________________________________________________
I can't believe the classless nastiness of the people at that debate. I also can't believe that none of the candidates had anything to say about it. What a bunch of weak willed soulless politicians.
-
I can't believe the classless nastiness of the people at that debate. I also can't believe that none of the candidates had anything to say about it. What a bunch of weak willed soulless politicians.
Yes, how dare anyone oppose the gay agenda. It's like a felony level thoughtcrime, right?
-
We interrupt this vignette for a reality check. One of the points about DADT was that NO ONE "had to lie about who he was". :lol:
Personally it makes perfect sense to me to acknowledge that healthy young humans have strong sexual drives. As I understand it the logic is that given that most people (95-98% IMHO) are heterosexual, having sexually homogenous units keeps sexual shenanigans and the attendant disruptions to military discipline out of play. This makes perfect sense to me.
OTOH if the environment is a "target rich environment" of the orifice of choice, then by golly fcuking within the unit is going to happen. We don't even allow this in the corporate world (not that I agree, but that is a separate matter), but, speaking only as a humble civilian, it makes sense to me that this has a high potential for poor morale and poor discipline with attendant consequences for unit cohesion and performance.
-
I can't believe the classless nastiness of the people at that debate. I also can't believe that none of the candidates had anything to say about it. What a bunch of weak willed soulless politicians.
Yes, how dare anyone oppose the gay agenda. It's like a felony level thoughtcrime, right?
Nope. I wasn't talking about thought crimes. I was complaining about the nasty people that attended the debate.
-
Woof,
Herman Cain got a bump in the Florida straw poll; glad to see it. There's a learning curve for any new area you take on and I'm hoping that Cain will close the gap as he becomes schooled in foreign affairs and you can bet his team is working on it with him.
P.C.
-
I will confess that I don't understand what you mean here, Guro. Women deploy with men in great quantities. If you are even close to right about the percentage of hetros, then the "orifice of choice" has been available for years. I don't think the remaining 3% should matter that much.
We interrupt this vignette for a reality check. One of the points about DADT was that NO ONE "had to lie about who he was". :lol:
Personally it makes perfect sense to me to acknowledge that healthy young humans have strong sexual drives. As I understand it the logic is that given that most people (95-98% IMHO) are heterosexual, having sexually homogenous units keeps sexual shenanigans and the attendant disruptions to military discipline out of play. This makes perfect sense to me.
OTOH if the environment is a "target rich environment" of the orifice of choice, then by golly fcuking within the unit is going to happen. We don't even allow this in the corporate world (not that I agree, but that is a separate matter), but, speaking only as a humble civilian, it makes sense to me that this has a high potential for poor morale and poor discipline with attendant consequences for unit cohesion and performance.
-
Of course there's f'g in the Army-- I know that :lol:
I might add that there have been a lot of accusations of rape, both reported and unreported, about which the coverage and non-coverage appears to be quite agenda driven. There also are cases where women get pregnant to get out of war zone missions and then abort upon getting reassigned. On one ship in the Gulf War over 20% of the women got pregnant. Working from memory in Kosovo in the 90s some 5% of the women got pregnant, with a lot of them getting abortions upon return to the US. I am sorry I cannot offer citations, I can only offer my track record as a poster.
Anyway, what I was trying to communicate in my previous post is that there hasn't been is the question presented within the same unit, within the same barracks, within the same showers, within the same unit going out on patrol.
Ending DADT was a politically imposed thing in an area which should have been left to our armed forces to determine for themselves.
Moving along, here's this from Pravda on the Hudson's Maureen Dowd. I can picture our community organizer in chief making the same points about exactly what it was that Romney did in the private sector.:
============
IN a flash, Rick Perry has gone from Republican front-runner to cycling domestique, riding in front of the pack and taking all the wind — or in this case, hot air — to allow the team leader to pedal in the slipstream.
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Go to Columnist Page »
.Related
Times Topics: Rick Perry | Mitt Romney
Related in Opinion
Gail Collins: Perry’s Bad Night (September 24, 2011)
.Editorial: State of the Republican Field (September 24, 2011) Readers’ Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Read All Comments (67) »
In the debate on Thursday night in Florida, as Perry grew more Pinteresque, lapsing into long, paralyzed pauses, Mitt Romney grew less statuesque, breaking his marble mold and showing a new sarcastic streak.
Romney unveiled his own version of Reagan’s “There you go again,” repeatedly blowing off Perry with a smile and a “Nice try.”
Slapping Perry for backtracking from his suggestion in his book “Fed Up!” that Social Security should be left up to states, Romney snidely noted, “There’s a Rick Perry out there that’s saying” that, “so you’d better find that Rick Perry and get him to stop saying that.”
Romney, a champion flip-flopper, has painted Perry as a floppier flipper.
In the high school version of the 2008 Republican primary contest, Romney was regarded by John McCain and other contenders as the loathed hall monitor, prissy and hypocritical. It’s not that he has gotten so much more popular or less plastic, although he has improved his performance. It’s just that his rivals keep getting more implausible.
The only reason Perry got in the race in the first place was that Republicans yearned for an alternative to Romney. (This weekend, they were drunk-texting Chris Christie.) But for now, Perry is proving to be Romney’s best asset.
Asked the 3 a.m. question by a moderator, Bret Baier of Fox News, what would a President Perry do if he got a call saying Pakistan had lost control of its nuclear weapons to the Taliban, the Texas governor offered a Palinesque meditation on “the Pakistani country.”
“Well, obviously, before you ever get to that point, you have to build a relationship in that region,” he said. “And that’s one of the things that this administration has not done. Just yesterday we found out through Admiral Mullen that Haqqani has been involved with — and that’s the terrorist group directly associated with the Pakistani country — so to have a relationship with India, to make sure that India knows that they are an ally of the United States.” But can he see the Taj Mahal from his house?
Romney used his new sarcasm on President Obama, too, claiming the Democrat takes his inspiration from the “socialist democrats” in Europe. “Guess what?” Romney said. “Europe isn’t working in Europe. It’s not going to work here.”
He also poked the president on jobs: “I happen to believe that to create jobs it helps to have had a job, and I have.”
Those are strong words from a candidate whose liability is that he made a living eliminating jobs.
In any other economy, working at Bain would be a bane to Romney’s presidential craving because it’s hard to trust a flip-flopper who’s a company flipper. Romney himself has used the phrase “creative destruction” to describe what his former private equity firm, Bain Capital, excelled at: buying companies, restructuring and downsizing, and selling them for a profit.
As Howard Anderson of M.I.T. told The Washington Post’s Karen Tumulty: “Private equity is a little like sex. When it’s good, it’s very, very good. When it’s bad, it’s still pretty good.”
But in this economy, a predatory business plan from a man worth $200 million may not sound so bad. Especially now that the former community organizer is being limned as a president who was too naïve and hesitant in handling the cascading crises of his first two years.
In “Pretty Woman,” Richard Gere played a financial shark who downsized companies; he wore expensive suits, went to polo matches and drove an expensive sports car. (No dog or hooker tied to the roof.) Romney, by contrast, is trying to downplay his downsizing fortune and his upgrading of his snazzy La Jolla beach house.
He makes sure everyone knows about his Carl’s Jr. jalapeño chicken sandwiches and his Jet Blue middle seats. And he pushes the regular-guy image in tweets: “Great deep-dish at @ginoseast”; “Just got a Trim at Tommy’s in Atlanta”; “Thanks @subwayfreshbuzz for breakfast. Better than the usual campaign diet of morning donuts”; “Thanks to the great @SouthwestAir crew for an easy flight.” On Friday, his adviser Ron Kaufman tweeted a picture of the candidate in an airport terminal with his laptop on his lap, presumably tweeting more encomia to fast-food emporia.
Just as George Bush the elder, a Yalie, used to mock Michael Dukakis as part of the “Harvard boutique,” Willard Mitt Romney, a Harvard alum, in a speech in Florida on Thursday, mocked Obama as an elitist who hung out in the “Harvard faculty lounge.”
For now, Romney is effectively using Perry as a whipping boy on issues that matter to conservatives, like illegal immigration. And when Perry attacks Romney as “Obama lite,” he could be doing Mitt a favor by reminding independents and Democrats that the Stormin’ Mormon is a pseudo-conservative whom they can abide.
Authenticity can be overrated, especially in a rabid conservative.
-
Does anyone here have the impression that at least some females who volunteer are looking for guys?
Or if lesbian just the opposite?
OTOH, I don't know any male volunteers who do so to find girls.
-
The only question I would ask my most trusted generals on don't ask, don't tell and gays in the military is, will this help you win wars? We have never strived for fairness in the military for people with flat feet or color blindness. To think this is about fairness or civil rights is to forget or ignore the mission.
The question asked was(quoted from this thread): "do you intend to circumvent the progress that’s been made..."
- I did not know that we were winning wars faster or beating tougher opponents now than before the gay fairness agenda hit the military. It does seem to me that if I were a commander I might deploy people more intelligently if I am allowed to know this most basic information about each soldier along with every thing else I can know before I make the assignments and choose the combat teams.
-----
Referring to the Maureen Dowd piece, if the general election debates come down to knowledge and understanding of the inner workings creative destruction and entrepreneurial, dynamic capitalism, Romney will hold his own with the community organizer. The sooner that dead weight is lifted from an enterprise the better it will perform and the sooner that person will move on to were they really are most valuable. That is a strength not a weakness of economic freedom and capitalism. The Governor will handle answering for his private sector experience better than he handles his as chief executive of the most liberal state.
-----
Romney regarding the Texas economy under Perry, 'he was dealt four aces'? If Obama was dealt four aces he would not recognize real economic growth opportunities if they hit him over the head; he would discard at least 3 of them and hope to get more fairness, equality and diversity in his hand.
-----
I was out of contact during this debate and Florida straw poll, but the reaction of others already posted here and elsewhere seems to be pretty much in agreement. If Rick Perry is unable to articulate his thoughts or his governance, that is good to know right now. We've had that in a recent President and it didn't work. If Hermann Cain is improving and has quite a gift for oratory outside of the debates and interviews, then he can serve the cause in that role, but probably not as President. I sympathize with the anyone but Romney sentiment but will predict at this juncture that it is going to be Romney, so the question (from my point of view) is how well can these contests pull him right and lock him into an agenda acceptable to me and an agenda that actually will be bold enough to rescue the Republic. That question remains unanswered. We don't know what kind of President he will be but my thought now is that it is time to work harder through the House and Senate incumbents and candidates to influence the agenda going forward. This nomination process is likely over in an instant this winter and the addition of new and less vetted candidates won't make things easier or better.
-----
Michael Barone gives good commentary here though I disagree with his conclusion that there still might be a white horse (color neutral horse) that will ride in and save the conservative side of this election.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/09/26/still_looking_for_a_candidate_to_replace_obama_111468.html
Still Looking for a Candidate to Replace Obama
By Michael Barone
The Republicans' presidential debate Thursday night sponsored by Fox News and Google gave primary voters and caucus-goers at least one good reason to reject every candidate on the stage. The interesting question now is whether someone else will enter the race -- at just about the same point in the election cycle in which Bill Clinton entered the Democratic race in 1991.
The spotlight was hottest on Rick Perry, the frontrunner in national polls since he announced his candidacy in Charleston, S.C., on Aug. 13, the same day that Michele Bachmann won the straw poll in Ames, Iowa.
Perry's problem was not just that he punted on the tough question of how to respond to a terrorist takeover of nuclear-armed Pakistan. Even the smooth-talking Mitt Romney might have had trouble with that nightmare scenario. And Perry was right to cite our informal alliance with India as a source of leverage.
The problem was that Perry was couldn't respond cogently to utterly predictable questions and was unable to articulate his pre-scripted criticisms of Romney. A case can certainly be made that Romney has flip-flopped on issues. But Perry failed to make it.
Perry defended his order requiring HPV vaccinations by citing his talks with a woman with cervical cancer -- but they took place only after his order. He failed to fend off attacks on his criticisms of Social Security in his book "Fed Up!," saying he was only endorsing the longtime exemption from the program for state and local public employees.
He failed to explain why Texas, with its large legal and illegal immigrant and young populations, has a high percentage of people without health insurance.
He was eloquent in defending Texas's in-state college tuition for children of illegal aliens, but his stand is hugely unpopular with Republicans outside Texas. And he failed to point out that it helped him win a respectable 38 percent from Latino voters in the 2010 election.
Mitt Romney clearly benefited from his greater experience over the years and his superior preparation in recent weeks. But he also benefited from the fact that no one challenged him convincingly on claims that he is unlikely to be able to sustain.
He sloughed off Perry's accurate charge that he supported the Obama administration's Race to the Top education program -- a defensible position, but not a popular one for Republicans.
He repeated now what has been his standard defense of his Massachusetts health care program. But someday someone is going to nail him on his insistence that its individual mandate to buy insurance covers only 8 percent of the population. It actually applies to everyone.
He avoided Perry's claim that he deleted defenses of the program from the paperback edition of his book. He won't be able to deftly dodge that forever.
If he overtakes Perry in the polls -- a likely possibility after the Texan's stumbling performance -- he will likely become the pinata for the rest of the field, a role he figured to play before Perry entered the race.
None of the other seven candidates on the stage made a convincing case for advancing to the top tier. The closest was Rick Santorum, who was eloquent and knowledgeable on foreign policy. But his answer on gays in the military was cringe-inducing for people on all sides of the issue.
Michele Bachmann refused to back down from her statement relaying the claim of a woman who approached her saying that the HPV vaccine caused retardation in her child. Bachmann has made headway by championing the instincts of ordinary hardworking citizens over the supposed wisdom of experts. But on vaccinations the experts are right.
Pundits are fixated on designating a frontrunner, but the polls in this race -- witness Romney's rise and fall and Perry's rise -- have all the solidity of cotton candy. Bachmann's numbers peaked in July, Herman Cain's in June, Ron Paul's and Newt Gingrich's in May -- and not at high levels. Santorum's haven't peaked at all.
Could another candidate give a better performance than Perry and deliver more sustainable responses than Romney? To judge from their performances in various public and private venues the answer is yes for Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan and Chris Christie.
Each has taken himself out of the race. Each still has time to get in. Most voters are ready to reject Barack Obama. But not necessarily for one of those on the stage Thursday night.
-
Cain must have had a metastatic colon cancer lesion to the liver. I believe it may be curable if that lobe of the liver is removed and the rest is surgically removed. I'll have to run it by my oncology colleagues.
-
Cain (Joe Burbank/AP)
ORLANDO, Fla. -- Not everyone needs to go to Disney World to have fun in central Florida.
After one of Herman Cain's strongest showings yet at a Republican presidential debate Thursday, and two days with conservative activists in the state, he won the "Presidency 5" straw poll in Orlando over the weekend, beating front-runner Texas Gov. Rick Perry by more than 20 points.
While straw polls are not scientific and their results can be poor indicators of whether a candidate will win a party's nomination--the latest actual Florida poll put Cain near the bottom--they can help spark some momentum, especially for lower-tier candidates. For Cain, a 65-year-old businessman, mathematician, author and radio host from Atlanta, Georgia, his straw poll win could well be the high-water mark of his campaign. And by his own admission, the path that brought him this far wasn't an easy one. The morning before the straw poll, I met Cain for coffee in a hotel near the convention center that hosted the debate and straw poll. As we discussed the early phase of the Republican primaries, he told me that before coming to Florida, he had nearly called it quits on two occasions.
"The thing that I've learned about myself in this campaign--because I've never had this happen to me before on a single challenge--is that I've gone to the brink, ready to pull the plug, but came back, twice," Cain said. "I've only had two days where I personally felt, should I pull the plug? For different reasons. That's how frustrating a campaign can be."
When I pressed for details, he said he'd prefer to keep them to himself.
"I can't tell you what those two days are," he said. "But think about the number of days we've been on this campaign. Two ain't that bad."
Cain is certainly no stranger to adversity, having recently overcome Stage IV colon and liver cancer.
Even though he's known as the "pizza" candidate for his years as head of Godfather's Pizza, his background is much broader than that. After he graduated from Morehouse College with a degree in mathematics and a minor in chemistry in 1968, Cain landed a job as a ballistics analyst for the Department of the Navy, where he was responsible for the calculations that ensured battleship rockets hit their targets.
"It's not an easy thing to do," he said.
Cain later completed a master's degree in computer science and entered the business world where he led several companies--most recently Godfather's--and chaired the National Restaurant Association and the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. His résumé--from mathematician and rocket scientist to restaurateur and now politician--isn't exactly a typical one for a presidential candidate. But Cain said that while his presidential run may look unlikely from the outside, it's actually part of his larger career trajectory of seeking out new ways to test himself.
"I'm bored if I don't have a challenge," he said.
Cain said the run for the White House is his toughest challenge yet--and it's been anything but boring. Despite the frustrations of running a national campaign, you can tell he's enjoying it. But it doesn't take much to get him riled up.
After a few caffeine-heavy refills at our corner table, I asked him about President Obama's new effort to raise taxes on the wealthy, and Cain just about blew a blood vessel--especially when I mentioned the part where Obama says it's about "math" not "class warfare."
"Can I be blunt? That's a lie," Cain said, before the sound of his voice began to rise noticeably higher. "You're not supposed to call the president a liar. Well if you're not supposed to call the president a liar, he shouldn't tell a lie. If it's not class warfare, it's highway robbery. He wants us to believe it's not class warfare, oh okay, it's not class warfare. Pick my pockets, because that's what he's doing!"
Cain paused, took a breath and looked at me.
"I'm not mad at you, I just get passionate about this stuff," he said. "I have to tell people because I get so worked up . . . . I'm listening to all this bullshit that he's talking about, 'fairness' and 'balanced approach' to get this economy going."
As anyone who watched the past couple of debates knows by now, Cain has his own plan that he says would steer the country out of its economic downturn. He calls it the "9-9-9 Plan," and it would replace the current tax code with three flat, nine-percent federal taxes on income, consumption and business.
"With 9-9-9 guess what? How many loopholes?" he said, tapping his fingers on the table like a drumroll. "None. Everybody gets treated the same. What a novel idea."
As the straw poll and his recent fundraising numbers suggest, Cain's message is resonating with the conservative movement's influential base of tea-party activists; for these supporters his status as a non-career politician with an extensive background in the private sector is nearly as strong a draw as his ideas and policy proposals. But despite his recent surge in support, few expect Cain's momentum to carry him on to victory at the Republican National Convention in 2012.
Cain insisted that the prognostications of a few pundits won't stop him from pressing on as far as his donors will carry him. At the same time, though, he said that this campaign will be his last foray into politics.
"I'm not planning to run for another public office," he said. But regardless, it's been "a hell of a challenge."
-
"I'm not mad at you, I just get passionate about this stuff," he said. "I have to tell people because I get so worked up . . . . I'm listening to all this bullshit that he's talking about, 'fairness' and 'balanced approach' to get this economy going."
Cain just became my favorite!
-
"Even though he's known as the "pizza" candidate for his years as head of Godfather's Pizza, his background is much broader than that. After he graduated from Morehouse College with a degree in mathematics and a minor in chemistry in 1968, Cain landed a job as a ballistics analyst for the Department of the Navy, where he was responsible for the calculations that ensured battleship rockets hit their targets.
""It's not an easy thing to do," he said.
"Cain later completed a master's degree in computer science and entered the business world where he led several companies--most recently Godfather's--and chaired the National Restaurant Association and the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. His résumé--from mathematician and rocket scientist to restaurateur and now politician"
That is a far more interesting resume than most people realize, but if he ever gets any traction that "abolish the EPA" thing will kill it on the spot.
-
that "abolish the EPA" thing will kill it on the spot
Yes MSLSD has already showing us 1960s versions of multicolored chemically polluted rivers, dumps with thousands of barrels of chemicals, people dying in India from chemical disasters, dying animals in oil spills and claiming that Republicans want to go back to *this!*
-
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-administration-ban-asthma-inhalers-over-environmental-concerns_594113.html
Obama Administration Set to Ban Asthma Inhalers Over Environmental Concerns
3:00 PM, Sep 23, 2011 • By MARK HEMINGWAY
Remember how Obama recently waived new ozone regulations at the EPA because they were too costly? Well, it seems that the Obama administration would rather make people with Asthma cough up money than let them make a surely inconsequential contribution to depleting the ozone layer:
Asthma patients who rely on over-the-counter inhalers will need to switch to prescription-only alternatives as part of the federal government's latest attempt to protect the Earth's atmosphere.
The Food and Drug Administration said Thursday patients who use the epinephrine inhalers to treat mild asthma will need to switch by Dec. 31 to other types that do not contain chlorofluorocarbons, an aerosol substance once found in a variety of spray products.
The action is part of an agreement signed by the U.S. and other nations to stop using substances that deplete the ozone layer, a region in the atmosphere that helps block harmful ultraviolet rays from the Sun.
But the switch to a greener inhaler will cost consumers more. Epinephrine inhalers are available via online retailers for around $20, whereas the alternatives, which contain the drug albuterol, range from $30 to $60.
The Atlantic's Megan McArdle, an asthma sufferer, noted a while back that when consumers are forced to use environmentally friendly products they are almost always worse:
Er, industry also knew how to make low-flow toilets, which is why every toilet in my recently renovated rental house clogs at least once a week. They knew how to make more energy efficient dryers, which is why even on high, I have to run every load through the dryer in said house twice. And they knew how to make inexpensive compact flourescent bulbs, which is why my head hurts from the glare emitting from my bedroom lamp. They also knew how to make asthma inhalers without CFCs, which is why I am hoarding old albuterol inhalers that, unlike the new ones, a) significantly improve my breathing and b) do not make me gag. Etc.
Well, tough cookies asthma sufferers! You should have written bigger checks to the Democratic party while you had the chance.
-
Woof of ye of little thread discipline :lol:
In a certain sense almost anything can be said to be related to the election, but that would fit much better in Bureaucracy or some other such thread.
Yip!
Thread Nazi
-
Woof of ye of little thread discipline :lol:
In a certain sense almost anything can be said to be related to the election, but that would fit much better in Bureaucracy or some other such thread.
Yip!
Thread Nazi
It was in response to this:
"That is a far more interesting resume than most people realize, but if he ever gets any traction that "abolish the EPA" thing will kill it on the spot."
-
As Mitt Romney would say "Nice try" :lol: A comment about the POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES of a statement calling for the abolition of the EPA does not "open the door" to a line of testimony about the sundry stupidities of the EPA.
-
Well, as Perry would say "Ummmmmm", mumble *blank look*.
-
Well we've got Perry with the "Ummmmmm", mumble *blank look" and Romney, well..... and no one else. I concede my guy Huntsman is not rising in the polls.
Everyone here laughs and jokes at Obama, but if this is the best the Republicans can do, I bet Obama get's re-elected.
PS And if inhalers pollute and the new ones don't, but they cost $10.00 more, well, sorry, but I can probably name 10 products off the top of my head that they have banned
because of pollution. Good for them.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/sns-rt-us-fda-inhalerstre78l3nl-20110922,0,7519410.story
-
I saw some poll numbers on the Brett Baier Report tonight showing that Bachman has fallen below Huntsman (or was it the FL straw poll?) OUCH!!! :lol:
-
I saw some poll numbers on the Brett Baier Report tonight showing that Bachman has fallen below Huntsman (or was it the FL straw poll?) OUCH!!! :lol:
I think you are wrong (I hope not), but I'll check. If I remember reading this week, Huntsman is clearly at the bottom. :-(
-
"Everyone here laughs and jokes at Obama, but if this is the best the Republicans can do, I bet Obama get's re-elected."
A random person picked out of the phone book could do a better job than Obama. The bar is now incredibly low, anyone that runs against him is a better option.
-
(http://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Bumper-Sticker-West-Virginia-No-Job-Zone.jpg)
http://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Bumper-Sticker-West-Virginia-No-Job-Zone.jpg
-
"Everyone here laughs and jokes at Obama, but if this is the best the Republicans can do, I bet Obama get's re-elected."
A random person picked out of the phone book could do a better job than Obama. The bar is now incredibly low, anyone that runs against him is a better option.
Yeah, talk is cheap. Let's see if the Republican's win. According to you it should be easy, a landslide Presidential election in favor of the Republicans: We'll see... :-)
Then again, you are the one who said, "Well, as Perry would say "Ummmmmm", mumble *blank look*."
:-D
-
And Obama would say "Jews, um, Janitors", "Austrian language", "Corpse-man", "57 states", and "Intercontinental Railroad".
Does the "Intercontinental Railroad" go from North America to Europe?
-
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/09/obama-gaffe-jobs-act-speech-brent-spence-bridge-ohio.html?dlvrit=23653
New gaffe: Obama hails America's historic building of 'the Intercontinental Railroad'
September 23, 2011 | 5:24am
"We’re the country that built the Intercontinental Railroad," Barack Obama.
That's what the president of the United States flat-out said Thursday during what was supposed to be a photo op to sell his jobs plan next to an allegedly deteriorating highway bridge.
A railroad between continents? A railroad from, say, New York City all the way across the Atlantic to France? Now, THAT would be a bridge!
It's yet another humorous gaffe by the Harvard graduate, overlooked by most media for whatever reason. Like Obama saying Abraham-Come-Lately Lincoln was the founder of the Republican Party. Or Navy corpseman. Or the Austrian language. Fifty-seven states. The president of Canada. Etc.
If you talk as much as this guy likes to talk instead of governing, if you believe you are a Real Good Talker as much as this guy does, you're gonna blow a few lines. But this many?
No doubt, we'll see a collection of Obama's Best Bombs on 'Saturday Night Live' this weekend, one right after the other. No doubt. Can you imagine the media coverage of such repeated historical ignorance if it had been the last Ivy League alum president who said it?
The Democrat had traveled to Ohio on Thursday to tout his American Jobs Act, the....
...$447-billion boondoggle he proposed to a joint session of Congress this month because his previous $787-billion boondoggle didn't create anywhere near as many jobs as Joe Biden had promised.
This president is in a jam. The economy sucks. Unemployment sucks. His job approval sucks and his economic approval sucks worse. Independents have abandoned the flailing White House occupant, so are some Jews, liberals and even blacks. His Hollywood bundlers had trouble selling out the POTUS fundraisers in L.A. next week.
Obama's own Democratic Party controls the Senate and won't put their leader's jobs bill on the schedule because more wild spending like this doomed bill could also doom some Dem senators next year.
So here's how the ex-state senator from the Chicago machine reacts: At an operating cost of $181,000 per hour, he flies Air Force One nearly four hours roundtrip for 17 minutes of remarks touting infrastructure repairs by a bridge that doesn't need them.
The real reason he's at the Brent Spence Bridge is because it links the home states of both congressional Republican leaders, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. So Obama can cutely blame Republicans for holding up his jobs bill, even though it's Nevada Democrat Harry Reid.
Obama turns the empty rhetoric into a pep rally for himself, leading the obedient audience to chant, "Pass this bill! Pass this bill!"
This guy, who will ride around in Secret Service SUVs for the rest of his life, has this thing for railroads that other people should ride in. So, according to the White House transcript (scroll down for full version and related stories), here's what passes for Obama leadership:
Now, we used to have the best infrastructure in the world here in America. We’re the country that built the Intercontinental Railroad, the Interstate Highway System. We built the Hoover Dam. We built the Grand Central Station.
So how can we now sit back and let China build the best railroads? And let Europe build the best highways? And have Singapore build a nicer airport?
Quick question: Has anyone ever heard any American express jealousy over Singapore's sweet airport?
-
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-07-25/world/china.train.accident.outrage_1_bullet-train-wang-yongping-railway-ministry?_s=PM:WORLD
Although Chinese reporters raced to the scene, none of the major state-run newspapers even mentioned the story on their Sunday front pages. A user of Sina Weibo, China's equivalent of Twitter, first broke the story and increasingly popular social media outlets then provided millions of Chinese with the fastest information and pictures as well as the most poignant and scathing commentaries.
By the time the railway ministry held its first press conference more than 24 hours after the collision, the public had seen not just reports of passengers trapped inside dark trains or images of a mangled car dangling off the bridge -- but also bulldozers crushing mangled cars that had fallen to the ground and burying the wreckage on site.
"How can we cover up an accident that the whole world already knew about?" said a defiant railway ministry spokesman Wang Yongping. "They told me they buried the car to facilitate the rescue effort -- and I believe this explanation."
Wang was terse when reporters asked him to explain the fact that a toddler girl was being pulled out of the wreckage alive 20 hours after the accident -- and long after authorities declared no more signs of life in the trains.
"That was a miracle," he said.
Blaming lightning strike-triggered equipment failure as the cause of the accident based on preliminary investigation, Wang put on a brave face on the safety of China's controversial high-speed rail.
"Chinese technologies are advanced and we are still confident about that," he said.
While some state media echoed Wang's sentiment, many netizens questioned his every statement from the death toll to the cause and called him the face of a ministry mired in allegations of corruption and ineptitude.
"This land is a hotbed for the world's most sprawling bureaucracy and most cold-blooded officials," user "chenjie" wrote on Sina Weibo.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/chinas-train-wreck/2011/04/21/AFqjRWRE_story.html
China’s train wreck
Video: Is China’s high-speed rail a model for U.S. transportation? Based on his travels in China, Washington Post editorial writer Charles Lane thinks not.
By CHARLES LANE,
For the past eight years, Liu Zhijun was one of the most influential people in China. As minister of railways, Liu ran China’s $300 billion high-speed rail project. U.S., European and Japanese contractors jostled for a piece of the business while foreign journalists gushed over China’s latest high-tech marvel.
Today, Liu Zhijun is ruined, and his high-speed rail project is in trouble. On Feb. 25, he was fired for “severe violations of discipline” — code for embezzling tens of millions of dollars. Seems his ministry has run up $271 billion in debt — roughly five times the level that bankrupted General Motors. But ticket sales can’t cover debt service that will total $27.7 billion in 2011 alone. Safety concerns also are cropping up.
Faced with a financial and public relations disaster, China put the brakes on Liu’s program. On April 13, the government cut bullet-train speeds 30 mph to improve safety, energy efficiency and affordability. The Railway Ministry’s tangled finances are being audited. Construction plans, too, are being reviewed.
Liu’s legacy, in short, is a system that could drain China’s economic resources for years. So much for the grand project that Thomas Friedman of the New York Times likened to a “moon shot” and that President Obama held up as a model for the United States.
Rather than demonstrating the advantages of centrally planned long-term investment, as its foreign admirers sometimes suggested, China’s bullet-train experience shows what can go wrong when an unelected elite, influenced by corrupt opportunists, gives orders that all must follow — without the robust public discussion we would have in the states. (I guess they missed "We have to pass it to find what's in it" and stimulus/green jobs boondoggles of the Obama era-G M)
The fact is that China’s train wreck was eminently foreseeable. High-speed rail is a capital-intensive undertaking that requires huge borrowing upfront to finance tracks, locomotives and cars, followed by years in which ticket revenue covers debt service — if all goes well. “Any . . . shortfall in ridership or yield, can quickly create financial stress,” warns a 2010 World Bank staff report.
Such “shortfalls” are all too common. Japan’s bullet trains needed a bailout in 1987. Taiwan’s line opened in 2007 and needed a government rescue in 2009. In France, only the Paris-Lyon high-speed line is in the black.
-
I'll read through this entire thread tomorrow, but since the season is upon us, I'm extremely conservative, but I'm a Libertarian first, which is to say, that I believe in a strong military, minimal government, maximum freedom with maximum personal responsibility and I will not be voting for Romney nor Perry. One is a RINO and the other is soft on illegal immigration. Call me heartless.
To me, the Republicans and Democrats alike have both steered the ship for far too long and fortunately, the Republicans cannot win without the Tea Party support (not racists, we're small government), and I'd like to see the Republicans support a candidate like Paul (who gets very little media coverage in comparison to everyone else).
I will not vote for a Republican candidate simply to guarantee that Obama (whose policies I absolutely detest), doesn't get re-elected.
I'll support Paul and those principles, or nothing. The time of choosing the lesser of two eveils simply because those are the only two that have a chance of being elected has gone on long enough.
Not this time. I don't think that I'm alone in this thought. Can you say three way split? Perhaps the US will being going the way of Europe's multi-party system with all of its evils. Time will tell.
-
GM: Do posts on Chinese railroads really belong in this thread? C'mon , , ,
-
Obooba's "Intercontinental railroad" speech.
-
DF,
Paul is a fringe candidate and will never get the nomination. He isn't strong on nat'l defense by any definition and also has very sordid connections to groups like Stormfront. Even Mittens would be preferable to Paul.
-
GM: Yes Obama is president and so in a very broad sense anything he says or does affects the election, but that does not mean anything he says or does belongs on this thread. :roll: C'mon now!
-
Trans-continental might have been the word he was looking for...
----
I am also not a Ron Paul fan but I sympathize with the sentiment that libertarians and conservatives shouldn't allow themselves at this point in the process to be rolled over by Dems in our party in disguise. Besides lacking a foreign policy Ron Paul has also failed a test of leadership in terms of drawing more people and more elected officials into the libertarian movement. I don't like the multi-party systems, but he would not prevail there either. We need someone who will win 51% and 270 electoral votes and advance conservative-libertarian smaller government principles.
Not my first choice, but I think Romney will be the candidate and I'm not completely sure what I think about that. I am hoping that his Massachusetts stint was just mid-life crisis phase and that his core if he has one is more center-right. He is too much of a poll watcher but that puts the impetus back on us to keep moving the issue polls rightward and in the direction of individual liberty. He is not going to slash federal government in any big way but If he cannot more clearly identify his own differences with the left, win those arguments and energize the right, then he will lose as did centrist McCain. Perry did not turn out to bevery pure in his conservatism either. Bachmann is not ready nor the right person. Cain, like Bachmann over the summer might have his moment now and we will see if he rises to it. He has some amazing strengths but so far has appeared not ready. Must give credit to all of them, that this past half year was the time to step forward and give it your best shot and many did. You can't say that for the imploding Dem field of one.
Equally important to winning the election is to govern successfully with persuasion, leadership and competence which means making bold moves and bringing the country with you.
It comes down to (IMHO) small government and large freedom vs. big government and small freedom on the domestic side. On foreign policy there is a lot of confusion write now on all sides but we need clarity projected as to what America stands for. And it comes down to judicial picks, don't forget. Let's concede for a moment that Bush was a RINO for all his domestic spending and McCain too for different reasons. The difference between having John Roberts and Sam Alito defend your constitutional rights over Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan are stark. Those 4 named may be offsetting votes on key constitutional issues but if all 4 had fallen in one direction or the other, and to say that is all the same and makes no difference is 'crazy talk'. Certainly the left would not agree with you.
------
Thomas Sowell has a column today adding his wisdom to the mix. I agree with him on the specific points. What he doesn't address with Perry was the inarticulateness that just killed us with the last Republican. Good and decent is what we want, but you have to be able to command the stage and explain your principles if as the leader you are going to draw more people and support.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/09/27/superman_vs_warm_body_111483.html
Superman vs. Warm Body
By Thomas Sowell
One of the problems in trying to select a leader for any large organization or institution is the tendency to start out looking for Superman, passing up many good people who fail to meet that standard, and eventually ending up settling for a warm body.
Some Republicans seem to be longing for another Ronald Reagan. Good luck on that one, unless you are prepared to wait for several generations. Moreover, even Ronald Reagan himself did not always act like Ronald Reagan.
The current outbreak of "gotcha" attacks on Texas Governor Rick Perry show one of the other pitfalls for those who are trying to pick a national leader. The three big sound-bite issues used against him during the TV "debates" have involved Social Security, immigration and a vaccine against cervical cancer.
Where these three issues have been discussed at length, whether in a few media accounts or in Governor Perry's own more extended discussions in an interview on Sean Hannity's program, his position was far more reasonable than it appeared to be in either his opponents' sound bites or even in his own abbreviated accounts during the limited time available in the TV "debate" format.
On Social Security, Governor Perry was not only right to call it a "Ponzi scheme," but was also right to point out that this did not mean welshing on the government's obligation to continue paying retirees what they had been promised.
Even those of us who still disagree with particular decisions made by Governor Perry can see some of those decisions as simply the errors of a decent man who realized that he was faced not with a theory but with a situation.
For example, the ability to save young people from cervical cancer with a stroke of a pen was a temptation that any decent and humane individual would find hard to resist, even if Governor Perry himself now admits to second thoughts about how it was done.
Many of us can agree with Congresswoman Michele Bachmann's contention that it should have been done differently. But it reflects no credit on her to have tried to scare people with claims about the dangers of vaccination. Such scares have already cost the lives of children who have died on both sides of the Atlantic from diseases that vaccination would have prevented.
The biggest mischaracterization of Governor Perry's position has been on immigration. The fact that he has more confidence in putting "boots on the ground" along the border, instead of relying on a fence that can be climbed over or tunneled under where there is no one around, is a logistical judgment, not a question of being against border control.
Texas Rangers have already been put along the border to guard the border where the federal government has failed to guard it. Former Senator Rick Santorum's sound-bite attempts to paint Governor Perry as soft on border control have apparently been politically successful, judging by polls. But his repeated interrupting of Perry's presentation of his case during the recent debate is the kind of cheap political trick that contributes nothing to public understanding and much to public misunderstanding.
Those of us who disagree with Governor Perry's decision to allow the children of illegal immigrants to attend the state colleges and universities, under the same terms as Texas citizens, need at least to understand what his options were. These were children who were here only because of their parents' decisions and who had graduated from a Texas high school.
Governor Perry saw the issue as whether these children should now be allowed to continue their education, and become self-supporting taxpayers, or whether Texas would be better off with a higher risk of those young people becoming dependents or worse. I still see Governor Perry's decision as an error, but the kind of error that a decent and humane individual would be tempted to make.
I have far more questions about those who would blow this error up into something that it is not. Error-free leaders don't exist -- and we don't want to end up settling for a warm body.
Ultimately, this is not about Governor Perry. It is about a process that can destroy any potential leader, even when the country needs a new leader with a character that the "gotcha" attackers demonstrate they do not have.
-
Good analysis by Sowell (no surprise there) but deeply concerning is Perry's ability to defend himself and mount an attack.
IMHO a border fence the whole length of the border is not only a stupidity, it also would be an ecological disaster with the disruptions it would cause to animal movements. Perry's "boots on the ground" is the way to go for most of the border.
-
Exactly what species would be impacted and to what degree by an intact border fence?
-
I wasn't aware of Paul's ties to stormfront. That is indeed alarming.
I agree with Guro Crafty on the border fence issue. Any fence can be thwarted, as well as being costly and still need to be manned/supervised. Boots on the ground is definitely the way to go.
I need a few minutes to digest the other stuff.
-
November 14, 2007
The Ron Paul Campaign and its Neo-Nazi Supporters
By Andrew Walden
When some in a crowd of anti-war activists meeting at Democrat National Committee HQ in June, 2005 suggested Israel was behind the 9-11 attacks, DNC Chair Howard Dean was quick to get behind the microphones and denounce them saying: "such statements are nothing but vile, anti-Semitic rhetoric."
When KKK leader David Duke switched parties to run for Louisiana governor as a Republican in 1991, then-President George H W Bush responded sharply, saying, "When someone asserts the Holocaust never took place, then I don't believe that person ever deserves one iota of public trust. When someone has so recently endorsed Nazism, it is inconceivable that someone can reasonably aspire to a leadership role in a free society."
Ron Paul is different.
Rep Ron Paul (R-TX) is the only Republican candidate to demand immediate withdrawal from Iraq and blame US policy for creating Islamic terrorism. He has risen from obscurity and is beginning to raise millions of dollars in campaign contributions. Paul has no traction in the polls -- 7% of the vote in New Hampshire -- but he at one point had more cash on hand than John McCain. And now he is planning a $1.1 million New Hampshire media blitz just in time for the primary.
Ron Paul set an internet campaigning record raising more than $4 million in small on-line donations in one day, on November 5, 2007. But there are many questions about Paul's apparent unwillingness to reject extremist groups' public participation in his campaign and financial support of his November 5 "patriot money-bomb plot."
On October 26 nationally syndicated radio talk show host Michael Medved posted an "Open Letter to Rep. Ron Paul" on TownHall.com. It reads:
Dear Congressman Paul:
Your Presidential campaign has drawn the enthusiastic support of an imposing collection of Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, Holocaust Deniers, 9/11 "Truthers" and other paranoid and discredited conspiracists.
Do you welcome- or repudiate - the support of such factions?
More specifically, your columns have been featured for several years in the American Free Press -a publication of the nation's leading Holocaust Denier and anti-Semitic agitator, Willis Carto. His book club even recommends works that glorify the Nazi SS, and glowingly describe the "comforts and amenities" provided for inmates of Auschwitz.
Have your columns appeared in the American Free Press with your knowledge and approval?
As a Presidential candidate, will you now disassociate yourself, clearly and publicly, from the poisonous propaganda promoted in such publications?
As a guest on my syndicated radio show, you answered my questions directly and fearlessly.
Will you now answer these pressing questions, and eliminate all associations between your campaign and some of the most loathsome fringe groups in American society?
Along with my listeners (and many of your own supporters), I eagerly await your response.
Respectfully, Michael Medved
Medved has received no official response from the Paul campaign.
There is more. The Texas-based Lone Star Times October 25 publicly requested a response to questions about whether the Paul campaign would repudiate and reject a $500 donation from white supremacist Stormfront.org founder Don Black and end the Stormfront website fundraising for Paul. The Times article lit up the conservative blogosphere for the next week. Paul supporters packed internet comment boards alternately denouncing or excusing the charges. Most politicians are quick to distance themselves from such disreputable donations when they are discovered. Not Paul.
Daniel Siederaski of the Jewish Telegraph Agency tried to get an interview with Paul, calling him repeatedly but not receiving any return calls. Wrote Siederaski November 9: "Ron Paul will take money from Nazis. But he won’t take telephone calls from Jews." [Update] Finally on November 13 the Paul campaign responded. In a short interview JTA quotes Jim Perry, head of Jews for Paul describing his work on the Paul campaign along side a self-described white supremacist which Perry says he has reformed.
Racist ties exposed in the Times article go far beyond a single donation. Just below links to information about the "BOK KKK Ohio State Meeting", and the "BOK KKK Pennsylvania State Meeting", Stormfront.org website announced: "Ron Paul for President" and "Countdown to the 5th of November". The links take readers directly to a Ron Paul fundraising site from which they can click into the official Ron Paul 2008 donation page on the official campaign site. Like many white supremacists, Stormfront has ties to white prison gangs.
Finally on October 30 Paul's campaign came back with a non-response. In a phone interview with the Lone Star Times, Ron Paul national communications director Jesse Benton was non-committal about removing the donations link from Stormfront.org. After a week of internet controversy, the best Benton could come up with is:
"We hadn't thought of these options but I'll bring up these ideas with the campaign director. Blocking the IP address sounds like a simple and practical step that could be taken. I doubt there is anything we can do legally. Tracking donations that came from Stormfront's site sounds more complicated. I'm concerned about setting a precedent for the campaign having to screen and vet everyone who makes a donation. It is important to keep in mind is (sic) that we didn't solicit this support, and we aren't interested in spending al of our time and resources focused on this issue. We want to focus on Dr. Paul's positive agenda for freedom."
Perhaps frustrated by the weasel words, Lone Star Times asked Benton: "Bottom line- Will the Ron Paul campaign be rejecting the $500 contribution made by neo-Nazi Don Black?"
Benton's response:
"At this time, I cannot say that we will be rejecting Mr. Black's contribution, but I will bring the matter to the attention of our campaign director again, and expect some sort of decision to be made in coming days."
On October 11 Stormfront Radio endorsed Ron Paul for President saying:
"Whatever organization you belong to, remember first and foremost that you're a white nationalist, then put aside your differences with one another and work together. Work together to strive to get someone in the Oval Office who agrees with much of what we want for our future. Look at the man, look at the issues, look at our future. Vote for Ron Paul, 2008."
As of November 11--the Ron Paul donation link is still up and active on Stormfront. No IP address has been blocked. Stormfront's would-be stormtroopers are still encouraged to contribute to Paul's campaign.
The white supremacists do more than raise funds. Blogger Adam Holland reports:
"one of Rep. Paul's top internet organizers in Tennessee is a neo-Nazi leader named Will Williams (aka ‘White Will'). Williams was the southern coordinator for William Pierce's National Alliance Party, the largest neo-Nazi party in the U.S."
Pierce is author of the racist "Turner Diaries". When the Lone Star Times exposed the $500 Don Black donation, Williams responded on the national Ron Paul meetup site,
"Must Dr. Paul capitulate to our Jewish masters' demands?"
The mild responses to Williams' MeetUp post make a sharp contrast to the hatred and invective with which Paul supporters respond to Medved or any other writer questioning Paul's refusal to disassociate himself from his racist supporters. Any other campaign would presume Williams' expression of anti-Semitism was a dirty trick by an opposing campaign. Williams would have been hurriedly denounced and booted out of the campaign. Not Ron Paul.
Williams has also organized at least one other discussion, "the Israel factor revisited" on the national Ron Paul MeetUp site. Again the measured tone of the remarks by Ron Paul supporters in the comments section contrasts sharply with the invective Paul supporters rain down upon bloggers who oppose him. Paul's campaign relies heavily on MeetUp sites to organize. Over 61,000 Paul supporters are registered on MeetUp as compared to 3,400 for Barack Obama, 1,000 for Hillary Clinton, 1,800 for Dennis Kucinich and only a couple of dozen members for most other candidates.
On the white-supremacist Vanguard News Network, Williams links to Paul's "grassroots" fundraising site and organizes other racists to "game You Tube" to advance a specific Ron Paul video to the top of You Tube's rankings. Writes Williams, "Everybody here can do this, except bjb w/his niggerberry." Holland points out, "BJB" stands for "burn Jew burn". BJB's internet signature is, "Nothing says lovin' like a Jew in the oven."
Williams is not Paul's only supremacist supporter. "Former" KKK leader (and convicted fraudster) David Duke's website http://www.whitecivilrights.com/, calls Ron Paul "our king" and cheers while "Ron Paul Hits a Home Run on Jay Leno Show." Duke also includes a "Ron Paul campaign update" and plugs Ron Paul fundraising efforts. These articles are posted right next to articles such as "Ten reasons why the Holocaust is a fraud" and "Germans Still Remember their Historical Greatness"-featuring a map of Hitler's Third Reich at its 1942 military height, just in case anybody doesn't get the point. Apparently "Dr. Paul's positive agenda for freedom" is attractive to those who ape the world's worst tyrants and genocidaires.
There are others. In a You Tube video circulating the internet, Ron Paul is endorsed by Hutton Gibson, a leading Holocaust denier and father of controversial actor and director Mel Gibson.
Ron Paul is supported by Patrick Buchanan, whose website carries videos and articles such as: "Ron Paul epiphany" and "Ron Paul a new hope." Buchanan has a long history of remarks some call anti-Semitic (see link). Ron Unz, editor of Buchanan's American Conservative magazine, is a Paul contributor and may have helped raise money from Silicon Valley sources.
Ron Paul's American Free Press supporters run literally from one end of the country to the other:
A Maine Ron Paul MeetUp activist who once ran for US Senate describes himself as, "a 911 truth researcher & video documentarian, & a writer for The Barnes Review." The Barnes Review is a Holocaust-denier magazine founded by Willis Carto.
A Hawaii Ron Paul MeetUp organizer is pictured here pumping the Paul campaign and selling copies of Willis Carto's American Free Press at a farmers market.
There is more to the Paul campaign than racists. The mis-named 9-11 "truth" movement has also been a big source of Paul support. The Detroit Free Press describes the scene as Republican Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani shared the ferry ride back from a Mackinac Island Michigan Republican caucus September 21.
"According to one eyewitness, Giuliani was beset by dozens of Paul enthusiasts as he was leaving the island, some of whom shouted taunts about 9/11, including: ‘9/11 was an inside job' and ‘Rudy, Rudy, what did you do with the gold?' -- an apparent reference to rumors about $200 million in gold alleged to have disappeared in the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. Ed Wyszynski, a longtime party activist from Eagle, (MI) said the Paul supporters threatened to throw Giuliani overboard and harassed him as he took shelter in the ferry's pilothouse for the 15-minute journey back to Mackinaw City."
Paul campaign spokesman Jesse Benton told the Detroit Free Press "Ron Paul does not think that 9/11 was an inside job." But the "truthers" aren't fooled. Paul's committee paid 9-11 conspiracy nut and talk-show host Alex Jones $1300. Jones claims the payment is a partial refund after he over paid August 27 when giving Paul a $2300 contribution. Aaron Dykes of Alex Jones' company Magnolia Management and Alex Jones' Infowars website gave Ron Paul $1600.
Jones has been pumping Paul's campaign on his nationally syndicated radio show for months. Alex Jones got Paul's first radio interview January 17 after announcing his Presidential campaign. LINK: http://prisonplanet.tv/audio/170107paul.mp3. In a lengthy October 5 interview -- apparently Paul's fourth with Jones -- Paul thanks Jones for his support saying: "You and the others have always said run, run, run." Alex Jones' websites are piled with Ron Paul articles and campaign paraphernalia for sale.
Other Paul donations and activists come from leftists and Muslims. Singer and Democrat contributor Barry Manilow is also a Ron Paul contributor and possibly a fundraiser. There are close ties (but no endorsements) between Ron Paul's San Francisco Bay Area campaign and Cindy Sheehan's long-shot Congressional campaign.
An Austin, TX MeetUp site shows Paul supporters also involved in leftist groups such as Howard Dean's "Democracy for America." MeetUp lists other sites popular with members of the Ron Paul national MeetUp group. The number one choice is "9/11 questions" another leading choice is "conspiracy."
MuslimVoterOnPaul.com chimes in writing:
"Brothers and Sisters, please vote for Ron Paul in the Republican Primaries. It's our obligation to come together and try to stand up for not only our best interests, but the best interests of the entire Ummah."
A Ron Paul flyer directed at Muslims reads: "Who is Ron Paul and why does the Jerusalem Post call him crazy?" A "Muslims for Paul" bumper sticker puts the Islamic crescent in Paul's name.
The ugly mishmash of hate groups backing Paul has a Sheehan connection as well. David Duke is a big Cindy Sheehan supporter eagerly proclaiming "Cindy Sheehan is right" after Sheehan said, "My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel." Stormfront.org members joined Sheehan at her protest campout in Crawford, TX and posed with her for photos. Sheehan is also intimately associated with the Lew Rockwell libertarian website which has posted over 200 articles by Ron Paul as well as some "scholarly" 9-11 conspiracy theories.
The white supremacist American Nationalist Union also backed Sheehan's Crawford protests and endorsed David Duke for president of the United States in 1988. Now they are backing Ron Paul-linking to numerous Pro-Paul articles posted on LewRockwell.com.
Medved's questions surprise many, but they shouldn't. Paul's links the anti-Semites and white supremacists continue a trend which has been developing since the 9-11 attacks. Barely six weeks after 9-11, Paul was already busy blaming America. On October 27, 2001 Paul wrote on LewRockwell.com, "Some sincere Americans have suggested that our modern interventionist policy set the stage for the attacks of 9-11". Paul complained: "often the ones who suggest how our policies may have played a role in evoking the attacks are demonized as unpatriotic." He says the US is "bombing Afghanistan" and is upset nobody is interested in his solution:
"It is certainly disappointing that our congressional leaders and administration have not considered using letters of marque and reprisal as an additional tool to root out those who participated in the 9-11 attacks."
Paul is quick to blame the victim when the issue is Islamist violence. But when it comes to ordinary criminal violence, Paul once blamed "95% of black males." During Paul's 1996 Congressional campaign a Houston Chronicle article raised questions about a 1992 Ron Paul newsletter article. Under Ron Paul's name was written: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.' Paul added: "I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city (Washington, D.C.) are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
Texas Monthly later interviewed Paul. He claims:
"They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'"
Adds Texas Monthly:
"It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time."
Paul defenders often point to a December 24, 2002 Paul essay, "What really divides us?" Wrote Paul,
"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups."
What his supporters don't often mention is that Paul deployed this fine rhetoric only in defense of Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS). Lott was pilloried in the press for his flattering words about the segregationist 1948 Presidential run of South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond.
Responding to rioting in Los Angeles under the heading "Terrorist Updates", Paul's 1992 article exposes a double standard. Substitute the words "Islamist terrorism" for "riots" and try to imagine Paul using this language:
"The cause of the riots is plain: barbarism. If the barbarians cannot loot sufficiently through legal channels (i.e., the riots being the welfare-state minus the middleman), they resort to illegal ones, to terrorism. Trouble is, few seem willing to do anything to stop them. The cops have been handcuffed. And property owners are not allowed to defend themselves. The mayor of Los Angeles, for example, ordered the Korean storekeepers who defended themselves arrested for "discharging a firearm within city limits." Perhaps the most scandalous aspect of the Los Angeles riots was the response by the mayors, the media, and the Washington politicians. They all came together as one to excuse the violence and to tell white America that it is guilty, although the guilt can be assuaged by handing over more cash. It would be reactionary, racist, and fascist, said the media, to have less welfare or tougher law enforcement. America's number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks.
"Rather than helping, all this will ensure that guerrilla violence will escalate. There will be more occasional eruptions such as we saw in Los Angeles, but just as terrifying are the daily muggings, robberies, burglaries, rapes, and killings that make our cities terror zones."
If one forgets the implication that the US treasury is a "white checking account" or the suggestion that all "underclass blacks" are thugs, it seems that Paul believes that appeasing street criminals "will ensure that guerrilla violence will escalate." But when it comes to the Islamist terror, Paul's message, now the theme of his Presidential campaign is: "our policies may have played a role in evoking the attacks."
The double standard raises questions. Paul's real motivation for appeasing Islamists may be underlined in quotes from a May 24, 1996 Congress Daily article:
"Stating that lobbying groups who seek special favors and handouts are evil, Paul wrote, ‘By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government' and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism."
"Ron Paul-America's Last Chance", a January, 2007 article by Ted Lang on the anti-Semitic site Rense.com, makes a familiar argument for supporting Paul. Lang claims,
"Dr. Paul's best credentials are those identifying him as a true libertarian, meaning a ‘classical liberal' of the anti-Federalist genre of libertarians that helped found this country, true liberals such as Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams...."
Paul himself writing on antiwar.com says:
"Thomas Jefferson spoke for the founders and all our early presidents when he stated: ‘peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none...' which is, ‘one of the essential principles of our government'. The question is: Whatever happened to this principle and should it be restored?"
Perhaps Paul forgets America's 1801-05 war with the Islamic terrorists known as the Barbary Pirates? Paul's interpretation of American history is false. This writer explained in "The Colonial War against Islam":
"In 1786, Thomas Jefferson, then U.S. ambassador to France, and John Adams, then American Ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Dey's ambassador to Britain, in an attempt to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress' vote of funding. To Congress, these two future presidents later reported the reasons for the Muslims' hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.
"‘...that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.'"
Apparently Paul chooses to remember only the parts of American history which benefit his arguments. As part of the War on Terror Paul wants the US to abandon, the US Navy is on duty fighting Islamic pirates off the coast of Somalia, in the Persian Gulf, and Southeast Asia.
In spite of official silence from the Paul Campaign, hordes of Paul supporters lit up the comments section of Michael Medved's open letter on TownHall.com. In a phenomenon familiar to any blogger who posts information negative to Paul, the 500-plus comments include several which indicate that Medved has got Paul's supporters dead to rights:
"Your own Zionism is slipping, Medved! Why should anyone disassociate from 9/11 Truthers?"
"I suggest you take off the tin-foil yamika (sic), your brain is fried."
"You will do anything to smear this good man to try and safeguard US policy in Israel."
"Hey Medved. Tell your AIPAC handlers to be nervous. You are failing miserably."
"It's patently obvious why you don't support Dr. Paul: He's not hand-picked by AIPAC and the Likud Party."
Over at Liberty Post, a self-described "Christian Zionist" identifying himself as ‘David Ben-Ariel' adds this response:
"If discredited and paranoid Michael Medved is so concerned about it, let him actually follow his Judaism to the Jewish Homeland of Israel and take the treacherous ACLU and its liberal ilk, and every other self-hating, defeatist, godless group and loathsome organization with him. What's he got to lose, especially if he fails to believe the Israeli oligarchy is under German-Jesuit control and guilty of murdering Yitzhak Rabin? ... I'm voting for Ron Paul."
Besides the Paul backers whose words seem to provide backing to Medved's case, others complain that it is wrong to question the sources of Paul's support. Writing on the "Daily Paul", Mike Bergmaier complains it is "unfair" for Medved to demand Paul renounce the support of anti-Semites, white supremacists, and neo-Nazis. Really? Why?
Lew Rockwell attempts to respond to Medved's question by echoing leftist themes equating Nazis with mainstream conservatives. Rockwell argues Medved should renounce Cheney and Bush. In a weak effort at verbal judo, Rockwell calls Medved's letter a "neocon libel." Rockwell continues:
"Mr. Medved, will you repudiate belligerent nationalists, drooling torturers, scheming warmongers, redistributing pressure groups, foreign aid thieves... (etc)"
and then without even pausing to catch his breath accuses Medved of practicing "guilt by association."
Perhaps Rockwell hopes weak-minded readers will not notice that associating Medved with "drooling torturers" is itself "guilt by association." No "drooling torturers" have been identified among Medved's financial backers but actual neo-Nazis have been identified by name amongst Paul's. Is this what passes for scholarship at the Ludwig von Mises Institute headed by Rockwell? Judging from many of the comments Paul supporters have flooded the internet with, it apparently is good enough for them.
Meanwhile, elsewhere on the Daily Paul, Paul's "fair" supporters are organizing to call radio stations and demand they yank Medved's show, thus demonstrating that censorship is a Libertarian value.
Neither Paul nor his campaign has officially responded to the questions raised by Medved. But then perhaps these types of comments are the official response.
Paul supporters complain endlessly that the "mainstream media" is censoring or ignoring their candidate. They should be careful what they ask for. If Paul wants to be taken seriously, he must stop cowering behind the internet and face these questions. Until then it is only reasonable to presume that Paul is happy to wallow in well-financed obscurity accepting the support of some of the worst enemies of freedom and liberty within American society.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/archived-articles/../2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html at September 27, 2011 - 12:39:37 PM CDT
-
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2011/09/27/obama-fundraising-incurs-huge-dropoff/
Obama Fundraising Suffers Huge Drop-off
by Keith Koffler on September 27, 2011, 8:38 am
President Obama will raise substantially less in the second quarter of his campaign than the first, according to the New York Times.
The paper writes that Obama campaign manager Jim Messina has told Democratic officials that the president will raise about $55 million in the quarter that ends Sept. 30, about $30 million less than he raised the first quarter of his campaign – which was the second quarter of the year, ending June 30.
The news was – gosh who would have expected – buried within the Times story.
No doubt, $55 million is a lot of money. But something’s not right.
The campaign attributes part of the decline to the need for Obama to stay in Washington address budget battles with Republicans. That is – sorry for the inconvenience – the need to be president.
But a separate Times article Saturday that said many small donors are hesitant to start giving to Obama again. And it’s no secret that even for Democrats, the thrill is gone.
This helps explain the vitriol Obama has been dumping out on the campaign trail. He needs to get people motivated to send him their money, and if he can get the hating thing going – hate Republicans, hate the rich, hate EVERYONE – maybe they’ll part with some cash.
-
Might also add that Texas has a river across the border, different than other states not as suitable for fencing. The point to most citizens far away really has to do with results. We can't have sovereignty without security.
I had the opportunity to check out a different liquid border over the weekend, slipping in and out of Canada by canoe unnoticed. The Boundary Waters on the US side and Quetico Park on the Canadian side combine for about 2 million acres of virtually untouched northern lakes and forests wilderness. Some border security there but no fence. God's creatures roam freely! (http://photos.bwca.com/m/MCSWEEM-050710-125458.JPG) Drifting from the topic, highly recommended for a father-son, family or friends adventure.
-
As far as Ron Paul goes, I'm sold. EDIT: - By "sold" I mean there is no way that I would support someone that wouldn't even renounce something that bad. In short, I won't be voting for Paul.
I want a candidate that trims down IMO what has become a oversize, inefficient, invasive government, that stand for Americans (and to be clear - that means Americans of ever creed and ethnicity), but is hard on illegal immigration (legal immigrants can and should be welcomed), and supports the military wholeheartedly (Afghanistan and Iraq, right or wrong, we're in it it now and we need to be vigilant).
McCain..... I'm never going to be sold on the Patriot Act and he supports it. I'd rather accept the fact that someday something bad may happen to me and keep my privacy. Too much fear is sold wholesale these days to the masses in order to allow the government to grow. I'm certain that this isn't what the nation's founders had in mind and as much as we have advanced technologically speaking, technological advances shouldn't override bedrock principles...ever.
-
GM: Concerning the consequences of animal movements that would be blocked by a fence, I am sorry but I have no citation, merely whatever credibility I may have with you as someone who is capable of sizing things up and not getting bamboozled too often.
-
Might also add that Texas has a river across the border, different than other states not as suitable for fencing. The point to most citizens far away really has to do with results. We can't have sovereignty without security.
I had the opportunity to check out a different liquid border over the weekend, slipping in and out of Canada by canoe unnoticed. The Boundary Waters on the US side and Quetico Park on the Canadian side combine for about 2 million acres of virtually untouched northern lakes and forests wilderness. Some border security there but no fence. God's creatures roam freely! (http://photos.bwca.com/m/MCSWEEM-050710-125458.JPG) Drifting from the topic, highly recommended for a father-son, family or friends adventure.
Doug, you make an interesting point. I too, have been to the Canadian border numerous times and in all honestly, there is no way to efficiently or cheaply build a wall along the northern border. I too, have had the opportunity to slip across the border (should I have wanted to) both in the north and the south (I have been around both borders often and know them well), and even with motion detectors and cameras in certain areas, the only way to effectively guard either one of them, would be with patrols (which can still be thwarted).
Simply put, there is no way to guard the border that cannot or will not be overcome with anyone that has a sufficient amount of resolve and the slightest bit of training so.... let's guard it in the most cost effective manner and spend the other money on Intel and make laws that make it extremely difficult to make a life here illegally.
In my mind's eye, troops and patrols are the way to go, but that's just my opinion.
-
DF, You make good sense to me on the role of government, immigration and foreign policy. The only area I disagree is in the details of the Patriot Act. I don't want to lose any privacy either but I don't think I lost any with that. If a known terrorist reaches me by accident, cell phone to cell phone, it would not be outside of the principles of a free and secure society that law enforcement may find that out and want to pursue it with me. McCain is yesterday's news, now we need to figure out what to do with these guys.
From my point of view, a) Obama and all of his left governing big government philosophy must go, b) conservatives with clear principles are actually more electable than mushy moderates because they can articulate a clear difference, and c) as Obama used to say, this is our moment. It is no time to put up a weak, unqualified, unprincipled or ineffective leader.
My perfect candidate is someone with the oratory and clear thinking of Marco Rubio, with the detailed knowledge of the complex bills of government like Paul Ryan, with the executive in government experience 2 terms or more like Rick Perry, with the private sector experience Romney or Hermann Cain and with the foreign policy experience of General Petraeus. That fantasy candidate isn't available now and never will be. So we will take a chance now and place our bets on one of these guys.
-
DF,
All the hype about the PATRIOT act is unfounded. Do a search, it's been discussed in depth here.
-
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/09/27/open-thread-obama-speech-in-denver-on-porkulus-ii-economic-boogaloo/
Open thread: Obama speech in Denver on Porkulus II: Economic Boogaloo
posted at 3:25 pm on September 27, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
Barack Obama has used Denver as a friendly platform over the last few years. He built the Barackapolis in the Mile High City to accept his party’s nomination in 2008, and in 2009 signed the stimulus bill in Denver. He returns to Denver today to speak at a 4 pm ET event to build support for his new stimulus bill, in a political environment which the local ABC affiliate notes has changed significantly in two years — even if reporter/producer Deb Stanley can’t get 2009 history correct in her piece:
It’s a different Colorado for President Barack Obama.
In early 2009, Obama chose Denver as his backdrop to sign the sweeping $787 billion stimulus bill into law, an ambitious plan that had the backing of both parties.
When he visits Lincoln High School in Denver Tuesday, Obama will be pitching another economic stimulus — this time to a skeptical state with unemployment around 8.5 percent. Republicans and even some Democrats say the president faces an uphill battle next year.
It “had the backing of both parties”? Er … no. The 2009 stimulus bill was adamantly opposed by the Republican Party, and got exactly zero GOP votes in the House. It only received three Republican votes in the Senate, one of which belonged to Arlen Specter, who switched parties shortly thereafter. Republican budgets this year got more bipartisan support than the Porkulus disaster did in 2009.
Let’s hope that voters in Colorado have better memories than Stanley, and clearer perspectives on politics. And according to Politico, it seems that they do:
The president, who pitches his new jobs plan at a downtown Denver high school this afternoon on his way home from a three-day West Coast trip, faces a surprisingly tough fight in a state one Obama adviser recently labeled as “the bellwether of bellwethers.”
What is particularly worrisome for the Obama campaign is that Colorado in many ways is the most friendly of the high-stakes, fast-changing swing states — that also include Virginia, North Carolina and Wisconsin — that he’s banking on for 2012.
A lot has changed since Obama’s unexpected romp here, little of it the good from the perspective of the president’s supporters. Unemployment has spiked to 8.5 percent, and with it the tea party’s popularity; Latino support is ebbing amid frustration over Obama’s failure to pursue comprehensive immigration reform; and recession-stung independents have, for the moment, tossed Obama onto the “Made in Washington” heap.
“A repeat of 2008 is very unlikely… I’d say he’s looking at a high-wire act here,” warns former Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter, who barnstormed Colorado in the waning days of 2008 with Obama and wife Michelle after hosting the Democratic convention here.
The current governor, Democrat John Hickenlooper, offers an equally sober assessment. “The president probably can win Colorado, but he’s got a lot of work to do,” he told POLITICO in a telephone interview. “He’s got to make sure that his message gets through, that it is consistent and it’s not drowned out by the distractions of talk radio.”
Ah, yes, the “distractions of talk radio” have always had bigger volume in the political square than Presidents. Talk radio is certainly influential, but hardly compares to the influence of mainstream media outlets, especially for this President, who has enjoyed nearly a free ride until very recently from national outlets. Or for that matter, local outlets who insist on reporting “facts” like the Republicans supported the first failed stimulus package.
Don’t expect too much out of this speech, of course, except more of the soak-the-rich class warfare arguments that Obama has delivered already this month. That may play well in Denver itself, but it’s not going to sound like the same post-partisan hope and change Obama promised to Coloradans in 2008.
Update: It would probably help Obama’s standing in Colorado if his campaign could figure out how to find the state on a map:
The press office issued credentials to those reporters and photojournalists who are covering the president’s trip this week to Washington state, California, and Colorado. The credential even provides a handy graphic highlighting (in white) which states the president will visit.
The only problem?
Wyoming is highlighted, not Colorado.
Well, it is hard to keep track of those 57 states, you know …
-
First, that is beyond funny and very telling that Obama's top advisers cannot correctly find Colorado on a map!
With all due respect to Ed Morrissey, I have this one counted as Stimulus 7. Excerpting from something I wrote before vacation but hadn't posted yet:
1) TARP = Troubled Asset Relief Program The trigger for the collapse was the impending tax increases and regulatory influx promised by the Dem congress and the new administration on the investors in the American economy. The famed Troubled Asset Relief Program was from all sides, Bush and Treasury Secretary Paulson, with all the consensus co-authors: Obama and his team, McCain and his advisers, in case he would win, and the Fed including Chairman Bernancke and President of the NY Federal Reserve Timothy Geithner - seriously. $700 billion bailed out banks that the Feds had to insure anyway, that made sense, but it also bailed out investment houses and insurance companies (both with political ties to both parties) and believe it or not, foreign central banks. http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/bailouttracker/ We sure don't want any spill over from Europe, do we? Can anyone say Greece Sept 2011?!
2) American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: This was the Obama Stimulus One passed Feb 17, 2009. This one has the signs on the 'shovel-ready projects. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/signs-stimulus/story?id=11163180 Spending in the hundreds of billions that we don't have and is paid for, slandering the already dying reputation of Sir John Maynard Keynes who has been room temperature and unable to defend himself since 1946. Stimulus One even had its own website: Recovery.Gov. You can track the money there. What could possibly go wrong? Let's see... Things got worse. ! Why? The liberals say it was too small! Only $787 Billion. Yes, only. What's a piddly amount like 787 billion going to do to stimulate a big economy like ours? Seriously. http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/09/american-recovery-reinvestment-act-roosevelt-opinions-contributors-depression.html
3) Quantitative Expansion = The second half of the Fed's Dual Mission was alive and well, monetary meddling. Dilute and devalue our currency to the tune of $600 billion (all these estimates are conservative) in the name of stimulating the economy to full employment. Did it work? Hell no. Why? The liberal brain trust says it was too small, lol (laughing and crying at this point). Was there more? Yes. See QE2, no. 5) below, and 6)! This was a 'one time' injection - diluting our currency to trick people into a 'wealth effect'. Now it is what we do all the time. Does it work? No. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/02/AR2010090204235.html
4) Stimulus Two is the fourth stimulus - you do the math. Whoops, we don't use the S-word anymore; that name was already losing its shine and polling poorly among focus groups. It was Sept 2010 at this point and by now the Stimuli all seemed to run together, people losing track of the number, does anyone really remember this one? The guys at 'Hot Air' forgot: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/09/27/open-thread-obama-speech-in-denver-on-porkulus-ii-economic-boogaloo/ Ed Morrissey writes that the Porkukus of Sept 2011 was No. 2 when in fact it is number 7; we've got three more to go. And these guys are paid professionals! Hundreds of billions more in the stimulus formerly known as Stimulus Two, what does it matter now - it's all play money, see no. 3. We must do something even though it is just more, really less of the same. It was designed and timed to soften the blow of the 2010 elections with Dems then polling south of the south pole.'See, we are doing something.' Still they held big government doctrinism above their warped view of Keynesianism and promised to stay hellbent on raising tax rates at the first of the year. Did Stimulus Two work? NO and no, politically and economically. Why not? Too small! And so the story went out: "things were worse than we thought when we got here". "It's Bush's fault." Seriously. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/02/AR2010090204235.html Did this really happen?
5) QE2: What else can you do when QE1 and Stimuli 1-4 are not enough? the House Senate and President all had their hands tied with deficits and debt to the tune of a trillion and a half and 14.3 trillion respectively and rising, so the Fed stepped in again. Why? See no. 3) above. The previous expansion was simply too small - obviously. The second wave would take the total up to a whopping $3 trillion of US Treasury buybacks done with fictitious, 'expansionary' (dilution/devaluation) dollars. What could possibly go wrong? Increase in money supply, decrease in the value of all US dollars, future spiraling price increases, and a direct hit to eveyone's standard of living and the value of everything they own. http://www.zerohedge.com/article/why-qe2-qe-lite-may-mean-fed-will-purchase-almost-3-trillion-treasurys-and-set-stage-monetar
6) QE3, Fed is STILL buying back at the rate of $300/yr. What was the definition of insanity again? http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-27/fed-seen-buying-25-billion-a-month-in-treasuries-after-qe2-comes-to-end.html
7) The Plan, The Obama Jobs Plan = "Pass the Bill" - Sept 2011: We are right back to where we started - $8 trillion later and U6 still at 16.9%. The President is voting 'Present'. Tweaking a little short term injection here for permanent increases there. He proposes what can't possibly help and what can't possibly pass and then he can blame someone else. Plausible deniability - that should do it! Problem solved - in the best minds of the Obama brain trust. Seriously, charged with one of the biggest economic challenges in history, that is the best they can do.
-
Doug,
You should flesh that out and get it published somewhere.
-
Woof,
I agree.
P.C.
-
http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/dick-morris/184269-blacks-leave-obama
Blacks leave Obama
By Dick Morris - 09/27/11 06:36 PM ET
Behind the president’s whining to the Black Caucus, begging them to “quit grumbling,” is a decline in his personal popularity among African-American voters that could portend catastrophe for his fading reelection chances.
According to a Washington Post/ABC News survey, his favorability rating among African-Americans has dropped off a cliff, plunging from 83 percent five months ago to a mere 58 percent today — a drop of 25 points, a bit more than a point per week!
Nothing is more crucial to the president’s reelection strategy than a super-strong showing among black voters. In the election of 2008, he was able to increase African-American participation from 11 percent of the total vote in 2004 to 14 percent. He carried 98 percent of them. This swing accounted for fully half of his gain over the showing of John Kerry. Now his ability to repeat that performance is in doubt.
And the emergence of Herman Cain as a serious Republican candidate could not have come at a worse time for the embattled president. Cain’s alternate narrative — self-help, entrepreneurial skill, hard work and self-improvement — stands in stark contrast to the victimization/class warfare argument that the president has adopted.
Over all, how’s that class warfare working out for you, Mr. President? Well, here are some unpleasant numbers for you:
• Before Obama’s speech to Congress and the nation — watched by 34 million families — his job approval averaged 44 percent. Now it averages 43 percent, according to realclearpolitics.com. He deployed his ultimate weapon — a nationally televised speech to Congress — and came up empty.
• The president’s personal favorability has taken a big hit even as his job approval has shown no gain. The Post/ABC poll has his rating down to 47 percent, the first time in his presidency it has dropped below 50. Clearly, the spectacle of a class warrior leading the country is grating on most Americans. Usually, despite drops in his job approval, his personal ratings have stayed high. Not anymore. The most recent New York Times/CBS poll had his favorability actually lagging behind his job approval by 4 points — the first time it has ever done so in their polling.
• Young people, the core of Obama’s base, now hold equally favorable and unfavorable views of the president they once adored. And his favorability among self-described “liberal” Democrats has also dropped. The percentage of those who say they are strongly favorable has fallen from 69 percent in April to 52 percent now. For a president whose reelection chances hinge on his ability to turn out his base, these numbers are depressing indeed.
Obama’s advisers likely think that fervent appeals to liberal views, including class warfare, are the best way to repair the gaping holes that are now appearing in his political base. But this is a conviction born of instinct and intuition, not generated by polling data. The fact is that as the president has ratcheted up his class warfare rhetoric, his personal popularity has fallen and his job approval has edged down slightly.
-
Doug:
Ditto.
=========
Baraq's speech patterns here, and I am working from memory, for some reason :wink: remind me of how Senator Harry Reid almost got mentioned in the Pravdas for his comment early in His Glibness's campaign for the nomination about how he was clean, presentable, well-spoken, and when necessary could speak "Negro dialect".
-
Thanks for the kind words. (humbled face) GM, some work left to do but I did just get it published on a site with something like a million reads - here! The longer version when ready will go over at Cognitive Dissonance. It is hard to find an ending point to a story about leftist economic nonsense. It just keeps coming.
-
"Cain later completed a master's degree in computer science and entered the business world where he led several companies--most recently Godfather's--and chaired the National Restaurant Association and the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. His résumé--from mathematician and rocket scientist to restaurateur and now politician"
Crafty: "That is a far more interesting resume than most people realize..."
------
Even that impressive list skips over a couple of very big ones: He rose to VP at CocaCola - that's a pretty good employer (understatement) if you are from the Atlanta area. And he was my neighbor 6 years when he rose to VP of Minneapolis based Pillsbury, quite a legend of a global company at least in that day and around these parts. Either of those stints alone is a business background better than almost anyone in politics in memory. Romney or Romney's father may be among the rare other exceptions. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain)
Masters in computer science (from Purdue!) at that point in time was rocket science. It was a look into the future from the very leading edge and seeing what could be done in a most amazing industry; what they saw then has now been done. Mathematics as a degree is one that applies across all disciplines. Not exactly fluff like most. The constitutional office of President would do well to have more of its occupants trained in a discipline that analytical thinking as a matter of course. Not exactly a trait of the current White House.
----
Not buying individual short term polls, but Zogby just put Cain in first, up by 10 points, and that was before the news of him winning the Florida straw poll. http://www.ibopezogby.com/news/2011/09/26/ibope-zogby-poll-perry-plummets-18-trails-cain-lead-among-gop-primary-voters/ The rise in attention also helps fund raising which is the blood of survival in their business.
I'm not endorsing, just gathering the info. I have a couple of concerns as well (never held elective office, for one). What I would say is that even if Hermann Cain is not the nominee, it is a very very good thing for the cause of rescuing the country that he is gaining in stature and exposure.
My answer to the cancer question is that a) he has been fully forthcoming, and b) he better have a really good VP choice. JFK (no callous intent, rest his soul) improved both his reputation and the prospects for his legislative agenda by dying in office. In Cain's case, Presidents have great health care. If he dies in office, he would have died anyway. If he has to turn over his duties temporarily or permanently to his VP, that's why we have one and that's why we vet them.
-
Cain is definitely moving up in my estimation too. I note that Dennis Miller has endorsed him btw , , , interesting.
-
Cain is definitely moving up in my estimation too. I note that Dennis Miller has endorsed him btw , , , interesting.
Isn't Dennis Miller somewhat of a Liberal?
-
Cain is definitely moving up in my estimation too. I note that Dennis Miller has endorsed him btw , , , interesting.
Isn't Dennis Miller somewhat of a Liberal?
Used to be, until 9/11.
-
Agree, Dennis Miller is a good endorsement for Cain. He has a good radio show, good audience - worse times I think than the bigger shows, he has good guests, good insights and he is what I would call a common sense conservative - a talented guy. The guys with bigger radio shows than his mostly don't endorse, nor do most good columnists or pundits this early, in time to make a difference. Cain, Romney, Perry, they all need people of some notice to start joining their side. Romney got Pawlenty, oh well. Perry has Bobby Jindahl. The huge one for Obama was actually Oprah in time for Iowa. Probably didn't help her career but she went out on a limb and it certainly helped his to gain traction and more endorsements.
-
Miller is hip, wickedly funny, and a rather serious and astute political observer who is roughly a right wing Jon Stewart. This is an excellent endorsement for Cain.
FOX tonight is reporting that Romney (working from memory here) is 23%, Perry 17%, Cain 14% and Gingrich 11% Huntsman at 6% now doubles Bachman's 3%. These shifts seem significant to me. Cain is now getting serious attention, and breaking into double digits is really good news for Newt too.
-
WSJ:
Amid those dark political clouds overhead right now, President Barack Obama can console himself with this silver lining: The electoral map remains stacked in favor of him and his Democrats.
In a close presidential election—and there is every reason to believe that 2012's will be—that is an important and often overlooked fundamental. It will affect the strategic decisions both parties make as the campaign unfolds. Indeed, the shape of the electoral map already appears to be driving some moves this year, and offers signposts indicating which states will be pivotal next year.
President Obama can console himself with the fact that the electoral map remains stacked in favor of him and his Democrats. Jerry Seib explains why on The News Hub.
.The important thing to remember about a presidential election is that it isn't a contest to win the popular vote nationwide. It is a contest to win in a combination of states that will produce the 270 votes in the electoral college that give a candidate the majority there.
Therein lies the Democrats' built-in advantage. They happen to start with a bloc of reliably blue states that is larger, and much richer in electoral votes, than the reliably red bloc Republicans have on their side. If a Democratic presidential candidate merely hangs on to this trove of deep-blue states, he or she is a long way down the road to victory.
Specifically, there are 18 states plus the District of Columbia that have voted Democratic in all five presidential elections since 1992. Combined, they carry 242 electoral votes—90% of the votes needed for victory.
Republicans have a much smaller bloc of highly reliable electoral college votes. There are just 13 states that have gone red in each of the last five elections, and they deliver 102 electoral votes, less than half of the number needed.
Electoral Advantage
View Interactive
.See how states' electoral college votes have been cast since 1992.
More photos and interactive graphics
.That means the key to victory for President Obama is holding this blue line. Doing so will be significantly harder this year, because he is running amid economic distress of a magnitude unseen in any of those five previous elections. But if he manages to hold his party's blue base, he would need to pick off only a few more less-friendly states.
The most likely additional states for the Democrats are the five—Iowa, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada and Ohio—that have gone Democratic in either three or four of the last five elections. If President Obama carries all of these light-blue states, while hanging on to all the deepest-blue states, he will have 281 electoral votes, 11 more than he needs.
And that, it should be noted, would be without having to win the giant swing state of Florida, or needing to hold on to the normally red states of Virginia and North Carolina that Mr. Obama won in 2008.
So the question for Republicans is pretty simple: Which of the deep-blue or blue-leaning states can they pick off? Know the answer to that question and you'll know where the 2012 action will be.
Indeed, the president faces problems in some of those deep-blue states, which suggests that the wall can be breached. "Recent history aside, Obama will have to work hard to keep the Democratic base intact in 2012," political analyst Rhodes Cook wrote in a recent newsletter examining the electoral map. "Not only does it include states on the two coasts, but also industrial battlegrounds such as Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin."
The president's job-approval rating was below 50% in both California and Pennsylvania in recent polls, for example.
Another state that jumps out as a particular trouble spot is Wisconsin. Republican Gov. Scott Walker won the governor's seat there in 2010, and his blunt confrontation with public-employee unions has energized conservatives—and aroused liberals. How that translates into presidential politics is crucial.
Among the light-blue states, Iowa and New Hampshire both offer GOP opportunities. But big Ohio, with 18 electoral votes, is the juiciest target for Republicans among the light-blue states. Notably, the president's job-approval rating in Ohio stood just below 50% in a summertime Quinnipiac University poll.
Even if the president keeps all of the dark-blue states and all of the other light-blue states, take Ohio out of his column and he comes up seven electoral votes short.
Where could he make up those votes? Here's a good guess: Colorado, a swing state Mr. Obama won in 2008 after it went Republican in three of the previous four elections. It just happens to have nine electoral votes. Take out Ohio and plug in Colorado, and the president just squeaks by.
It's easy to see how these electoral calculations already are playing out, by watching where Democrats are focusing their energies and where President Obama is spending his time. It's no coincidence that both Mr. Obama and Vice President Joe Biden were in light-blue Ohio in the past week. On Tuesday, the president arrives in Colorado, trying to shore up his standing in that potentially crucial swing state.
-
You hear the same thing said about Herman Cain all the time: Herman Cain has some really interesting ideas, but . . .
I love Herman Cain, but . . .
But what?
But he can't win.
Why not?
At best, the answer has to do with that cloudy word "electability." Or that Mr. Cain has never held elected political office.
In 2004, Mr. Cain ran for the GOP's U.S. Senate nomination in Georgia. He lost to Johnny Isakson. Last weekend, Mr. Cain ran away with the Florida straw poll vote, winning with 37%. He torched both the "Southern" candidate, Rick Perry of Texas, who worked hard to win the vote, and Mitt Romney, who in 2008 campaigned everywhere in Florida.
The time is overdue to plumb the mystery of Herman Cain's "interesting, but" candidacy. Let's start at the top—in the top-tier candidacy of Mitt Romney.
Though he's got the governorship credential, Mr. Romney's emphasis in this campaign is on his private-sector experience. It's good, despite the knock on Bain Capital's business model. But measured by résumés, Herman Cain's looks deeper in terms of working on the private sector's front lines.
The details of his career path are worth knowing.
Related Video
Steve Moore on Herman Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan and his odds of winning.
..In the late 1970s, Mr. Cain was recruited from Coca-Cola in Atlanta, his first job in business, to work for Pillsbury in Minneapolis. His rise was rapid and well-regarded. He joined the company's restaurant and foods group in 1978 as director of business analysis. In the early 1980s, Pillsbury sent him to learn the hamburger business at a Burger King in Hopkins, Minn. Then they assigned him, at age 36, to revive Pillsbury's stumbling, franchise Burger King business in the Philadelphia region. He succeeded. According to a 1987 account in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Pillsbury's then-president Win Wallin said: "He was an excellent bet. Herman always seemed to have his act together."
In 1986, Pillsbury sent the 41-year-old Mr. Cain to turn around their Godfather's Pizza business, headquartered in Omaha. The Herman Cain who arrived there April 1 sounded like the same man who roused voters last Sunday in Florida: "I'm Herman Cain and this ain't no April Fool's joke. We are not dead. Our objective is to prove to Pillsbury and everyone else that we will survive."
Pillsbury sold Godfather's to Mr. Cain and some of his managers in 1988. He ran it until 1996 and served as CEO of the National Restaurant Association from 1996-1999. This June, Mr. Cain visited with the Journal's editors and put the issue of health-insurance availability inside the context of the restaurant industry. He said the restaurant association tried hard to devise a health-insurance program able to serve the needs of an industry whose work force is complex—executives and managers, full-time workers, part-timers, students and so forth. Any conceivable insurance system would require great flexibility in plan-choice and design.
It's from this period that one finds the famous 1994 video, now on YouTube, of Herman Cain on a TV screen from Omaha debating Bill Clinton about his national health legislation during a town-hall meeting. After the president estimates the profitability of Mr. Cain's company, suggesting he can afford the legislation, Mr. Cain essentially dismantles the Clinton math, in detail. "The cost of your plan . . . will cause us to eliminate jobs."
None of this can be put across in the televised debates' explain-everything-in-30 seconds format. Nor is there any chance to elaborate his Sept. 7 debate remark that he admires Chile's private-public social security system. Or his flat-tax "9-9-9" proposal. (Or any of the candidates' policy ideas for that matter.) So voters get nothing, and Mr. Cain flounders.
Why isn't a successful business résumé presidential material?
.Podcast: Listen to the audio of Wonder Land here. .When Mr. Cain talked to the Journal's editors, the most startling thing he said, and which he's been repeating lately, was that he could win one-third of the black vote. Seeing Herman Cain make his case to black audiences would be interesting, period. Years ago, describing his chauffeur father's influence on him in Atlanta, Mr. Cain said: "My father gave me a sense of pride. He was the best damn chauffeur. He knew it, and everybody else knew it." Here's guessing he'd get more of this vote than past GOP candidates.
Does a résumé like Herman Cain's add up to an American presidency? I used to think not. But after watching the American Idol system we've fallen into for discovering a president—with opinion polls, tongue slips and media caprice deciding front-runners and even presidents—I'm rewriting my presidential-selection software.
Enlarge Image
CloseAssociated Press
.Conventional wisdom holds that this week's Chris Christie boomlet means the GOP is desperate for a savior. The reality is that, at some point, Republicans will have to start drilling deeper on their own into the candidates they've got.
Put it this way: The GOP nominee is running against the incumbent president. Unlike the incumbent, Herman Cain has at least twice identified the causes of a large failing enterprise, designed goals, achieved them, and by all accounts inspired the people he was supposed to lead. Not least, Mr. Cain's life experience suggests that, unlike the incumbent, he will adjust his ideas to reality.
Herman Cain is a credible candidate. Whether he deserves to be president is something voters will decide. But he deserves a serious look.
-
The electoral college piece is interesting. What it means is that Republicans won't win if the election is roughly a tie. They need to win by defeating the opponent, offering better ideas and persuasively and effectively winning hearts and minds decisively, not just show up. So far, the campaigns mostly look intent on just showing up and nitpicking each other.
A Republican can win in many of those hard blue states like Minnesota, even California or New York, but the point within electoral college analysis is that if they win those, it wouldn't matter because they would have already gone far past 270 votes by winning the divided states.
I see it differently. Margin of victory matters enormously in governing. The best example was probably Reagan winning 44 states in 1980. By winning Massachusetts, New York, California etc he was able to set the agenda and govern. Another example is Obama 2008. He doesn't get healthcare if he barely won or had lost the House or Senate in the process.
The serious changes we need now will not happen if it ends in an even split - no matter who wins.
1980 map below, failed incumbent versus an ideological, pro-growth conservative. Take away the home states of Carter and Mondale and it looks more like his 49 state win in reelection:
(http://electoralmap.net/1980.png)
-
For the internal workings of business, I like Cain's experience better than Romney. For overall business experience I would call it a draw - between those two. It is a big deal though that Cain has not run a winning campaign and has not yet adapted his executive experience to public sector management which is very different.
I heard Romney on the radio yesterday and he was way off topic IMO using canned and tested lines against his opponents. Perry is saying and retracting that if you disagree on subsidized tuition policy, you don't have a heart. Cain is saying at this point he could not support Perry. If Perry is the nominee, who would he vote for?? FYI to Romney and the others for the umpteenth time, your opponent is leftist economics, not the in-state issues in Texas or anywhere else.
I don't recall candidate Reagan saying that his rival George H.W. Bush made mistakes during the wealth of administrative positions he held leading up to his Presidential run. I recall candidate Reagan spelling out what was wrong with current policy and laying out his agenda for rebuilding the country by unleashing the freedom and creativity of individuals and private enterprise.
-
http://www.newt.org/contract/legislative-proposals
-
I heard Newt interviewed today. Newt is on a roll. He should be the policy writer and tactician for whoever is the nominee. He has it all mapped out down to the exact day he will release the exact wording of no less than 50 and no more than 200 executive orders he will be issuing if he is the nominee and if he is the President - while the others bicker about each others' past errors.
When does it become old news that he was cheating on his second wife during impeachment, and sat down on a park bench with Nancy Peloisi to tell us all we need to come together over emissions and warming. I don't know which was worse. The mindset of the latter is certainly one of the causes of current malaise and the personal stuff puts him on a level with would be President Gary Hart.
I still want to weave together the good qualities of each into one.
-
At a symposium in Colorado at which thoughtful people from many professions spoke, and later in conversation with people who care about books in California, two things we all know to be true became more vivid to me.
The first is that nobody is optimistic about the world economy. No one sees the Western nations righting themselves any time soon, no one sees lower unemployment coming down the pike, or fewer foreclosures. No one was burly: "Everything will be fine, snap out of it!" Everyone admitted tough times lie ahead.
The second is that everyone hungers for leadership. Really, everyone. And really, it is a hunger. They want so much to be able to respect and feel trust in their political leaders. Everyone hungers for someone strong, honest and capable—as big as the moment. But the presidential contest, the default topic when Americans gather, tended to become somewhat secondary. Underlying everything was a widespread sense among Democrats and Republicans, lefties and righties, that President Obama isn't big enough, and that we don't have to argue about this anymore. There was also a broad sense that there is no particular reason to believe any one of the Republicans is big enough, either.
Actually, I saw a third thing. There is, I think, a kind of new patriotism among our professional classes. They talk about America now and their eyes fill up. With business people and doctors and scientists, there used to be a kind of detachment, an ironic distance they held between themselves and Washington, themselves and national problems. "The future of our country" was the kind of earnest topic they wouldn't or couldn't survey without a wry smile. But now I believe I see a deep yearning to help, to do the right thing, to be part of a rebuilding, and it is a yearning based in true and absolute anxiety that we may lose this wonderful thing we were born into, this America, this brilliant golden gift.
At the end of Tennessee Williams's "The Glass Menagerie," Tom, the narrator, tells us he never stopped thinking of his sister and his mother and their sadness, for "I was more faithful than I intended to be." That, I think, is the mood taking hold among members of what used to be called the American leadership class—slightly taken aback by their love for America, by their protectiveness toward her.
Enlarge Image
CloseAFP/Getty Images
The president reads 'Of Thee I Sing: A Letter to My Daughters' by Barack Obama.
.The untapped patriotism out there—if it were electricity, it would remake the grid and light up the world. And it's among all professions, classes and groups, from the boardroom to the Tea Party meeting to the pediatric ICU.
We think patriotism reached its height after 9/11, but I think it is reaching some new height now, and we're only beginning to notice.
***
And here we turn to politics. Are those running for president aware of the fix we're in? I'm not sure they are. For one thing, if they knew, they wouldn't look so dementedly chipper. And they wouldn't all be talking about The Narrative. Which is all I heard once I came back East.
The Narrative has nothing to do with what is actually happening in the country. That would make too much sense. The Narrative is the story of a candidate or a candidacy, or the story of a presidency. Everyone in politics is supposed to have one. They're supposedly powerful. Voters believe them.
Everyone in politics should stop this. For one thing, a narrative is not something that can be imposed, it is something that bubbles up. It's something people perceive on their own and then talk about, and if it's true, the talk spreads.
Here I return to Ron Suskind's book, "Confidence Men." As noted last week, Mr. Suskind has been criticized for getting quotes and facts wrong. But the White House hasn't disputed his interview with Mr. Obama, who had some remarkable things to say.
It turns out he too is obsessed with The Narrative. Mr. Suskind asked him why his team had difficulty creating a policy to deal with unemployment. Mr. Obama said some of it was due to circumstances, some to the complexity of the problem. Then he added: "We didn't have a clean story that we wanted to tell against which we would measure various actions." Huh? It wasn't "clean," he explained, because "what was required to save the economy might not always match up with what would make for a good story."
Throughout the interview the president seems preoccupied with "shaping a story for the American people." He says: "The irony is, the reason I was in this office is because I told a story to the American people." But, he confesses, "that narrative thread we just lost" in his first years.
Then he asks, "What's the particular requirement of the president that no one else can do?" He answers: "What the president can do, that nobody else can do, is tell a story to the American people" about where we are as a nation and should be.
Tell a story to the American people? That's your job? Not adopting good policies? Not defending the nation? Storytelling?
The interview reflects the weird inability of so many in political leadership now to acknowledge the role in life of . . . reality.
Overthinking the obvious and focusing on the artifice and myth of politics is a problem for all political professionals, including Republicans. Sarah Palin was out there this week trying to impose her own narrative: that she's all roguey and mavericky and she'd win if she ran, but she's not sure the presidency—"the title"—wouldn't dull her special magic. It was like Norma Desmond in "Sunset Boulevard." She's still big, it's the presidency that got small.
More Peggy Noonan
Read Peggy Noonan's previous columns
Click here to order her book, Patriotic Grace
.But this is mostly a problem for the Democratic Party at the national level, and has been since the 1980s. It reflects a disdain for the American people—they need their little stories—and it springs from an inability to understand the Reagan era. Democrats looked at him and the speeches and the crowds and balloons and thought: "I get it, politics is now all show biz." Because they couldn't take Reagan's views and philosophy seriously, they couldn't believe anyone else could, either. So they explained him through a story. The story was that Reagan's success was due not to decisions and their outcomes but to a narrative. The narrative was "Morning in America": Everything's good, everyone's happy.
Democrats vowed to create their own narratives, their own stories.
Here's the problem: There is no story. At the end of the day, there is only reality. Things work or they don't. When they work, people notice, and say it.
Would the next president like a story? Here's one. America was anxious, and feared it was losing the air of opportunity that had allowed it to be what it was—expansive, generous, future-trusting. It was losing faith in its establishments and institutions. And someone came out of that need who led—who was wise and courageous and began to turn the ship around. And we saved our country, and that way saved the world.
There's a narrative for you, the only one that matters. Go be a hero of that story. It will get around. It will bubble up.
-
Perry had a decent interview tonight on the Bret Baier Report. He pointed out he had stopped illegals getting drivers licenses, required voter ID, and put Texas Ranger boots on the ground to defend the border-- and that the State had overhwhelmingly voted to let illegals pay in-state tuition-- a decision he defended on the basis of the Tenth Amendment, and added that other states were free to do as they saw fit.
OTOH Paul has returned to his usual orbit with his condemnation of the Alwaki kill as illegal. I suspect this will cool the flirt that has been going on between him and a goodly number of people.
-
Woof,
And I really don't get why Ron Paul can't seem to comprehend the reallites of having terrorist sitting around all day long, doing nothing more than coming up with ways to kill Americans. It's the Federal government's charter to protect Americans from such threats and I think it would be unconstitutional if they didn't go out and kill them while in the act. Nothing illegal about that, regardless of citizenship.
P.C.
-
Woof,
And I really don't get why Ron Paul can't seem to comprehend the reallites of having terrorist sitting around all day long, doing nothing more than coming up with ways to kill Americans. It's the Federal government's charter to protect Americans from such threats and I think it would be unconstitutional if they didn't go out and kill them while in the act. Nothing illegal about that, regardless of citizenship.
P.C.
I'm rather ambivalent about Alwaki being killed, good riddance I say, he's a traitor; but....
I do wish there was some way to make it more legal. PC - imagine some good old boys born and raised in America sitting around the campfire doing nothing more than coming up with ways to kill blacks down south. Now according to you, since it's the government's charter to protect Americans, you must think it would be unconstitutional if the government didn't just go out and focus and kill all those good old boys in cold blood while they were still sitting around that campfire or maybe driving to the store to buy more beer.
The protections under the Constitution for those accused of crimes do not just apply to people we like — they apply to everyone, including a terrorist like al-Awlaki. It is a question of due process for American citizens.”
I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the President alone determining when he can deny due process and kill an American citizen. "Despite substantial doubt among Yemen experts about whether he even has any operational role in Al Qaeda, no evidence (as opposed to unverified government accusations) was presented of his guilt." He was simply ordered killed by the President: his judge, jury and executioner.
-
"PC - imagine some good old boys born and raised in America sitting around the campfire doing nothing more than coming up with ways to kill blacks down south."
Al-Alwaki was born and partially raised in America. Got his undergrad at Colorado State University, where he was president of the Muslim Student Association (Muslim Brotherhood front group) and got his M.A. at San Diego State. As Crafty posted elsewhere, he got gushing press as a voice of "moderate" islam and invites from the US gov't as part of our outreach to the muslim community.
-
"PC - imagine some good old boys born and raised in America sitting around the campfire doing nothing more than coming up with ways to kill blacks down south."
Al-Alwaki was born and partially raised in America. Got his undergrad at Colorado State University, where he was president of the Muslim Student Association (Muslim Brotherhood front group) and got his M.A. at San Diego State. As Crafty posted elsewhere, he got gushing press as a voice of "moderate" islam and invites from the US gov't as part of our outreach to the muslim community.
Gee, with friends like him in our outreach program who needs enemies. :-)
I am NOT defending al-Alwaki.
It's our constitution that I worry about. GM you seem knowledgable on Due Process....
While you can hate al-Alwaki, still, doesn't this seem a little off to you?
Or should we expand it? Where are the limits?
-
If you openly wage war against America, expect America to wage war on you.
We had American citizens fight on behalf of the Axis powers in WWII. They were treated as the enemy, as they should have been.
These are not garden variety criminals that the domestic criminal justice system was designed for.
-
Lets take this to the Legal Issues of the War on Islamic Fascism thread
-
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/herman-cain-my-support-for-tarp-could-be-a-problem.php
-
I wrote about TARP and the other stimuli here: http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=2112.msg54939#msg54939
TARP did some questionable things like bail out investment houses and money to foreign central banks, but it also attempted quash the panic and prop up financial insured banks that could have followed what already fell. For what was known then and for what advice he would have gotten from his trusted people inside the Fed as former head of the Kansas City Fed, it is a sign that he wasn't an ideological purist. It wasn't as bad as Stimulus 2-7 but it was a flawed deal. I would probably forgive either side of this issue in the heat of the panic. Bush, McCain, Obama, Bernancke, Summers, Paulsen, Volcker, Geithner and all the expert staffers supported this as necessary to avoid meltdown. As Cain suggests, hardly the place to draw a hard line in 2011-2012 to say Cain is a big government liberal. In fact it could be Cain bringing up a difference with tea party purists in an attempt to start reaching toward the center.
---------------
In other Cain news, the media blitz is on, Leno:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aa-2UcE712M
Cain on ABC This Week:
http://abcnews.go.com/watch/this-week/SH559082/VD55145953/this-week-1002-interview-with-hermain-cain
-
That sounds fair to me.
BTW he was also on FOX's Chris wuzzhisname Williams? today too. I thought he handled himself very well.
-
http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbarone/2011/10/03/is_herman_cain_a_contender/page/full/
-
One point picked up only by Dick Morris so far is that if Obama were to not run or lose in 2012 he would be a relatively young man and still eligible to run for President in the future. Ex-presidents have good perks, can sell books and speeches and have a pretty easy lifestyle. I'm sure he preferred being the critic to being the one responsible. The wife some say is sick of the routine, most recently sent strategically to shop at Target while tipping off AP cameramen is about as low as it gets. The shoes she wore to the homeless shelter and the clothes she wore on the Spanish villa vacation do not come from Target. Several ex-Presidents have looked better out than they did in office. We know that he has more state by state polling than we do and we know it isn't pretty. There was nothing Republicans could done other than govern better to win in 2006. There was nothing Dems could have done to win in 2010 other than to have governed better. He has the economic forecasts. He knows the score as well as anyone. His JOBS plan is DOA even with Senate Democrats. Other than adopt an Athur Laffer agenda, what does he have left to turn this around, stimulus no. 8? Even if he wins based only on personal appeal he will have a Republican House and a Republican Senate and near zero approval of his economic agenda. The first two years of the second term is a lousy time to be doing nothing but vetoes and fighting off the agenda of a congress he used to control. He is not exactly the new guy with charisma fresh out from under the Greek columns anymore. We don't have inside the party divisiveness of 1968 but in terms of timing, LBJ did not drop out until after he won the New Hampshire primary and Bobby Kennedy who had the best chance of winning did not announce his candidacy until mid-March of election year.
At this point, what could revive his popularity better than saying he wants to spend more time with his family. Those girls, they grow up so fast.
-
Doug says:
"The wife some say is sick of the routine, most recently sent strategically to shop at Target while tipping off AP cameramen is about as low as it gets."
yes, agreed, see my post on cognitive dissonance.
I don't think Brock will leave the 2012 race. My belief is people give Brock too much credit for being rational and insightful.
He has a personality disorder. He will continue to deny to the end IMHO.
I hope so too. Let him take the progressive movement down with him and they all get trounced at the polls for a while till the Republicans screw it up and become corrupt so much that the pendulum swings back the other way at some point.
-
CCP, Yes. At this point let him go down with no one else in waiting to carry that torch.
One positive sign from the Cain media blitz: In his one word type answers about his rivals, about Newt Gingrich he said "Brilliant".
Newt is brilliant but Newt needs a boss. He will make a great policy adviser to the Cain administration, or whoever wins. Someone with wisdom needs to pick from the best of the Newt ideas and follow them to conclusion.
-
Good point, Doug.
Newt is a smart guy, but he is the guy to have in the cabinet, not at the oval office.
-
Reports of Perry-- while governor yet!- leasing a hunting camp called "Niggerhead" are, and should be in my opinion, the final nail in the coffin of the Perry candidacy.
a) Decent human beings simply refuse to associate with the word. Period.
b) The lack of political judgment displayed by Perry in this matter is simply astounding.
c) It is hard to think of a better way to confirm in the popular mind the hoary slanders of the Left, their running dog Pravdas, and the chattering class about the Republican Party and the Tea Party movement as being racist.
d) Imagine what Baraq and his minions will be doing with this.
-
second post of day
WSJ
By JOHN D. MCKINNON
WASHINGTON—Herman Cain's tax-overhaul plan is helping fuel a boomlet in the polls, but conservatives are divided over its proposed national sales tax while liberals worry that his proposal would penalize lower earners.
The Republican presidential candidate wants to scrap the current system—with its income-tax rates as high as 35% for individuals and corporations—and replace it with a system that combines a 9% personal flat tax, a 9% corporate flat tax and a 9% national sales tax.
The plan would eliminate the estate tax as well as current taxes on investment income, in an effort to boost investment and the economy. The Cain plan also would eliminate the payroll tax that hits many working-class Americans hard, and instead fund entitlement programs such as Social Security from the new revenue structure.
The longtime corporate executive also would largely curb the special income-tax deductions and credits that help many people of all income levels, as well as many businesses, substantially reduce their tax bills.
Some tea-party activists say the plan was a factor in Mr. Cain's recent lopsided victory in a Florida presidential straw poll, and reflects his penchant for bold ideas.
WSJ's John McKinnon looks at Herman Cain, despite winning Florida's presidential straw poll, is having difficulty lining up conservative support for his economic plan. Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images
."This would be turning our tax system on its head, starting all over again," said Pam Wohlschlegel, director of the Palm Beach County Tea Party. "And a lot of people are ready to do that." She thinks the plan would make it harder to duck taxes, thus boosting collections.
Some conservatives also cheered the plan's effort to make the U.S. system more consumption-based by taxing sales. That could make the system more business-friendly, they believe, boosting economic growth and adding to government revenue.
"From what I've seen, it's the best plan in the Republican field right now," said Kevin Hassett, an economist at the conservative American Enterprise Institute and a former adviser to Sen. John McCain. "We could easily expect an extra percent or so in [economic] growth from a plan like this."
There have been few expert appraisals of Mr. Cain's proposal. One conservative tax expert, Gary Robbins, said it would produce the same amount of revenue as the current system, and possibly 15% more.
But some conservatives worry that it is risky to institute a consumption tax while the federal income tax remains in place, because the government could slap taxpayers with both.
"If it was being introduced tomorrow, I'd have concerns about having both on the books at the same time, and would be screaming bloody murder," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, a conservative group. But for now, he views Mr. Cain's plan as the beginning of a broader conversation about tax policy.
Retailers likely would fight a big federal sales tax, known as a consumption tax, out of concern that it could slow consumer spending. "We think this is going to hurt demand and is not going to be good for our industry," said Rachelle Bernstein, vice president of the National Retail Federation.
Liberals, meanwhile, worry that the sales tax would wind up shifting more of the tax burden to middle-class and working-class Americans. "It would be the biggest tax shift from the wealthy to the middle-class in the history of taxation, ever, anywhere, and it would bankrupt the country," said Michael Ettlinger, vice president for economic policy at the Center for American Progress, a think tank.
Mr. Cain's camp says the concerns are generally overblown. Rich Lowrie, a senior economic adviser to Mr. Cain, acknowledged the risk of adding a new tax while the old one remains in place. But he noted that the Cain camp views the plan as a transition to a pure national sales tax system. At least the 9-9-9 system would put all taxpayers on the same side when it comes to raising rates, he said.
By contrast, the current system tends to pit higher-income earners—who pay the majority of income taxes—against lower-income earners, who often escape the income tax but sometimes pay a large share of their income in payroll taxes.
"What we do structurally is get all taxpayers on the same side of the rope pulling together" against higher rates, Mr. Lowrie said. "Now [politicians] can't pit half of the country against the other half."
As for progressives' concerns, the plan likely would include a provision to shield people below the poverty level from its tax on purchases.
The plan combines features of various tax plans that appeal to conservatives, including the flat-rate income tax and the FairTax, a kind of national sales tax. The plan's ultimate aim would be to move to the FairTax and scrap income tax altogether. Mr. Cain is a longtime supporter of the FairTax.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGovdQuwL5U&feature=player_embedded#!
-
**Oooops, I mean Obama with the New Black Panther Party in 2007. My bad.
http://biggovernment.com/abreitbart/2011/10/03/shock-photos-barack-obama-with-new-black-panther-party-on-campaign-trail-in-2007/
Shock Photos: Candidate Obama Appeared And Marched With New Black Panther Party in 2007
by Andrew Breitbart
New photographs obtained exclusively by BigGovernment.com reveal that Barack Obama appeared and marched with members of the New Black Panther Party as he campaigned for president in Selma, Alabama in March 2007.
The photographs, captured from a Flickr photo-sharing account before it was scrubbed, are the latest evidence of the mainstream media’s failure to examine Obama’s extremist ties and radical roots.
In addition, the new images raise questions about the possible motives of the Obama administration in its infamous decision to drop the prosecution of the Panthers for voter intimidation.
The images, presented below, also renew doubts about the transparency of the White House’s guest logs–in particular, whether Panther National Chief Malik Zulu Shabazz is the same “Malik Shabazz” listed among the Obama administration’s early visitors.
Tomorrow, J. Christian Adams, the Department of Justice whistleblower in the New Black Panther Party case, will release his new book, Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department (Regnery).
The book exposes Obama administration corruption far beyond the Panther dismissal, and reveals how the institutional Left has turned the power of the DOJ into an ideological weapon.
Adams’s book also describes, in detail, the Selma march at which then-Senator Obama was joined by a group of Panthers who had come to support his candidacy.
Among those appearing with Obama was Shabazz, the Panther leader who was one of the defendants in the voter intimidation case that Attorney General Eric Holder dismissed. Also present was the Panthers’ “Minister of War,” Najee Muhammed, who had called for murdering Dekalb County, Georgia, police officers with AK-47’s and then mocking their widows in this video (7:20 – 8:29).
Injustice includes a disturbing photo of Shabazz and the Panthers marching behind Obama with raised fists in the “Black Power” salute.
There are even more photographs.
I have learned that Regnery initially received approval from a person who took pictures of the events in Selma to publish these additional photographs in Injustice.
After the photographer wrote Regnery reversing his permission to include the photographs in Injustice, the images were removed from the photographer’s Flickr account. Yet we were able to capture them before they disappeared.
The photographs show Obama sharing the same podium at the event with the Panthers.
In the first image, Shabazz stands at the podium, surrounded by uniformed Panthers, including Muhammed. In the second photograph, Obama commands the same podium.
Here are the images:
(http://biggovernment.com/files/2011/10/zulu.jpg)
(http://biggovernment.com/files/2011/10/obama.jpg)
The First Amendment allows photographs of such enormous public importance to see the light of day. Cases, including one involving skimpy photographs of Miss Puerto Rico, have established that fair use and the First Amendment allow publication of these photos.
It is true that then-Senator Hillary Clinton and Al Sharpton were also in Selma at the same event. But the Panthers explicitly came to Selma to support Obama, as Adams details in Injustice.
They spoke with Obama at the podium shown above, and departed together with Obama for the main march itself, as shown by this grainer image captured from YouTube:
(http://biggovernment.com/files/2011/10/nbpp.jpg)
Obama seems not to be reviled by the Panthers in any of the video or photographs. And Obama’s own campaign website would post an endorsement by the New Black Panther Party in March 2008. As Adams writes in Injustice:
Somehow, the fact that the future President of the United States shared a podium with leaders of the New Black Panthers, marched with them, and received a public, formal greeting from their party has vanished from the history of Obama’s campaign. Apart from [Juan] Williams’ single dispatch, no other media outlets ever reported it.
After NPR initially reported that the Panthers were present at the event with Obama, subsequent reports from Selma omitted any mention of the hate group appearing with the future President.
Had any of Obama’s opponents appeared at an event with the KKK or Aryan Nation, The New York Times would have had to double its ink buy.
Obama’s appearance does much more than expose mainstream media hypocrisy. It also exposes an association between a vile racist organization and a future President of the United States. Only the degree of association is subject to debate.
And only a few voices outside the mainstream media have continued to press the Obama administration about its past and present ties to fringe groups.
I have been calling for the White House to disclose which Malik Shabazz visited the private White House residence on July 25, 2009, two months after the DOJ voter intimidation case was dismissed. So far, the White House has refused to do so, leaving open the question of which “Malik Shabazz” appears in visitor logs released to the public.
To reiterate: nobody, including Adams, is suggesting that Obama is a secret member of the New Black Panther Party. At a minimum, however, the events in Selma expose the media double standard that has buried this story until this week.
The mainstream media should ask Obama a few questions before they rush to his defense:
What did he and Malik Zulu Shabazz say when they conversed that day–something that Shabazz has said happened?
Did the Obama campaign play any role in having the Panthers travel to support his presidential ambitions?
Who posted the Panthers’ endorsement on the Obama campaign’s website, and at whose instructions?
Who–finally–was the Malik Shabazz who visited the White House residence on July 25, 2009?
-
That's very interesting and by all means pursue it, but IMO the question presented about Perry and "Niggerhead" remain. I am quite surprised at how he is letting this story linger without a direct personal response from him.
-
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/2012-presidential-election/perrys-critics-say-hes-no-racist/
Texas Chief Justice Says Ranch Furor an Overreaction
by Emily Ramshaw
15 hours ago
Rick Perry in Derry, N.H., on Sept. 30, 2011
Updated 2:22 p.m.
Wallace Jefferson, the first black chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court, said the hunting ranch name controversy is "much ado about nothing" and argued the implication that Rick Perry is insensitive to matters of race is flatly wrong. Jefferson, who was appointed to the post by Perry, and whose great-great-great-grandfather was a slave owned by a Waco district judge, said the reality is quite the opposite: Perry "appreciates the role diversity plays in our state and nation."
Jefferson said he can recall his first conversation with Perry, in 2001, like it was yesterday. They talked about how Jefferson's father and Perry had both been Air Force officers. Jefferson said Perry shared his view that in all circumstances, merit mattered, not race.
"To imply that the governor condoned either the use of that word or that sentiment, I find false," Jefferson said.
Original story:
At a critical juncture in his race for the GOP presidential nomination, Gov. Rick Perry has been forced to do something no candidate wants: confront incendiary allegations involving race and prejudice.
While he should be bragging about fundraising totals and reconnecting with primary voters after his less-than-stellar debate performances, the Texas governor is instead defending himself from accusations that his family’s West Texas hunting camp was long known by the racially offensive name “Niggerhead.” The Washington Post reported Sunday that the name was visible on a rock at the camp in the 1980s and 1990s and possibly far more recently.
Perry has forcefully denied that his family ever used the term and has said that this parents painted over the rock in the early 1980s, shortly after they first leased the land.
Even some of Perry's fiercest Texas critics say they do not believe he is racist. They point to his record of appointments as evidence: He appointed the state’s first African-American state supreme court justice, Wallace Jefferson, and later made him chief justice. (Jefferson’s great grandfather was a slave, “sold like a horse,” Perry once said with disgust.) Perry’s former general counsel and former chief of staff, Brian Newby, is black; so is Albert Hawkins, the former Health and Human Services commissioner who Perry handpicked to lead the massive agency in 2002.
“He doesn’t have a racist bone in his body,” said former Democratic state Rep. Ron Wilson, who is black and served with Perry in his early years in the Legislature. “He didn’t then, and he doesn’t now.”
Added Dallas Democratic Sen. Royce West, who is also black: “I don’t agree with him on policy issues, but you can point to many things he has done that were sensitive to ethnic minorities.”
Indeed, in his 11-year gubernatorial tenure, Perry has appointed more minorities to statewide posts — including university regents and secretaries of state — than any governor in Texas history. The biggest beating he’s taken on the campaign trail so far? His unwavering support for granting in-state tuition to the children of illegal immigrants in Texas.
“Texans need to see that no matter where you come from, the color of your skin or the sound of your last name, that if you are willing to work hard and play by the rules you can become anything you want in this state,” Perry said in a 2010 interview with The Dallas Examiner.
But Sunday’s Washington Post article suggesting the Perry family didn’t go far enough to rid the moniker “Niggerhead” from the West Texas hunting land has cast a pall on his presidential bid — and provided ammunition for his opponents, including African-American businessman Herman Cain, who recently won the Florida GOP straw poll. On Sunday, in response to the Post story, Cain called Perry “insensitive” to African-Americans.
And the furor also has revived unwanted reminders of some long-since forgotten race-related controversies in Perry’s history.
In his first statewide race, Perry defeated Jim Hightower for agriculture commissioner in part by highlighting Hightower’s endorsement of civil rights activist Jesse Jackson for president, filming a television ad that aired across East Texas — and that many believed was meant to alarm white voters.
While Perry was agriculture commissioner, his deputy was accused of using a racial slur while talking to two men seeking a loan. Perry called the allegation “vile and offensive”; the assistant commissioner resigned.
Later in his term, when Perry was attacking Bill Clinton for accepting campaign contributions from trial lawyers, Perry was quoted as saying, “Every Jose in town wants to come along and sue you for something.” (He later apologized.)
And he has at times gotten crosswise with minorities for what has appeared to be his defense of the Confederate flag. Most famously, at his 2007 gubernatorial inaugural ball, Perry dismissed the outcry after rock star Ted Nugent showed up to perform in a shirt emblazoned with the Confederate flag. Later, a Perry spokesman said the governor would never wear the flag himself, but that Nugent was perfectly entitled to do so.
In Texas, a southern state where geography and race history often collide in uncomfortable ways, Perry will likely be forgiven — even by critics who say his conservative policies disproportionately harm minorities.
“He appointed a black man chief justice of the state Supreme Court, for crying out loud, one of the many high-profile positions he’s given to minorities during his time as governor,” Jason Stanford, a Democratic opposition researcher and author of an upcoming book on Perry, wrote in a weekend blog post. “… If he were an n-bomb dropping cracker, we’d all know.”
But it should be no surprise to Perry if the unwanted attention lingers nationally. During a 2006 gubernatorial debate, Perry chastised independent candidate Kinky Friedman for using racial epithets in his musical acts and for describing Hurricane Katrina evacuees as “crackheads” and “thugs.”
“Mr. Friedman, words matter,” Perry said. “If you’re going to be the governor of the greatest state in this nation, you bet you use those types of terms and it’s going to deflect from being able to do the good things that need to occur.”
-
That's very interesting and by all means pursue it, but IMO the question presented about Perry and "Niggerhead" remain. I am quite surprised at how he is letting this story linger without a direct personal response from him.
Exactly what response would appease the critics? Did he name the place? How many rappers who write entire songs around that word have been invited to the white house in the last few years? Where is the outrage?
-
I don't quite get it either. They leased land and he was hunting with his Dad. I just don't know what the meaning of it. It was someone else's name for the land, they wanted to hunt on the land and painted over the rock. Maybe they waited too long to paint over the rock, but you probably don't carry paint when you hunt and they were not owners of the land. It wasn't a club of racists that he joined. It was hunting land probably rich with animals. The land wasn't racist.
Did his Dad have the rock painted over before or after a public controversy? Obviously before but either way, isn't painting over that name on a rock the opposite of racism - an act of putting racism behind us??
These scandals usually tie to a pattern to be effective. In Perry's case he is a known tea party enthusiast and therefore it fits a totally false story line about racism. In fact, Perry appointed an African American Chief of Staff and Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice. Those don't follow the pattern very well. One is a position as high up as his own and the other is the top work with him every day with full trust.
Sounds so far to me like the press smells a George Allen moment. I don't know anyone who knows what a macaca is, but if Rick Perry or even his Dad had or were caught joking or proud of the rock, then I see a problem. None of that seems to be part of this story.
Maybe Jon Stewart can shed some light:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/tv-column/post/jon-stewart-weighs-in-on-rick-perry-camp-controversy/2011/10/04/gIQAUxrlKL_blog.html
I guess not. Stewart laughed and his audience applauded the name. Also insensitive and hardly offended. His short clip of Perry's bad debate performance looks more damaging to me.
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APZ3-Lcbwmc[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APZ3-Lcbwmc
I once ate at a Crackerbarrel. :cry:
-
http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/10/05/glenn-interviews-2012-candidate-herman-cain/
-
I am one who is trying to warm up to Romney. He is making it very difficult.
Steven Hayword of Powerlineblog, Weekly Standard, Natrional Review, author of 'Age of Reagen', PhD, Clairmont Scholar, AEI Fellow, has written for New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, San Francisco Chronicle... aka biased blogger writes:
----------------------
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/10/the-eternal-cluelessness-of-the-romney-mind.php
October 6, 2011 by Steven Hayward in 2012 Presidential election
The Eternal Cluelessness of the Romney Mind
Mitt Romney has been looking steady and solid in recent weeks, especially compared to the rest of the field, which has stumbled (Perry’s debate performances) or bumbled (Bachman’s overkill of the vaccine issue). This is, as I mentioned a few weeks back, to be expected of a first tier candidate on his second run for the office. He’s seen big league pitching before, and is now comfortable at the plate, able to hit the hard sliders and spitballs that come with a modern presidential campaign.
Still. . . A friend reminded me the other day of a detail I had forgotten from the last time around. When asked about his favorite book in 2008, Romney answered with the Bible, and then added . . . L. Ron Hubbard’s Battlefield Earth. Great. It’s not enough just to be a Mormon, which presents its own set of cultural challenges for a candidate. It really takes a special kind of cluelessness to embrace the ur-text of what is, at best, a religious cult, and more likely a borderline racketeering enterprise. Does Romney really have no one around him who can talk sense to him?
This morning’s Wall Street Journal brings a fresh dose of heartburn for those of us willfully trying to warm up to Romney, with a front-page story on Romney’s environmental record during his governorship of Massachusetts. Now, I’ve argued for a long time that Republicans ought to be able to handle environmental issues with more finesse, but from the looks of this story Romney hasn’t got it. There’s this quote from Romney, outside a coal-fired power plant that he wanted to rein in somehow:
“I will not create jobs or hold jobs that kill people, and that plant—that plant—kills people.”
Where to begin with this kind of idiocy? And if we’re going to have that kind of idiocy, why not just elect Al Gore?
He wasn’t finished. When helping to design the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (“Reggie” for short), the northeastern state’s attempt to start their own cap-and-trade system that is now slowly collapsing (having barely got off the ground in the first place), Romney said: “These carbon emission limits will provide real and immediate progress in the battle to protect the environment.” No, they wouldn’t, even if catastrophic global warming were true. If you wiped Massachusetts off the face of the earth entirely (come to think of it, this is a nice thought experiment isn’t it?), it would make no difference in the climate models. It wouldn’t even make a rounding error in the climate models. This man is fundamentally unserious about thinking for himself, or offering anything outside a narrow range of conventional opinion.
Where can I get a Herman Cain bumper sticker?
-
"L. Ron Hubbard’s Battlefield Earth"
The only thing worse than the book is the movie. I am really starting to wonder if Romney could pass a Voigt-Kampff test
-
While Pres. Obama tried to express how he shares their frustration, Herman Cain had a different message.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/10/05/2011-10-05_herman_cain_to_occupy_wall_street_protesters_if_youre_not_rich_blame_yourself.html
Unemployed Wall Street protesters only have themselves to blame for lacking a job, so says Herman Cain.
The Republican presidential candidate insisted that the demonstrations were being "orchestrated" to help President Obama.
"I don't have the facts to back this up, but I happen to believe that these demonstrations are planned and orchestrated to distract from the failed policies of the Obama Administration," Cain told the Wall Street Journal.
The Tea Party favorite then argued that the plight of the unemployed was their own fault.
"Don't blame Wall Street, don't blame the big banks, if you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself. It is not someone's fault if they succeeded, it is someone's fault if they failed," the ex-Godfather's Pizza CEO declared.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/10/05/2011-10-05_herman_cain_to_occupy_wall_street_protesters_if_youre_not_rich_blame_yourself.html#ixzz1a18IDhte
-
Might it serve the Republican efforts with the Latino vote to point out that Baraq, Holder, et al were perfectly willing to be accessories to the killing of Mexican citizens, innocent and otherwise, by sending thousands of guns to Mexico in order to increase US gun control laws?
-
Might it serve the Republican efforts with the Latino vote to point out that Baraq, Holder, et al were perfectly willing to be accessories to the killing of Mexican citizens, innocent and otherwise, by sending thousands of guns to Mexico in order to increase US gun control laws?
If the grassroots really cared, there would already be an outcry. As it happened with Obozo-D, it's not an issue.
-
I'm thinking of a Rep candidate with a Latino crowd, especially a Mex-American one pointing out just who it was that vilely held Mexican lives of lesser account than his political agenda.
-
First this comment on Crafty's previous post: The gunrunning scandal is breaking VERY slowly which could turn it into a political nightmare for the President. You may have nailed something BIG here. For whatever his motives were, by arming criminals entering Mexico they were showing zero respect for the safety of the Mexican people and zero respect for the sovereignty of the Mexican nation. Meanwhile, amnesty cuts through politics about like gay marriage. They say what a key interest group wants to hear while giving them roughly the same policy of their opponents. Why wasn't it amnesty/comprehensive reform instead of healthcare when Dems controlled all branches of government? Just more disrespect, if that is what the people really wanted. Then up come minor executive orders at the press office just in time for an election while stonewalling congress over the arming the wrong side of a civil war out the back door of the White House. When the pandering wears off Hispanics will be left to vote based on same issues that the rest of us face, like jobs and growth.
-----------------------
Cain's tax plan is very, very good in so many ways, however you do not give the powerful bureacracy within the swinging pendulum of politics a new federal tax to escalate without ending the old ones. WSJ has fallen a month and a half behind on their reading of the forum, but I expressed these same objections right away when it came out: http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=2112.msg53361#msg53361
"Better to reform the devil we know—the income tax—than to introduce another devil and end up with ever-rising rates of both."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204612504576607393103173806.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop
Cain's Tax Mutiny
Creating a new national sales tax on top of the income tax is a political killer.
With Herman Cain's leap in the Presidential polls, the businessman's campaign is suddenly being taken seriously and his plan to overhaul federal taxes is coming under scrutiny. Mr. Cain's 9-9-9 plan would certainly help the economy, but its political flaws may well be fatal.
The plan is nothing if not bold, throwing out the current tax code and replacing it with three new taxes: a 9% flat rate personal income tax with no deductions except for donations to charity; a 9% flat rate tax on net business profits; and a new 9% national sales tax.
The plan abolishes the current payroll and estate taxes, as well as those on capital gains and dividends. All capital expenses of businesses would be expensed in the year of purchase and foreign profits could be repatriated without a tax penalty. The plan is designed to raise as much revenue as the current tax code, and the Heritage Foundation estimates it would not increase the budget deficit.
The plan's chief virtue is its sharp reduction in marginal tax rates, to 9% from 35% for businesses and top-earning individuals. Another benefit is that it would eliminate the current double taxation on savings and investment. When this is combined with expensing of capital investment and the sales tax on retail sales, Mr. Cain's plan would in effect convert the federal tax system into a de facto consumption tax.
In an instant, the U.S. would have the lowest corporate tax rate among our major trading partners, from the second highest today. All of this would provide a significant boost to U.S. domestic investment and global business competitiveness. If Americans want more jobs, this plan would produce them in a hurry.
The simplicity of 9-9-9 is also a selling point, as is its elimination of loopholes. Businesses, for example, would deduct all of their legitimate business expenses (except wages paid) from their gross receipts. The provisions that have allowed companies like General Electric to pay little or no federal income tax would be gone.
The main beneficiaries of the current tax code are already howling in protest, notably the housing lobby. But this is not a reason to oppose the plan. The U.S. economy has over-invested in housing thanks to tax and other subsidies. Any tax reform worth its name will have to reduce this favoritism that robs scarce capital from the rest of the economy.
With a low 9% tax rate, deductions like the one for mortgage interest become much less attractive in any case. The key to an immediate housing recovery is to let prices find a bottom, while the key to a durable housing industry is a growing economy that lifts personal incomes. In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan cut the after-tax value of the home mortgage deduction by more than half—by cutting the tax rate to 28% from 70%—but home sales and values surged.
The real political defect of the Cain plan is that it imposes a new national sales tax while maintaining the income tax. Mr. Cain's rates are seductively low, but the current income tax was introduced in 1913 with a top rate of 7% amid promises that it would never exceed 10%. By 1918 the top rate was 77%.
European nations began adopting national sales and value-added taxes on top of their income taxes in the 1960s, and that has coincided with the rise of the entitlement state and slower economic growth. Consumption tax rates usually started at less than 10%, but in much of euroland "the rates have nearly doubled and now are close to 20%," according to a study by the Cato Institute's Dan Mitchell. Because a sales tax would raise huge sums with small increases in the rate, we would see regular campaigns like "a penny to fight poverty," or "one-cent for universal health care" that would be politically tough to defeat.
The politics of a national sales tax is bad enough on its own. A 9% rate when combined with state and local levies would mean a tax on goods of 17% or more in many places. The cries for exemptions would be great. The experience of the so-called Fair Tax that would impose a 23% national tax rate isn't favorable, as even Jim South Carolina's DeMint learned when he nearly lost his first bid for the Senate after Democrats attacked the sales tax.
Mr. Cain's campaign argues that the after-tax price of, say, potato chips or a new TV will be no higher even after the 9% tax because current prices have current taxes embedded in them. "We rip out the bad taxes (lowering prices) then put the sales tax back in," writes Rich Lowrie, a top economic adviser to the Cain campaign in an email. "It is not an add on tax. It is a replacement tax." That is right economically, but it's a hard political sell to a family that sees the tax on its grocery bill.
Part of Mr. Cain's appeal is his willingness to challenge political convention, and he certainly has with his tax proposal. Voters like that he isn't a lifetime politician but a successful business owner who has met a payroll and created jobs. But his endorsement of a sales tax on top of the income tax is a political gamble that would eventually finance an even larger entitlement state. Better to reform the devil we know—the income tax—than to introduce another devil and end up with ever-rising rates of both.
-
"Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has tapped a former Blackwater executive for his foreign policy and national security advisory team.
From 2005 to 2009, Cofer Black was vice chairman of Blackwater, the security and training company now known as Xe Services, which operates a 7,000-acre training complex in Moyock, N.C. Black is now a vice president at Blackbird Technologies, a military contractor based in Northern Virginia.
Before joining Blackwater, Black spent 30 years in the CIA and the State Department. He was the CIA’s director of counterterrorism at the time of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
He is one of 22 “special advisers” on the team unveiled by the Romney campaign Thursday. Also on the list are former Navy Secretary John Lehman and former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.
“America and our allies are facing a series of complex threats. To shape them before they explode into conflict, our foreign policy will have to be guided by a strategy of American strength,” Romney said in a statement. “I am deeply honored to have the counsel of this extraordinary group of diplomats, experts, and statesmen.”"
__________________________________________________
I'm excited for the reinstatement of the Bush Administration 2.0.
-
"Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has tapped a former Blackwater executive for his foreign policy and national security advisory team.
From 2005 to 2009, Cofer Black was vice chairman of Blackwater, the security and training company now known as Xe Services, which operates a 7,000-acre training complex in Moyock, N.C. Black is now a vice president at Blackbird Technologies, a military contractor based in Northern Virginia.
Before joining Blackwater, Black spent 30 years in the CIA and the State Department. He was the CIA’s director of counterterrorism at the time of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
He is one of 22 “special advisers” on the team unveiled by the Romney campaign Thursday. Also on the list are former Navy Secretary John Lehman and former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.
“America and our allies are facing a series of complex threats. To shape them before they explode into conflict, our foreign policy will have to be guided by a strategy of American strength,” Romney said in a statement. “I am deeply honored to have the counsel of this extraordinary group of diplomats, experts, and statesmen.”"
__________________________________________________
I'm excited for the reinstatement of the Bush Administration 2.0.
Wouldn't that be 3.0?
-
Absolutely.
-
(http://drudgereport.com/oo.jpg)(http://drudgereport.com/ooo.jpg)
THE CAMERA EYE: OBAMA PITTSBURGH, PA 2008 VS. 2011
Wed Oct 12 2011 08:23:29 ET
Enthusiasm Gap?
Photos show crowds for candidate Obama, October 27, 2008 vs. candidate Obama, October 11, 2011
-
I was driving back from Lodi last night and missed the debate. How did it go? Anyone have a URL of the whole thing?
-
I was driving back from Lodi last night and missed the debate. How did it go? Anyone have a URL of the whole thing?
I caught bits of it. Cain was targeted by the rest, except Perry. Perry's performance was underwhelming, from what I understand.
-
GM, That is some major league, big time shrinkage for a man who is only 50!
---------
Another debate gone by, Dartmouth N.H.
Video: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/11/full_bloomberg_republican_debate_in_new_hampshire.html
Transcript: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/republican-debate-transcript/2011/10/11/gIQATu8vdL_print.html
Romney was confident and poised with no gaffes, people say. Herman Cain is now the main conservative challenger. They both still have the same strengths and weaknesses that they started with. Perry didn't change the perception that he isn't a great debater considering his strong credentials and isn't ready with his economic plan. But, this was the economic debate. Bachmann made a valid point to Cain's third 9 but mixes in a falsehood (it's not a jobs plan) and ends with a flippant remark. Ron Paul took to the attack against Greenspan, but Cain had referred to Greeenspan's policies of the early 90's not the loose money policies of post-911.
Romney I think will win and unless Cain or someone else comes out of the gate winning primaries, it is over. The candidates should present their own positive agenda and run against Obama-Pelosi-Reid governance, not get further invested into taking down each other.
Those of us to the right of Romney can favor Cain or whoever we want while they are still in, but to really make a difference going forward conservatives IMO can start moving the effort over to the house and senate where these reforms will be written.
-
Slate, of all places, trying to paint Romney positions as liberal. This was their 4th example:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2011/10/mitt_romney_liberal_on_taxes_health_care_trade_and_bailouts_he_s.single.html
Middle-class tax cuts. An hour into the debate, Newt Gingrich asked Romney:
One of the characteristics of Obama in his class-warfare approach has been to talk about going after people who made over $250,000 a year and divide us. And I was a little surprised—I think it's about page 47 of your plan—that you have a capital-gains tax cut for people under $200,000, which is actually lower than the Obama model. Now, as a businessman, you know that you actually lose economic effectiveness if you limit capital gains tax cuts only to people who don't get capital gains. So I'm curious: What was the rationale for setting an even lower base marker than Obama had?
Romney answered:
The reason for giving a tax break to middle-income Americans is that middle-income Americans have been the people who have been most hurt by the Obama economy. … Median income in America has declined by 10 percent during the Obama years. People are having a hard time making ends meet. And so if I'm going to use precious dollars to reduce taxes, I want to focus on where the people are hurting the most, and that's the middle class. I'm not worried about rich people. They are doing just fine. The very poor have a safety net, they're taken care of. But the people in the middle, the hard-working Americans, are the people who need a break, and that is why I focused my tax cut right there.
If I'm going to use precious dollars to reduce taxes, I want to focus on where the people are hurting the most. That’s Romney’s most revealing statement of the night. A property-oriented conservative would say that dollars belong to the people who earned them and that tax cuts should let them keep more of their money. But Romney’s formulation—“ use precious dollars to reduce taxes”—assumes that the dollars are his to “focus,” i.e. distribute, according to need. Again, it’s a defensible worldview. But it’s fundamentally liberal.
-
My view is that, like a Supreme Court Justice settling in after confirmation, there is about a 50-50 shot that Romney will govern in the right direction. Running against a 0% chance.
Rush's view here is that if being a Governor is such a great experience for becoming President, then why can't we judge what they did as Governor? Surprisingly strong words:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/12/rush_limbaugh_romney_is_not_a_conservative.html
The reason is simple: Romney is not a conservative. He's not, folks. You can argue with me all day long on that, but he isn't. What he has going for him is that he's not Obama and that he is doing incredibly well in the debates because he's done it a long time. He's very seasoned. He never makes a mistake, and he's going to keep winning these things if he never makes a mistake. It's that simple. But I'm not personally ready to settle on anybody yet -- and I know that neither are most of you, and I also know that most of you do not want this over now, before we've even had a single primary! All we've had are straw votes. You know that the Republican establishment's trying to nail this down and end it. You know that that's happening, and I know that you don't want that to happen, and neither do I.
Now, as for Romney -- and you should know, by the way, that I've met Romney. I've not played golf with him but I've met him, and I like all of these people. This isn't personal, not with what country faces and so forth. I like him very much. I've spent some social time with him. He's a fine guy. He's very nice gentleman. He is a gentleman. But he's not a conservative -- and if you disagree, I'm open. The telephone lines are yours. Call and tell me what you think it is that makes him a principled conservative, what exactly is it. Is there something that he has said that shows conservative, principled leadership? What did he say? I'm open to it. Now, we're told that governors are better than legislators when looking for presidents for a host of reasons.
Legislators are filled with ego, they sit around and by "yes" men, they're not executives, and they're one of many, and the buck never really stops with them. Governors, it's just the exact opposite. But when we look at the record, and we bring up Romneycare, we're told, "Well, that's been he was a governor, but as president he wouldn't do any such thing." What? What do you mean he wouldn't do any such thing? He did it is the point. He has positions as governor that make it obvious he believes in the concept of manmade global warming. "Yeah, but that was as governor, Rush. It's a liberal state. He had to do things to get elected." Um, there's gonna be a lot of liberal pressure on whoever our president is: Media, Democrat members of Congress that the media's gonna fawn all over.
Every night you'll have Harry Reid and Pelosi on camera commenting on what the new conservative president's doing. There's gonna be all kinds of liberal pressure on whoever our next president is who's a Republican conservative. The Romneycare health care bill has individual mandates, and they're wrong. Individual mandates are wrong whether they're imposed by a governor or a president. Governor McDonnell of Virginia has not done what Romney did in Massachusetts, and neither have most other Republican governors. Governor McDonnell of Virginia is running a very small deficits, but surplus, in fact, I think. His unemployment rate in Virginia is way down. Nobody talks about him for the presidency, because he himself has not put himself out there for it.
But most Republican governors are not having to fall back on the federalism argument to justify what they did. "Well, it's states' rights. You know, we're laboratories. We can do whatever we want to do. I wouldn't do it, of course, at the federal level! I wouldn't do it. But, of course, the governors we gotta experiment with things," and the reason that they're not falling back on federalism is because, as governors, they didn't make terrible policy decisions that they now have to justify. So if we are going to look at a governor's record, what exactly do we find? There's manmade global warming, and Romney has indicated that he believes in it and he has supported laws in Massachusetts built on it. The EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, in the federal government is out of control.
-
A WSJ poll, taken before the debate the other night, now has Cain at 27% to Romney's 23%.
I like Cain a lot, but I do note that I did not care at all for his laudatory comments on Alan Greenspan, and his almost benign view of the Fed (e.g. IIRC audits not necessary). Still, I like him a lot.
====================================
Henninger on Romney:
Watching Rick Perry in the Republican debate at Dartmouth say that the answer to every aspect of economic revival is to "get our energy industry back to work," and watching Herman Cain say that the answer to virtually anything is "my 9-9-9 plan," one's thoughts of course turned to John Belushi's immortal Greek diner owner, Pete Dionasopolis, who defined his world in three words: "Cheeseburger! Cheeseburger! Cheeseburger!"
Perhaps destiny brought these GOP candidates to Dartmouth. After the debate, Gov. Perry attended a Dartmouth frat party. A Dartmouth fraternity was of course the inspiration for "Animal House," an apt metaphor for the GOP nomination process.
Newt Gingrich's variation on cheeseburger is to repeatedly attack Ben Bernanke. This is slightly weird, but the former House Speaker apparently has decided that if he talks too much about Washington, he'll be fingered as one of them. So his strategy is attacking the Fed.
Enlarge Image
CloseAssociated Press
Polling in the low 20s, Mr. Romney gives new meaning to front-runner.
.Incredible to behold, the Federal Reserve offered the evening's one, genuine comic highlight. After Julianna Goldman elicited from Herman Cain his view that the best Fed chairman in the past 40 years was Alan Greenspan, all the synapses in Ron Paul's brain fired in a straight line to assert: "Alan Greenspan was a disaster! Everybody in Washington—liberals and conservatives—said he kept interest rates too low, too long . . . and ushered in the biggest [housing] bubble."
We all know the meaning of the saying, It isn't over until the fat lady sings. A few hours before the Dartmouth debate, Chris Christie endorsed Mitt Romney. Gov. Christie's sudden and awkwardly timed endorsement may only reflect his belief that the process is over, we have a candidate and it's time to get on with the campaign to defeat Barack Obama.
We see his point, but what's the rush? The election is 13 months away. No voters in any primary have had a chance to provide a verdict on the candidates more real than these hapless debates or another opinion poll.
By this early, imperfect measure, Mitt Romney's status is weak. Despite running against this field, he never rises above 25% in GOP preferences. At best, Mr. Romney is running as the party's Unsinkable Molly Brown.
A week ago, Mr. Christie seemed to understand that the reason so many wanted him to run wasn't merely dissatisfaction with Mr. Romney. It had to do as well with the clear sense that the 2012 election is historic, a moment for the American people to choose decisively between Barack Obama's Americanized version of a flatlined European social democracy or the steady upward path of the nation's past two centuries.
The enthusiasm flowing to Mr. Christie came from the same people who had hoped to see Congressman Paul Ryan in the race, or Mitch Daniels or Jeb Bush. All of them made clear they understood we had arrived at a big moment for the nation. Mr. Romney, by contrast, leaves the impression that the country has arrived at his big moment.
Before any primary vote, Mr. Christie and others are falling in behind a former Massachusetts governor whose message is both very good and very bad. It would help the Romney candidacy a lot—or a Romney presidency—if he were under more pressure now from his peers in the party.
Mr. Romney was at his best in the debate when pressed to bow to the conventional Beltway wisdom that any deficit compromise demands tax increases. He ran his questioner through total government spending's rising share of the economy, heading toward 40%, and said merely matching revenue to that share would mean "we cease at some point to be a free economy."
Related Video
This candidate will have to be pushed a lot harder to make him a good president.
..That's true and well said. But Mr. Romney also said: "You have to stand by your principles." Doubts about that statement are the main reason Mr. Romney, in the current RealClearPolitics average, is polling at 21.7%, a level that gives new meaning to front-runner.
The health-care problem has been widely discussed. There are two other troubling policy areas, both on display in the debate: taxes and China.
Newt Gingrich rightly asked Mr. Romney why his capital gains cut stops at incomes above $200,000—a total economic absurdity, especially for anyone who purports to know "how the economy works."
Mr. Romney's standard reply is that the "rich can take care of themselves" and he's all about "the middle class." But that's Barack Obama's divisive view. And despite two bipartisan commissions explicitly calling for lower individual rates, Mr. Romney's tax reforms are "in the future." So he sits below 22% support.
China is hacking into the Pentagon's computers, grabbing the South China Sea, offering little help on nuclear proliferation, and Mr. Romney's big proposal is "on day one" to file a complaint against China with the World Trade Organization for currency manipulation. But that's proto-Democrat Chuck Schumer's issue. If one can glean a commonality in the Schumer-Romney complaint, it would be campaign contributions.
Mitt Romney has undoubted gifts. He could be president. But in the current Obama morass, so could 100 other people. What voters, including Republican voters, want for the United States now is the best president possible. Mr. Romney isn't there yet. Only more competition or criticism will get him there.
-
second post of day:
What to do about Herman Cain?
This question goes not to the Republican Party, where "establishment" candidates like Mitt Romney privately dismiss Cain as lacking the experience, gravitas and resources to beat President Barack Obama and then to soundly govern the country.
Herman Cain is not going to be the GOP nominee.
Without a serious star-power staff, a ground game, chits to be called in by the candidate or the candidate's influential network of friends of influence, the "fat cats" sit on their checkbooks until and unless they believe their horse can win. A serious presidential candidate is not one who, like Cain, breaks from campaigning for a book tour timed to coincide with his unlikely quest for the White House.
No, Cain is a clear and present danger to the Democratic Party -- and their invaluable near-monolithic black vote. Cain says things like: "African-Americans have been brainwashed" into voting for the Democratic Party; "If you (Wall Street protestors) don't have a job or you're not rich, blame yourself"; "People sometimes hold themselves back because they want to use racism as an excuse for them not being able to achieve what they want to achieve"; and "I don't believe racism in this country today holds anybody back in a big way."
How do some influential left-wing blacks react? Not well:
Cornell West, professor of black studies at Princeton: Cain needs to "get off the symbolic crack pipe."
Harry Belafonte, entertainer, civil rights activist: "He's a bad apple, and people should look at his whole card. He's not what he says he is."
Tavis Smiley, PBS host and NPR broadcaster, simply writes off Cain's comments as "ridiculous or crazy."
But Cain threatens to change the race-card game in ways that even those who voted against Barack Obama hoped he would do: Put the stake through the heart of the nonsense that white racism still holds people back. Instead, Obama sides with a black Harvard professor who badly mistreats a white Cambridge cop who was just doing his job. Obama tells an author that racism fuels the opposition to ObamaCare. Obama says nothing when comrades ranging from former President Jimmy Carter to Jesse Jackson Jr. to Morgan Freeman defend Obama by blaming racism.
Now comes Cain.
He calls his economic program 9-9-9. But Cain's real number is 95. That is the percentage of the black vote captured in 2008 by Obama. What if someway, somehow, the Republicans captured over 35 percent of black presidential vote, as the GOP did as recently as 1956?
Cain asks this question: Why do blacks, in 2011, vote Democratic? Answer: because a) they falsely believe racism remains a serious threat and b) that Republicans are bad people who wish them ill. Neither of which, says Cain, is true. Blacks are more anti-abortion, more pro-traditional marriage and more pro-vouchers for inner-city parents than the typical non-black Democrat. A bad economy, made worse by Obama's tax-spend-regulate, welfare-state mentality, means blacks suffer disproportionately.
This argument makes Cain a walking refutation to the black victicrat "leaders" who speak about the "plight" of the "black underclass," and who attribute legitimate policy differences to "racism."
Cain represents a hardworking, up-from-the-bootstraps, financially successful, plainspoken Republican Southern black man who believes America in 2011 and America in 1960 are two different worlds. Worse for the grievance crowd, Cain calls out the Democratic Party for fostering a victicrat mentality and creating a sense of entitlement.
Cain's straight talk makes him stand out in debates. He is now close to cracking the "top tier" of candidates. Clearly, lots of people have begun to listen. What if blacks start listening?
Cain believes what former slave Booker T. Washington wrote a mere 35 years after slavery ended: "When a Negro girl learns to cook, to wash dishes, to sew, to write a book, or a Negro boy learns to groom horses, or to grow sweet potatoes, or to produce butter, or to build a house, or to be able to practise medicine, as well or better than some one else, they will be rewarded regardless of race or colour. In the long run, the world is going to have the best, and any difference in race, religion, or previous history will not long keep the world from what it wants.
"I think that the whole future of my race hinges on the question as to whether or not it can make itself of such indispensable value that the people in the town and the state where we reside will feel that our presence is necessary to the happiness and well-being of the community. No man who continues to add something to the material, intellectual, and moral well-being of the place in which he lives is long left without proper reward. This is a great human law which cannot be permanently nullified."
Or, as Cain puts it, "I left the Democrat plantation a long time ago."
-
Watch Clinton's expression as he gets his lunch handed to him by a questioning restaurant proprietor. Rhodes scholar young Bill Clinton does some pretty fast math on his feet - impressive to his audience, but wrong. Readers of these pages would already know that Cain has a degree in mathematics and didn't pose his question to the President without doing his homework. At the end, Clinton bails as if time is up and says send me your calculations. Cain did that and never received a reply from the President or anyone in his administration.
One of the bonehead statements of the Rhodes scholar that never worked in the private sector is that mandatory healthcare would only add 2% of additional cost (actually 7%) to a business with 10,000 employees that returns 1 1/2% to the bottom line. No return or a negative return on sales means no expansion, no hiring, really no reason to be in business.
Another thing clear from the video is that Cain is no affirmative action, racially picked figurehead. He is clearly the leader of the operation, out front and center in public advancing the interests of the business. Besides CEO of a 500 restaurant company, he was also head of the national restaurant association.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vy542UgSelQ Intro ends at about 1:10.
-------
When he gave the Greenspan example for Fed management he made it very clear he was referring only to the years in the early 1990s when he served as Chairman of the Kansas City Fed. It was a trick question because there was no good example in our adult lifetime of a Fed chair who would serve as a model for a great appointment. In the last several decades we had Arthur Burns and the inflationary spiral of the 1970's. We had inflation and then tight money that was poorly timed under Volcker and caused a very deep recession and later became an Obama adviser, now AWOL. We had the bizarre record of Greenspan who barely spoke English and we have the current QEx fanatic who can't remember his mission.
-
www.HermanCain.com
I just donated $25. With the dates for the primaries moving up dramatically, Herman is going to need the $ now.
-
www.HermanCain.com I just donated $25. With the dates for the primaries moving up dramatically, Herman is going to need the $ now.
I wasn't endorsing yet, but you are right about timing. Now is the time. I think I will match you on that.
To all others: Do not sit on the sidelines spring, summer and fall of 2011 and then in early 2012 tell us you don't like the remaining choices.
We aren't going to elect a perfect President, but we are going to elect a President.
-
$20.
Can he be the first since reported on cable last week since James Garfield to have never been an elected official to get elected?
He seems like a fast learner. I hope he can bone up an foreign policy.
I love the first two 9's of his 999 - but not the last. At least he has people talking about revamping the tax code.
-
"I love the first two 9's of his 999 - but not the last. At least he has people talking about revamping the tax code."
Absolutely! I don't think there is any question that Cain, who used to support moving 100% to a sales tax, could be moved in negotiations with congress to any serious proposal that tears up the old tax code, taxes income evenly, slashes the rates, and raises just as much money.
For Romney, he will leave the highest rates on the rich (because they fell into it?) and for Perry he will continue the public private partnerships. How can we measure income if we can't even define what is a private business?
People who liked Newt can remember that Cain's one word description was 'brilliant'. Newt will have his best second shot at writing domestic policy in a Cain administration.
-
Cain STILL wants a FAIR Tax, 999 is a way station to get there.
Cain has put a lot of thought into 999 and he is marketing it very, very well. It is the centerpiece to his candidacy. How could he be elected on it, but then denied by the Congress. Reagan's rate cuts were too radical , , , until he was elected in a landslide and intimidated the Dems into compromising into some far more radical than the chattering class ever imagined was possible.
-
Crafty, I see it differently, but I notice that John Podhoretz also makes the Ronald Reagan comparison. This is a great re-cap of the race so far:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/dance_of_the_un_mitts_pYgo0N3ZIba7sLXGzZo18L
The question now for Herman Cain, certainly the most charming Republican presidential contender since Ronald Reagan, is whether he’s a formidable candidate in his own right -- or just the latest of the Not-Romneys.
The structure of the GOP race this year has been simple. There’s Mitt Romney and his solid 20-25 percent of the Republican electorate, the level of support the former Massachusetts governor has garnered in nearly every major poll this year.
And then there’s the other 75 percent. They know Romney. They’ve been listening to him for nearly five years. And they’re not buying.
There are three possible explanations for this.
They dislike his stands on policy. How can Republicans nominate a man who imposed an individual health-care mandate on the state of Massachusetts to lead a party whose primary policy goal since 2010 has been the repeal of ObamaCare -- designed around an individual health-care mandate?
They can’t make an emotional connection with him. Romney is a Scotchgarded candidate -- all attempts to penetrate the shiny surface are repelled. This is why there is political value to his rivals when someone brings up his Mormonism, and not just to make evangelicals uncomfortable with him. Because LDS is a minority faith, Romney’s membership in the church only emphasizes his otherness and distance.
The GOP base’s difficulty in finding a commonality with Romney is related to their unease with his policy history. Romney does not have a natural affinity with the GOP faithful. Or, as Rush Limbaugh put it simply yesterday, “Romney is not a conservative. He’s not, folks.”
Romney has sought to calm these concerns simply by changing some of his positions. He was pro-choice; now he’s pro-life. He was a supporter of some vague form of gay marriage; now he promises to oppose it. Which leads to point 3:
GOP voters think Romney is a phony. Combine the above two and you get this one.
Authenticity is always an issue for primary voters, as it should be. They are the most committed people in politics, and they believe deeply in the power of the political system to do good (even if, in the Republican case, the good to be done is to dismantle the political system in part). An inauthentic candidate is exactly the kind of politician true believers fear the most.
Romney can’t really do anything about these problems -- except perhaps find a way to remove the Scotchgard. And because of them, the GOP race all year has been a contest between Romney and the Not-Romneys.
First up was Tim Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota, who said explicitly that he was in the race to provide a more conservative mainstream alternative to Romney.
He went nowhere because, as it turned out, the 75 percent didn’t want to choose between Romney and a better version of Romney. They wanted a Not-Romney, a candidate of conservative principle, and three have surfaced.
Michele Bachmann surged after two debate performances in which she positioned herself as unwilling and indeed emotionally incapable of compromise. But her entire candidacy was and is negative -- you know what she won’t do and what she doesn’t like, but you know nothing else.
Her Not-Romney position was obliterated by the arrival of the man who, on paper, was the perfect Not-Romney: Rick Perry. A hard-line conservative, he could also boast of governing credentials and had a simple positive message: I can get the country back to work the way people are working in Texas.
Perry has done nothing but shoot himself in the foot he’s had lodged in his mouth for six weeks. So now comes Herman Cain.
Now this is a Not-Romney -- an African-American evangelical preacher and former businessman with an entrancing personality and a genuine sense of the size and drama of the present moment.
Cain speaks plainly, whereas Romney speaks like the guy in a radio commercial reading off the fine print of a lottery. Romney has a 59-point plan to save the economy? Cain has a one-point plan, the already-iconic 9-9-9.
This is Cain’s Not-Romney moment. Some polls have him ahead of Romney now. Every conventional understanding of politics says he can’t win; 9-9-9 is fun to describe but difficult to defend substantively; Cain has an unfortunate history of saying unfortunate things. And he has no elective experience.
And he has one more problem: Romney. Because while everybody was looking for an alternative to him, Romney has used his time on the trail to turn himself into a dazzling candidate. Even the 75 percent won’t remain immune forever to just how fluent, how precise and how serious he is about running and winning.
All he needs is for this one last Not-Romney to fade as the others did. Will he?
-
Herman Cain has surged in the Republican presidential contest with his plan to overhaul taxation. It was an equally contentious issue—health care—that put him on the political map in the first place 17 years ago.
Herman Cain has surged to national attention by pitching a tax overhaul. But it was an entirely different issue, health care, which propelled him onto the national political stage. Janet Adamy has details on The News Hub.
.In 1994, the Godfather's Pizza chief executive debated with President Bill Clinton at a town-hall meeting over whether the president's proposed health-care legislation would cripple his restaurant enterprise. The chain offered insurance to 17% of its workers, and the Clinton bill would have required Godfather's to include nearly every worker, including part-timers.
"If I'm forced to do this, what will I tell those people whose jobs I will have to eliminate?" a stern-faced Mr. Cain asked Mr. Clinton via satellite.
The exchange, combined with Mr. Cain's health-care offering at Godfather's Pizza, offer an indication of Mr. Cain's stance on a pressing national matter. With his campaign for political office now on the upswing, Mr Cain is working to fill out his plans for the country's health system—most recently by tapping former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop as an adviser on health matters.
At Godfather's, Mr. Cain's health-care plan was in line with the rest of the restaurant industry, which offers relatively skimpy insurance coverage. He fought to prevent government from requiring him to insure more people, and made holding down costs a key part of his corporate strategy.
As a candidate, Mr. Cain's current stated positions borrow largely from congressional Republican leaders and deviate little from his GOP presidential opponents. If elected, he pledges to repeal President Barack Obama's 2010 health overhaul law, which he has dubbed "health care deform." He supports transitioning Medicare to a system where seniors get subsidies to buy private insurance plans, and turning Medicaid into a state-run program using blocks of federal funding. Both ideas were passed by the GOP-controlled House.
Mr. Cain wants to expand the tax break that companies get for providing insurance to workers to include Americans who buy policies on their own. He calls for loosening restrictions on health savings accounts. To curb medical malpractice lawsuits, he suggests making losers pick up the tab.
Enlarge Image
CloseGetty Images
GOP candidate Herman Cain
.While running Omaha-based Godfather's, from 1986 to 1996, Mr. Cain helped revive the chain by curbing costs, including health care, former executives say. Health insurance was available only to full-time employees, which largely excluded rank-and-file store workers, several former executives say.
"It was the managers, assistant managers, and if you were some type of supervisor. But if you were a counter person...most of those people only worked about 20 hours a week," which meant they didn't qualify, said Spencer Wiggins, a former Godfather's Pizza human-resources executive.
Jolene Jefferies, a former secretary for Mr. Cain, said health benefits became less generous after he took the helm because Godfather's no longer was owned by Pillsbury, which had deeper pockets and more negotiating power than a smaller company. "I remember the plans being very good," she says.
Mr. Cain's staff declined to make him, or a policy official, available for comment.
Of the chain's 3,418 workers at corporate-owned operations, 593 were eligible for Godfather's health-insurance plan, and 409 enrolled, according to figures Mr. Cain provided in 1994. The company paid 75% of the cost of the plan and workers picked up the remaining 25%. Providing insurance cost the company $500,000 in 1994, and accounted for 2.5% of the company's payroll, Mr. Cain said at the time.
Mr. Clinton called for employers to expand insurance to part-time workers, which Mr. Cain estimated would increase his company's health-care costs to $2.2 million a year. In the televised exchange, Mr. Clinton disputed Mr. Cain's math, and asked why the company and its competitors couldn't increase the cost of pizza to cover it.
Mr. Cain responded by disputing Mr. Clinton's math, and said larger competitors would have an advantage in absorbing the cost.
Within hours, the phones at Godfather's headquarters were lighting up with calls, said one former executive. Former vice presidential candidate Jack Kemp flew in for a meeting, Mr. Cain told the National Review, and tapped him to sit on a tax commission. Political pundits cited Mr. Cain's star turn as a seminal moment in the collapse of Mr. Clinton's health plan.
"Cain became a folk hero overnight after his engagement with President Clinton," said Scott Reed, a Republican consultant who ran Bob Dole's 1996 presidential campaign. With Mr. Kemp as the running mate, the campaign invited Mr. Cain to fly on the campaign trail plane, where he served as "a good strong, calming influence and helped Jack stay focused," Mr. Reed said.
More recently, Mr. Cain, a survivor of colon and liver cancer, has favored bolder statements about the country's health system. At a GOP presidential debate in Orlando last month, Mr. Cain asserted, "I would be dead on 'Obamacare,'" because the law would have delayed the treatments he received in 2006.
Fact checkers called the statement false, and proponents of the health overhaul said he crossed a line. "For him to use that story to suggest that the outcome would have been different under the new health reform law is extraordinarily cynical and manipulative," said Ethan Rome, executive director of Health Care for America Now, a liberal advocacy group.
-
GM wrote: "At least Cain is willing to think outside the box on this topic."
Absolutely! Cain put himself on the map with his plan and sparked the interest of both the flat and Fair tax people that unfortunately are two competing minorities of the electorate. I read through Romney's 59 point plan and can't remember any of it. I did not find the top marginal rate in there - because it isn't in there. Hardly a commitment to lower rates, economic growth and smaller government.
Cain is the only one calling for the complete scrapping of the current tax code. Many are finding agreement with the first two nines and but distrusting the third - the enactment of a large new federal tax. The door is wide open for candidate Rick Perry to also scrap the code with a different plan. Gov. Perry, if you are reading this, debates won't be so scary after you have a plan. I will be happy to outline one for you.
-
Perry has proven to be quite the disappointment. All hat, no cattle as they say in Texas.
Cain is rising in the polls for a reason.
-
"Perry has proven to be quite the disappointment."
Agree, but with 15 million in the bank he isn't going to go away anytime soon. Like Newt, he can still add something to the discussion if he chooses to step up to the plate.
----
I watched Cain on Meet the Press today. Must say again what a pompous and partisan jerk David Gregory is. Cain was poised and focused, answered every question very well, never distracted by the outrageous opposing opinions expressed in the question that poses as journalism. Cain was ready on every objection. Cain makes the Reagan case on foreign policy, peace through strength, wouldn't let Gregory go anywhere with neocon labeling and didn't get drawn into specifics on action against Iran. When all he has for intelligence and IF this was an act of war, then he would have his advisers present him with "all our options".
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/vp/44921014#44921014
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44908788/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/
Gregory: For starters, about 30 million of the poorest households pay neither income taxes nor Social Security or Medicare levies. `So for them,'" he says, "`doing away with the payroll tax doesn't save anything. And you are adding both a 9 percent sales tax and 9 percent income tax. So we know they will be worse off.'" That's the reality, Mr. Cain
After being completely refuted by Cain, Gregory says: "The other defect in the plan..."
Gregory just can't get it that state and Federal are DIFFERENT. No matter what you do with federal, you have state taxes to deal with. His plan has nothing to do with that.
Cain did not back off of strong statement made in speeches, Cain clip: 'liberals seek to destroy this country', Gregory: "How so?" Cain: "economically". They don't want America to be strong.
-
I too saw Gregory attempt another hit of a Republican. My first thought is how does he get all these Repubs to even come on his show and give him airtime.
I thought Cain tactfully threw it all back in his face.
Gregory doesn't interview Repubs. He tries to ambush, embarass, confuse them. The "gotcha moment" if you will.
He is obviously coached to trap them off the blocks.
Cain was very ready and very able to handle all the questions this time.
-
Herman Cain's rise in the polls has breathed life into his shoestring campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. But less than three months from the first primary, being a Cain supporter in New Hampshire isn't easy.
Herman Cain, shown on Sunday, is hiring staff at a breakneck pace.
Londonderry resident William Coyne decided to throw his support to Mr. Cain last week. It took him most of a day to track down a batch of Cain bumper stickers, which he finally did—in Scranton, Pa. "I'm told they will arrive in the mail in a few days," Mr. Coyne said.
Mr. Cain, the hymn-singing, former restaurant executive turned GOP front-runner, is riding a wave of interest and support unmatched by any Republican so far this election. From single digits two months ago, he shot to the top of last week's Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, drawing support from 27% of Republican primary voters, four points above former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
Now, under increasing scrutiny, he needs to hone his message, rapidly build a campaign organization to capture the swell and, perhaps most importantly in the eyes of national GOP operatives, give himself over to the discipline of national campaign.
"Cain has a very big mountain to climb organizationally," said Christian Ferry, who helped manage Sen. John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign. "His success will depend on how well he survives the next few weeks."
Cain aides say they are hiring campaign staff at a breakneck pace, looking to nearly double the payroll to about 60 by the end of the month. They opened a South Carolina headquarters 10 days ago and are bulking up operations in Iowa and New Hampshire, where Mr. Cain has shot up in the polls.
His campaign pulled in $2 million in the first two weeks of October, compared with $2.8 million for the entire third quarter of the year. His two top rivals, Mr. Romney and Texas Gov. Rick Perry, have almost 10 times as much cash on hand.
Still, Mr. Cain is drawing crowds in a way that neither Messrs. Romney nor Perry can match. About 15,000 people turned out to see him speak at six events on a two-day swing through his native state of Tennessee, including nearly 2,000 people to a huge barn in the small town of Waverly on Saturday. He ended his appearance there by belting out the hymn, "He Looked Beyond My Faults."
But Tennessee won't have a primary until March, and many Republicans question whether Mr. Cain is sufficiently focused on the key early voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina to build durable-enough support there to compete for the nomination.
Top aides dismiss the criticism, saying the Atlanta-area resident is running a nationwide campaign to woo delegates and grass-roots groups in states of all sizes, from North Dakota to Florida, much how Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination in 2008.
"The best way to explain what we are doing is to read 'The Audacity to Win,' " said Cain campaign manager Mark Block, referring to the book Mr. Obama's top campaign adviser, David Plouffe, wrote describing the lessons of the 2008 victory.
This week, Mr. Cain plans to juggle a mix of campaign and fund-raising events in five states, including his first swing through Iowa since August. He will deliver his first full-scale policy address Friday in Detroit, laying out the details of a proposal to create tax-deduction "empowerment zones" to spur hiring in the inner cities.
The former Godfather's Pizza CEO appears to be formulating many of his positions on the fly, a tendency that carries high risks this late in a primary campaign. In Tennessee over the weekend, he told supporters that he favored building a 20-foot-high electrified fence along the entire stretch of the U.S.-Mexican border, complete with a sign saying, "It will kill you."
Asked Sunday about the fence on NBC's "Meet the Press," Mr. Cain dismissed his comments as a joke. "That's not a serious plan," he said.
Others predict that Mr. Cain's support could begin to ebb as voters learn more about his signature "9-9-9" tax plan, which would replace the current tax code with a 9% national sales tax, a 9% income tax and a 9% corporate tax.
One of Mr. Cain's rivals for the nomination, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, predicted his tax plan wouldn't fly in Iowa and New Hampshire, especially given that the latter currently has no state sales tax. "As people look at 9-9-9 and disaggregate it, it gets to be a lot harder sell, I think," Mr. Gingrich said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union."
-
There is no primary opponent so the rule is no victim, no crime? See if the sound bites this week coming from the President bus tour through states like North Carolina and Virginia that Obama carried in 2008 and needs in 2012 sound like campaigning or governing. Leave the campaign war chest in the bank. This tour is free!
WSJ: Obama to Target a Few Crucial States
The president starts a three-day bus trip Monday through North Carolina and Virginia that brings fresh attention to the kinds of voters he will rely on as he works to assemble a majority next year in the Electoral College.
-
Well I guess everyone saw the Rasmussen poll with Cain 43 to Brock 41!
Cain said he thinks he could garner a third of the Black vote. That would be giant.
He also threw back at the liberal verbal mugger Gregory that one Black he admires is Clarence Thomas.
This is what Republicans have been waiting for. Someone Black or White who can bring Blacks back to the party of Lincoln.
This would ba seismic shift if things work out.
Ironically Brock may yet turn out to be the best blessing yet to emerge for the party - just not the Democrat party! :-D
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZ_CvdcrHhQ&feature=player_embedded
-
A VERY lively night in last night's debate.
Analysis? Comments?
A few random observations from me to kick things off:
A) These debates are a very good thing. ALL the candidates are getting better and better.
B) It wasn't until the commentary at the end of the debate had begun that I realized that Huntsman wasn't there :evil:
C) Rick Santorum: Caught my attention for his articulateness on the War with Islamic Fascism back when he lost his Senate seat in PA. Indeed, I think I posted here on this forum his final speech in the Senate. When he first entered the race I rolled my eyes though. That said, he has been a worthy contributor to the conversation of the debates.
D) I love Herman Cain, but was very disappointed last night with his response to the question on negotiating with terrorists (he could see himself releasing Guantanamo prisoners for a hostage's return :x ). Other than that though, he continues to impress. 999 was under some serious pressure last night, but he stayed calm and focused, even with direct personal pressure by Romney. Romney's attack was unsound, though for many he may have gotten away with it. Several candidates made a point of showing respect for Herman though and what he has brought to the conversation.
E) Perry had some moments where he did decently, but definitely got spanked and put in his place in the alpha male battle between Romney and him when Perry kept interrupting Romney astutely put the spotlight on it. Boo/hiss to moderator Anderson Cooper for allowing Perry's interruptions to get out of hand-- but maybe that served
AC's purposes. VERY weak, and VERY poor judgment for Perry to try dinging Mitt with the "his gardener hired illegals" thing- Mitt swatted it away and left Perry looking small and petty.
F) Good night for Newt. His comment towards the end about seven three hour debates head to head (a la Lincoln-Douglas) may have been a bit heady for the masses, but it certainly did underline for me that IMHO Newt would be very, very formidable in such a format against Baraq. I confess I gave anaother $25 to Newt this morning to encourage him to stay in the race. I like the way he changes the conversation in the debates when he speaks.
G) Bachman had a moment where she was really connecting with the women in the audinece when talking about foreclosures, even though when the dust cleared she promised no goodies (and good for her!). Still, she hasn't a prayer.
H) Romney keeps getting stronger and stronger. He is becoming a much better candidate due to the experience of these debates.
I) I like that one more often hears ""What X just siad is a good point" or similar positive things. I think Newt's reminders tabout how any of them are better than Baraq has helped steer things in a better direction and away from the Pawlenty-Bachman dynamic that stained the both of them.
-
"A VERY lively night in last night's debate. Analysis? Comments?"
Once again, I missed it and don't enjoy trudging through after I have already seen clips and commentary. THE clip that made news was about hiring of an illegal, not exactly new or the key to beating Obama or turning the country around. Too bad to give the public a food fight instead of a economics lesson.
Cain now says he misspoke, whatever that means regarding making the 1 for a thousand trade out of Guantanamo. Not ready for prime time. Newt was the one to stay on track, they say. Eleven more debates to go through January. Let's get it together!
VDH at NRO:
Debate Roundup
October 18, 2011 11:04 P.M.
By Victor Davis Hanson
I don’t think the debate will change much in the polls, and those without the money are not going to gain some by tonight’s performance. Obama surely gains when the debaters end up shouting at each other and forget about the present mess. Cain took a lot of hits that scored. Here’s a quick take.
Romney: I think he won the weird crossfires with Perry: a) illegal aliens working on his property were hired by contractors, not him personally (most recognize the difference); b) Perry’s ad hominem came off too calculated and studied rather than an ad hoc jousting point. He scored points for being above the fray, and parried all the blows pretty well. Along with Gingrich and Santorum, he seems to have the best command of the facts, and is doing a good job presenting a certain presidential calm. He is often aware that the debate is being watched by independents as well as the base. When he survives these sharp attacks, he gets better — much better than in 2008. The flash of anger at Perry was a sort of Reagan “I’m paying for this” moment.
Gingrich: A person from Mars would conclude that once again Gingrich is the most impressive in debates, especially his efforts to steer the attacks back to Obama’s policies. His above-the-fray lectures come off very well. He should reflect why it is, then, that when he does so well in debates and so often is the best informed, he gets little traction in polls — and then address that paradox.
Bachmann: She is well-informed and comes up with some strange, but welcome, takes on issues that few have thought of — like her quips on foreclosures, illegal immigration, Israel, and 9-9-9. For someone who is supposed to be wacky, Bachmann came across tonight as sensible and often imaginative. Along with Cain, she is the coolest under fire, and the lower she sinks in the polls, the more relaxed and better she is in debate — as if the less pressure, the more natural she appears.
Cain: At some point reiterating “9-9-9” or referring to his website is simply not enough. He is fearless and candid, and that counts for a lot, but without at least some detail he comes off more as a salesman. One would think he at least would make a 20-second pitch that he is trying to encourage more production and investment and discourage consumption, or articulate exactly why the half that doesn’t pay income taxes should pay quite a lot through his federal sales taxes and 9 percent income tax — or to what extent a national sales tax would, in EU style, create (or not) an even bigger underground, off-the-books economy. On too many occasions, he doesn’t answer the particular question asked or obfuscates about his past statements. But again there seems no interest in detail at all. Too many weird things about electric fences and trading captives for terrorists = too little political experience and not enough prep. His chief strength: He remains absolutely unflappable! But we don’t elect presidents on that admirable trait.
Perry: He is not the somnolent Perry of past debates, but his animation is mostly ad hominem and comes off mean-spirited. He seems to have realized that midway, and gets better when he talks about energy. Tonight: two steps forward for passion, two and a half steps back for a bothersome abrasiveness. Passion is not just invective.
Paul: He gets a lot of applause for reducing problems to sheer simplicity. But the more he talks, the more it is clear that he is a neo-isolationist. At this point, I don’t see how getting rid of the Federal Reserve is viable when fiscal discipline in the past was not antithetical to it. Fifteen percent cut to the Defense Department? All those cabinets cut in a year? Abruptly withdraw the troops from South Korea? I guess it is to be “starve the beast”: First, cut the military, and then they can’t go abroad. (No aid to Israel makes it stronger?) He can sound good on the economy, and some cuts in foreign aid, but all in all, he is simply not a serious presidential candidate.
Santorum: His is a more informed, more analytical version of Perry’s personal-attack mode; somehow he pulls it off a little better because he offers detail. He rarely says anything that doesn’t make sense. But he seems visibly exasperated, almost to the point of sputtering, that his rivals don’t reply to his revelations about their purported hypocrisies — but why would they? He needs to adopt a little more of Herman Cain’s sunny disposition and cheer up, since otherwise he seems perennially angry that the debate, like life, is not fair and his talents go unrecognized.
-
RICK PERRY ACTS LIKE THE NEW NIXON
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on DickMorris.com on October 19, 2011
Printer-Friendly Version
The most effective move in electoral politics is to rebut an opponent's charges and show how they are misrepresentations and falsehoods. Media guru Tony Schwartz once said "everyone likes a fighter, but nobody likes a dirty fighter." Negatives have their place in every campaign. But when one of them is an obvious stretch and reach, twisting facts beyond recognition to mislead voters, it can backfire massively, all the more so if it concerns a candidate's personal life. When a negative blows up in the face of the candidate who threw it, voters learn instantly about his character. They don't have to rummage through musty, dusty old voting records to see what he is about, they saw his below-the-belt hit with their own eyes and draw the appropriate conclusions about what manner of man he is.
That's how it was in the recent CNN debate from Nevada when Rick Perry accused Mitt Romney of hiring illegal immigrants at his Massachusetts home. Posturing and preening, Perry denounced Romney's "hypocrisy" in attacking his immigration record while hiring illegals himself. You could have heard the gasps around the country as Perry laid out his negative.
Everyone understood that it was the illegal immigration issue which had laid Perry low, deflating his post-announcement boom, dropping him from first place to fourth or fifth in most polls. Now, in a stroke, Perry was seeking to embarrass the candidate who had the greatest hand in pushing him down - Romney - by painting him with the illegal immigration brush.
Unruffled, Romney, at first, laughed off the charge saying "I have never hired an illegal immigrant in my life," and went on to talk about the underlying issue of of illegal aliens, repeating his charges that Perry's instate tuition scholarships for their children was a "magnet" to attract them. OK, but everybody watching the debate wanted more about what Romney really did. We all wondered if there was any truth to Perry's charge and were not satisfied with Romney's laughing disclaimer.
Then Perry, sensing weakness, honed in on the charge pushing it again. This time, Romney delivered a crushing rebuttal. The illegal immigrants had been gardeners hired by the landscaping company he used to mow his lawn. When he found out they were hiring illegals, he ordered them to replace them with legal workers "I'm running for public office, I can't be hiring illegal immigrants," he says he explained. Then, when the company was found to be continuing to hire illegals, Romney fired the company and hired one more in compliance with the law. Case closed.
But Perry wasn't finished. He hammered Romney again with the charge, even though we now all accepted Mitt's version of what had happened. Rather than rebut or correct any errors in Romney's portrayal of the events, he just repeated the charge as if Romney had not answered it. To make matters worse, he tried to out-shout Romney, horning in on his time. Verbally, it was the same kind of move Al Gore made in the debates of 2000 when he menacingly moved over to Bush's lectern to horn in on his space. Or Rick Lazio tried that same year when he walked over to Hillary's podium in their Senate race to hand her a letter. A debate no no.
The result is that Perry now is being seen as a bully, a smear artist, a con man, and a dirty fighter. Nixon at his worst. He has amplified and compounded the damage he suffered over the illegal immigration issue with this McCarthyite personal attack.
In a larger sense, Perry is like the concert performer who can't get it together to do well in a studio. On stage, surrounded by an adoring public and an energized audience, he beams. He gets his energy from his surroundings. But in a studio or a debate room, amid only competitors and journalists, he can't get any mojo. He doesn't get energy from confrontation and can't make his points stick.
If you can't debate, you can't win the election against Obama and you shouldn't be nominated. Now, after four tries, Perry still can't win a debate. It's time to move on.
Subscribe to Dick's Newsletter
-
I had higher hopes than this for Rick Perry. If we rule him out, we are down to a very small number of choices, each with their own known deficiencies.
-
After the most recent debate IMO Perry is done for. The smallness revealed, the inarticulateness, the cultural tone deafness (e.g. "niggerhead"-- Jon Stewart riffed wickedly on this and his calling Herman Cain "brother" last night), the lack of preparation on many issues, trying to get ahead by breaking down Romney, instead of Baraq, the apparently moderate IQ , , , , he's done for.
=============
Memo to GOP Contenders: Cut the Crap!
"If we move in mass, be it ever so circuitously, we shall attain our object; but if we break into squads, everyone pursuing the path he thinks most direct, we become an easy conquest to those who can now barely hold us in check." --Thomas Jefferson, 1811
With the most recent GOP presidential primary "debate" just concluded, it's clear that the frontrunner is none other than ... you guessed it, Barack Hussein Obama. The incessant bickering bullpucky and petty assaults among most of the GOP wannabes is undoubtedly a source of great glee for the Obama campaign. That infighting, and the fact that Obama's adoring Leftmedia sycophants are promoting the GOP candidates they believe Obama can most readily defeat, largely account for the GOP candidate poll standings -- and are keeping Obama in the lead.
The intraparty rancor among the GOP candidates, both on and off the debate stage, is the direct result of archaic advice from the old-school network of Beltway political and media consultants relying upon their worn-out primary playbooks. Apparently they all missed the "Tea Party" message of the midterm elections beyond the Beltway, which heralded a new breed of conservatives and a new House majority.
Of course, it will take more than one election cycle to purge all the establishment Republicans from the House and Senate -- those who still exercise considerable control over Congress. I'm concerned, however, that the Republic may not have enough election cycles remaining to restore Liberty, especially if the Republican presidential hopefuls don't clean up their act. On their current self-destructive course, they'll readily hand re-election to Obama.
Does the Leftmedia influence GOP candidate polling?
In 1966, Ronald Reagan adopted for primary candidates what his California Republican chairman labeled "The Eleventh Commandment": "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican." Two years earlier, an outstanding conservative, Barry Goldwater, had lost his presidential bid to liberal Democrat Lyndon Johnson only after Goldwater was attacked by East Coast establishment Republicrats like Nelson Rockefeller, who labeled him an "extremist" and declared him unfit for the presidency.
Recall that Reagan delivered the defining speech of the modern conservative movement in support of Barry Goldwater in '64, on ground laid by conservatives Russell Kirk and William F. Buckley. Had Goldwater won that campaign, the American political landscape would look very different today. Absent would be Johnson's "Great Society" government programs, which were the model for Obama's advanced breed of Democrat Socialists.
In subsequent campaigns, including his two presidential elections, Ronald Reagan abided by that 11th Commandment, unless defending himself, and he set an outstanding course for American renewal. But most of the current crop of GOP contenders is too busy hacking at each other to take a lesson from history. Of course, it took an individual of Reagan's character and stature to rise above pettiness and egomaniacal ambition that now besieges the GOP field.
Who is the most knowledgeable candidate?
Prior to these recent debates, I sent (via emissaries) this simple message to each Republican contender: "As publisher of the most widely read conservative grassroots publication on the Internet, here is some advice from outside the Beltway. If you want to win the 2012 presidential primary, STOP attacking your Republican opponents and START talking about what you will do as president to restore constitutional integrity, free enterprise, national defense, family values and America's standing around the world. This is a different election cycle from those in past decades, and the old formulas for debates should be discarded. I beg you to abide by Reagan's 11th commandment and stop attacking your opponent's record and focus on your own ... on what you can and will do as president. American Patriots want to learn about you, not about how effectively your campaign handlers can prepare you to attack other Republicans. The political paradigm has changed, and if your media and PR consultants do not comprehend that change, the result might well be the re-election of Barack Hussein Obama."
One of the candidates responded accordingly. Though already written off as unelectable by the media, in my opinion he would eviscerate Obama in "mano y mano" debate.
I won't mention him by name, because there isn't a GOP contestant whom I consider the "ideal candidate," and I don't want it to be inferred that I believe any of the current candidates fit that bill. (I believe Ronald Reagan was the most outstanding conservative president of the past century, but I certainly don't think he was flawless -- and neither did he.)
Those of us who have observed presidential campaigns for decades know that there is no "perfect candidate" in the current lineup, one who will be capable of, in the words of my colleague Cal Thomas, "delivering us from our collective economic, social and foreign policy 'sins' and bring redemption to a nation from the consequences of too many wrong-headed choices." Thomas adds, "Perhaps a Republican president with a 60-vote, veto-proof Senate majority and an expanded House majority might be able to revolutionize government, but only if squishy Republicans in both bodies went along, which seems problematic, especially on big issues."
However, if GOP contenders don't stop attacking each other, none of them will even have the chance to correct the course of our nation.
Who is the most trustworthy candidate?
Fortunately, two of the GOP candidates have clearly upheld Reagan's 11th commandment in each of the debates, and every other contender should heed their example.
During the Reagan Presidential Foundation debate, one of the two chastised moderator John Harris for his bald-faced attempt to stir intraparty arguments: "Well, I'm frankly not interested in your effort to get Republicans fighting each other. ... I for one, and I hope all of my friends up here, am going to repudiate every effort of the news media to get Republicans to fight each other to protect Barack Obama who deserves to be defeated. And all of us are committed as a team, whoever the nominee is, we are all for defeating Barack Obama."
In the most recent debate, he chastised CNN pretty boy Anderson Cooper: "Maximizing bickering is probably not the road to the White House. And the technique you've used maximizes going back and forth over and over again."
Unfortunately, the rest of the candidates seem unwilling to rise above the pettiness.
Who is the candidate most capable of defeating Obama?
Beyond the bickering, none of the candidates has given more than peripheral attention to the most pressing issue of the current era -- the restoration of constitutional integrity -- though I know a couple of them certainly place that task above all others. Perhaps their handlers have convinced them that the American people are just too dullard to participate in a more substantive national debate about constitutional authority and the First Principles of Liberty. However, in reality most of today's Beltway politicos couldn't begin to articulate the distinction between Rule of Law and rule of men, and the implications for Liberty, and thus are not prepared to integrate that into their campaign template.
That notwithstanding, there is a growing legion of conservatives who are, first and foremost, concerned about the abject violation of the limits that our Constitution places upon the central government. These constitutional conservatives, who were largely responsible for seating a House majority in 2010, are poised to increase that majority, and seat a Senate majority, in 2012.
Fact is, almost twice as many Americans self-identify as "conservative" than as "liberal," but apparently that stat hasn't made it across the Potomac, where establishment Republicans still exercise the greatest influence.
Perhaps all the GOP candidates will rise above the rancor in the next debate. For the record, I would remind them of the words of the wisest of all men: "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand."
In the meantime, conservatives must reject the Leftmedia pollaganda promoting the media choice for the GOP ticket.
(Visit The Patriot Post's campaign resource page, where we've compiled all the 2012 presidential candidate links as well as debate transcripts and videos.)
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Libertas aut Mortis!
Mark Alexander
Publisher, The Patriot Post
-
Maureen Dowd's unique take on Mormonism and Mitt Romney:
============================
At an appearance at George Washington University here Saturday night, Bill Maher bounded into territory that the news media have been gingerly tiptoeing around.
Magic underwear. Baptizing dead people. Celestial marriages. Private planets. Racism. Polygamy.
“By any standard, Mormonism is more ridiculous than any other religion,” asserted the famously nonbelieving comic who skewered the “fairy tales” of several faiths in his documentary “Religulous.” “It’s a religion founded on the idea of polygamy. They call it The Principle. That sounds like The Prime Directive in ‘Star Trek.’ ”
He said he expects the Romney crowd — fighting back after Robert Jeffress, a Texas Baptist pastor supporting Rick Perry, labeled Mormonism a non-Christian “cult” — to once more “gloss over the differences between Christians and Mormons.”
Maher was not easy on the religion he was raised in either. He referred to the Roman Catholic Church as “an international child sex ring.”
But atheists, like Catholics and evangelical Christians, seem especially wary of Mormons, dubbed the “ultimate shape-shifters” by Maher.
In a Washington Post-Pew Research Center poll released on Tuesday, people were asked what single word came to mind for Republican candidates. For Herman Cain it was 9-9-9; for Rick Perry, Texas; and for Mitt Romney, Mormon. In the debate Tuesday night, Romney said it was repugnant that “we should choose people based on their religion.”
In The Times on Sunday, Sheryl Gay Stolberg chronicled Romney’s role as a bishop in Boston often giving imperious pastoral guidance on everything from divorce to abortion.
Stolberg reported that Romney, who would later run for Senate as a supporter of abortion rights against Teddy Kennedy and then flip to oppose those rights in Republican presidential primaries, showed up unannounced at a hospital in his role as bishop. He “sternly” warned a married mother of four, who was considering terminating a pregnancy because of a potentially dangerous blood clot, not to go forward.
Another famous nonbeliever, Christopher Hitchens, wrote in Slate on Monday about “the weird and sinister belief system of the LDS,” the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Aside from Joseph Smith, whom Hitchens calls “a fraud and conjurer well known to the authorities in upstate New York,” the writer also wonders about the Mormon practice of amassing archives of the dead and “praying them in” as a way to “retrospectively ‘baptize’ everybody as a convert.”
Hitchens noted that they “got hold of a list of those put to death by the Nazis’ Final Solution” and “began making these massacred Jews into honorary LDS members as well.” He called it “a crass attempt at mass identity theft from the deceased.”
The Mormons even baptized Anne Frank.
It took Ernest Michel, then chairman of the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors, three years to get Mormons to agree to stop proxy-baptizing Holocaust victims.
Mormons desisted in 1995 after Michel, as the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported, “discovered that his own mother, father, grandmother and best childhood friend, all from Mannheim, Germany, had been posthumously baptized.”
Michel told the news agency that “I was hurt that my parents, who were killed as Jews in Auschwitz, were being listed as members of the Mormon faith.”
Richard Bushman, a Mormon who is a professor emeritus of history at Columbia University, said that after “the Jewish dust-up,” Mormons “backed away” from “going to extravagant lengths to collect the names of every last person who ever lived and baptize them — even George Washington.” Now they will do it for Mormons who bring a relative or ancestor’s name into the temple, he said.
Bushman said that “Mormons believe that Christ is the divine son of God who atoned for our sins, but we don’t believe in the Trinity in the sense that there are three in one. We believe the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are three distinct persons.”
Kent Jackson, the associate dean of religion at Brigham Young University, says that while Mormons are Christians, “Mormonism is not part of the Christian family tree.”
It probably won’t comfort skeptical evangelicals and Catholics to know that Mormons think that while other Christians merely “have a portion of the truth, what God revealed to Joseph Smith is the fullness of the truth,” as Jackson says. “We have no qualms about saying evangelicals, Catholics and Protestants can go to heaven, including Pastor Jeffress. We just believe that the highest blessings of heaven come” to Mormons.
As for those planets that devout Mormon couples might get after death, Jackson says that’s a canard. But Bushman says it’s part of “Mormon lore,” and that it’s based on the belief that if humans can become like God, and God has the whole universe, then maybe Mormons will get to run a bit of that universe.
As for the special garment that Mitt wears, “we wouldn’t say ‘magic underwear,’ ” Bushman explains.
It is meant to denote “moral protection,” a sign that they are “a consecrated people like the priests of ancient Israel.”
And it’s not only a one-piece any more. “There’s a two-piece now,” he said.
Republicans are the ones who have made faith part of the presidential test. Now we’ll see if Mitt can pass it.
-
Another famous nonbeliever, Christopher Hitchens, wrote in Slate on Monday about “the weird and sinister belief system of the
LDS,” the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/qadhafi-death-blunts-gops-critique-133500278.html
Thoughts?
-
http://news.yahoo.com/qadhafi-death-blunts-gops-critique-133500278.html
Thoughts?
I wouldn't unpack the "Mission Accomplished" banner just yet, until we see that Libya doesn't turn into a new AQ base of operations/ bloody civil war amongst the various tribes. Meanwhile, Iran's nuclear menace and acts of war go unanswered.
Still, I'd like to point out that "They told me if I voted for McCain, we'd have even more cowboy swagger and gunboat diplomacy, and they were right"! :-D
-
On Iran: Perhaps, but Stuxnet was a US decision. I say that because it is possible (and I mean only possible), that Obama's use of intel, spec ops, and the like are being put to task in less obvious ways in Iran. I will confess to not enjoying the "wait and see" on this particular possibility.
On McCain: :-D indeed!
-
On Iran: Perhaps, but Stuxnet was a US decision. I say that because it is possible (and I mean only possible), that Obama's use of intel, spec ops, and the like are being put to task in less obvious ways in Iran. I will confess to not enjoying the "wait and see" on this particular possibility.
On McCain: :-D indeed!
Really? Then why did Buraq say almost nothing when there was a real chance at a "Persian Spring" in 2009 while he instead focused on underming Israel's security at that time?
We spent more than a billion dollars on the Libya op. Aside from Ka-daffy's head, we shall see what spins out of it. Somehow I'm not expecting flowers and rainbows.
-
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-10-20/presidential-candidates-donors-give-to-superpacs/50847148/1
-
Nevermind. I stand corrected.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011-10-20/obama-foreign-policy-gadhafi/50845858/1
On Iran: Perhaps, but Stuxnet was a US decision. I say that because it is possible (and I mean only possible), that Obama's use of intel, spec ops, and the like are being put to task in less obvious ways in Iran. I will confess to not enjoying the "wait and see" on this particular possibility.
On McCain: :-D indeed!
Really? Then why did Buraq say almost nothing when there was a real chance at a "Persian Spring" in 2009 while he instead focused on underming Israel's security at that time?
We spent more than a billion dollars on the Libya op. Aside from Ka-daffy's head, we shall see what spins out of it. Somehow I'm not expecting flowers and rainbows.
-
WASHINGTON — Herman Cain, the Republican presidential candidate with the sharp wit and easy-to-remember tax plan, is a cancer survivor, radio host and former chief executive of Godfather’s Pizza. On the campaign trail, he talks up his business experience, casting himself as a “problem solver” and Washington outsider.
But the role that helped propel Mr. Cain into politics was that of an ultimate Washington insider: industry lobbyist.
From 1996, when he left the pizza company, until 1999, Mr. Cain ran the National Restaurant Association, a once-sleepy trade group that he transformed into a lobbying powerhouse. He allied himself closely with cigarette makers fighting restaurant smoking bans, spoke out against lowering blood-alcohol limits as a way to prevent drunken driving, fought an increase in the minimum wage and opposed a patients’ bill of rights — all in keeping with the interests of the industry he represented.
It was a role that gave him an intimate view of the way Washington works, putting him in close proximity to Republican leaders at the time, including Newt Gingrich, now one of his presidential rivals, and John A. Boehner, now speaker of the House. And it helped Mr. Cain lay the groundwork for the next chapter in his life, his entry into electoral politics, beginning with a short-lived bid for the White House in 2000.
Those who knew him then could see his ambitions developing. Rob Meyne, an official at the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, which contributed handsomely to the restaurant group, wrote in a 1999 e-mail to his colleagues that Mr. Cain’s presidential plans were “not totally unexpected.” In the message, part of an online archive of tobacco industry documents, a wry and somewhat skeptical Mr. Meyne assessed Mr. Cain’s chances.
“Nice to have goals, huh?” Mr. Meyne wrote, speculating that perhaps Mr. Cain wanted to be vice president or had a cabinet post in mind. “In any event,” he went on, “Cain brings some positives. He is a genuine ‘antigovernment mandate’ conservative who happens to be an African-American. He is a wonderful speaker and would be an effective and charismatic candidate. He is also good on our issues.”
Mr. Cain, 65, declined to be interviewed for this article. He does not hide his experience at the restaurant group — it is mentioned on his Web site — but on the campaign trail he emphasizes his earlier stint running Godfather’s, although he has not run a major corporation for more than a decade.
In many ways, his advocacy of a special interest fits with his free-market, anti-Washington themes. Colleagues from the restaurant association remember him as an energetic leader and a fierce foe of any initiative that he saw as a government intrusion into the private sector.
He was at first reluctant to give up his perch as a corporate executive to run a trade group. But Thomas A. Kershaw, a Boston restaurateur and owner of Cheers, the bar that inspired the television show, said the chance to work in the nation’s capital seemed to hold allure.
“I think what was enticing to him was coming to Washington and getting into the middle of the whole political arena,” Mr. Kershaw said. “I think he had his eye on politics.”
Mr. Cain burst into the spotlight in 1994, two years before he joined the trade group full time, while still running Godfather’s. As the association’s unpaid chairman, he sparred with President Bill Clinton during a nationally televised town-hall-style meeting on health care. Mr. Cain insisted that the Clinton plan would cost jobs, asking, “If I’m forced to do this, what will I tell those people whose jobs I’m forced to eliminate?”
Their polite, if pointed, back and forth — Mr. Clinton pushed back with calculations that Mr. Cain declared “incorrect” — made the pizza executive a minor celebrity and sent the White House scrambling to respond.
“That was a very seminal moment for Herman,” said Stephen J. Caldeira, who later ran the association’s communications operation under Mr. Cain. “I think that was when he got the political bug.”
=================
He caught the eye of Jack Kemp, a leading Republican in Washington who shared his free market views, in 1996, when Bob Dole sought the White House with Mr. Kemp as his running mate, Mr. Cain advised them. That same year, after a headhunting firm identified Mr. Cain as a possible successor to the restaurant association’s departing chief executive, he signed on.
The Long Run
When Mr. Cain took the helm of the restaurant association, anti-drunken-driving groups were waging a campaign to lower the legal blood-alcohol limit from 0.10 percent to 0.08 percent — a change that restaurant owners feared would hurt liquor sales. In an opinion article in his local newspaper, The Omaha World-Herald, Mr. Cain called instead for stiffer penalties for drunken driving — an argument that drew a pointed rebuke from Diane Riibe, a board member of Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
“Mr. Cain and those he represents are in the business of selling alcohol,” Ms. Riibe wrote, “not saving lives.”
Anti-tobacco groups were also upset with positions he advocated. Because the cigarette makers had a less than stellar image, they often built lobbying partnerships with other industries.
Under Mr. Cain’s leadership, the restaurant association opposed higher taxes on cigarettes and the use of federal money to prosecute cigarette makers for fraud — positions that Matt Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids said had little to do with the restaurant business.
And Mr. Cain argued vociferously that the decision about whether to go smoke-free was the province of individual restaurant owners, not the government. “The restaurant industry literally became the alter ego of the tobacco industry during that period of time,” Mr. Myers said in an interview.
The restaurant association relied heavily on R. J. Reynolds for financial support, records show. Mr. Meyne, the Reynolds senior director of public affairs, served on the restaurant group’s board, and Mr. Cain served on the board of Nabisco, which had earlier merged with Reynolds.
In a 1999 memorandum, Mr. Meyne wrote that in previous years his company had given the trade group “as much as nearly $100,000 in cash and much more in in-kind support,” adding, “They have done virtually everything we’ve ever asked, and even appointed us to their board.”
Mr. Cain did not entirely become a creature of Washington during his time here. He kept his home in Omaha, where the pizza company was headquartered, and took an apartment in the Northern Virginia suburbs. Weekdays, when he was not traveling, he worked out of the association’s Washington headquarters. Weekends, he flew home to his wife in Omaha.
The trade group did not have an especially high profile in Washington when Mr. Cain took over. Each year, Fortune magazine published its “Power 25” list of the most influential interest groups in the capital. The restaurant group had never made the list. But by the time Mr. Cain left, he said in his book, the group was ranked 15th.
He bolstered his media relations department, hired more lobbyists and demonstrated a knack for simple titles and catchy names — foreshadowing, perhaps, the “9-9-9” tax plan that is a central feature of his presidential campaign. He branded his media strategy “Mo, Me, Mo,” for motivation, message, momentum.
He built a nationwide grass-roots program aimed at getting local restaurant owners to come lobby in Washington, on the theory that every lawmaker’s district has restaurants. He called it “BITE Back,” for “Better Impact the Elected.” He strengthened state affiliates, creating a new political action committee — the Save American Free Enterprise Fund, or SAFE — to help state chapters beat back initiatives they regarded as antibusiness.
While Mr. Cain was not a constant presence on Capitol Hill — his lobbyists did the industry’s day-to-day bidding — he did take pains to cultivate relations with Republican leaders. Those friendships seem to have lasted; Mr. Gingrich told CNN last week that Mr. Cain had a good shot at becoming the Republican nominee, while Mr. Cain said last month that he had “the greatest admiration” for Mr. Gingrich and even named him as a possible running mate.
“We were not on the radar before him,” said Joseph K. Fassler, a former board chairman of the restaurant association. “I remember one day I was walking in Washington with him, and Colin Powell was driving by. He stopped the car, got out and gave Herman a hug. I remember how impressed I was, seeing that.”
Mr. Cain left the trade group in November 1999. When his own presidential aspirations for 2000 faltered, he became co-chairman of Steve Forbes’s unsuccessful campaign. That year, he moved back to his native Georgia to concentrate on his motivational speaking business and writing books. He dabbled in politics again, seeking the Republican nomination for the Senate in 2004 — and losing badly in the primary to Johnny Isakson, who went on to win the general election.
Mr. Meyne, who now works for the gambling industry and declined to be interviewed for this article, predicted as much. His 1999 e-mail assessing Mr. Cain’s prospects outlined his political weaknesses (“no natural geographic base from which to run” and no proven fund-raising ability) before offering a prescient conclusion.
“Bottom line: Herman Cain is certain, in one form or another, to be a political factor for a number of years to come,” Mr. Meyne wrote. “We have a good relationship with him, and that will certainly be to our benefit.”
-
By JULIE JARGON
Long before his simple "9-9-9" tax plan vaulted him to the top tier in polls in the Republican presidential race, Herman Cain was pitching other catchy ideas, like a two-for-$12.99 pizza deal as chief executive of the Godfather's Pizza chain.
Joseph Barrett on The News Hub looks at Herman Cain's years leading Godfather's Pizza, and how his '2 pizzas for $12.99' plan then compares to his 9-9-9 tax plan in his current GOP presidential campaign.
.Former co-workers see parallels between Mr. Cain's focus on big ideas then and now. But while some former campaign staffers have criticized the candidate's failure to build a substantial nuts-and-bolts ground operation to match his rhetoric, former colleagues at Godfather's saw a hands-on operational focus that helped him come up with the big ideas.
Godfather's, a midrange chain of mostly sit-down restaurants based in Omaha, Neb., with outlets in more than 40 states, had suffered from rapid expansion and poor locations at the time Mr. Cain took over in 1986. The company also was bleeding money. At a training restaurant near headquarters, Mr. Cain was literally hands-on.
"We'd get our hands full of dough and talk to the crew. He was adamant that we understand how the restaurants operated granularly," said Charlie Henderson, Godfather's former vice president of marketing.
Mr. Cain, who ran Godfather's Pizza for about a decade, has described his experience there as the biggest challenge of his career and former colleagues confirm the chain was in dire straits.
"It was a very broken restaurant chain," said Paul Baird, the former vice president of operations. "If it were not for Herman Cain, Godfather's would have closed."
Enlarge Image
CloseOmaha World-Herald
Herman Cain, at Godather's Pizza in 1993, was known for a hands-on approach that helped him come up with big-idea marketing campaigns
.To compete with larger chains, Mr. Cain pushed for home delivery and created value offers, such as the deal offering two pizzas for $12.99. Early on, he appeared in television commercials boasting that Godfather's pizza had more toppings than its competitors. With a similar marketing flourish years later, when Mr. Cain's advisers suggested the "Optimal Tax" as a name for his tax plan, the candidate instinctively rejected it. "We can't call it that. We're just going to call it what it is: 9-9-9," he said.
Still, some former Cain campaign staffers have said he lacks organizational focus. He went months without a campaign manager after his first one left in early June. He has been touring the country giving interviews about his new book and speeches outside of the standard campaign stops. He hasn't been to Iowa since last August, for instance, and doesn't plan to return until November.
While running Godfather's, Mr. Cain and a group of executives bought the chain from then-owner Pillsbury in a management-led buyout reportedly valued at $40 million. They largely stabilized Godfather's finances while closing unprofitable outlets.
Mr. Cain, 65 years old, grew up in Atlanta and graduated from Morehouse College with a degree in math. He developed fire-control systems for ships and fighter planes for the Department of the Navy while earning a master's degree in computer science from Purdue University. He later worked as a computer-systems analyst for Coca-Cola Co., before joining Pillsbury.
Mr. Cain had turned around Pillsbury's underperforming Burger King restaurants in the Philadelphia region before becoming CEO of Godfather's in 1986.
There, Mr. Cain had a strong No. 2 in Ronald Gartlan, who is equally credited with improving the business. But former employees say the two had different skills.
"Herman is more of an innovator. He was very aggressive at rolling out new products and ideas. Ron would temper him, saying, 'We have to somehow pay for that stuff.' He was the right brain to Herman's left brain," Mr. Henderson recalls.
Efforts to reach Mr. Cain for comment, through his campaign, were unsuccessful. Through a spokeswoman, Mr. Gartlan, who is now CEO of Godfather's, declined to comment. The company also declined to comment beyond saying it appreciates Mr. Cain's contribution.
When managers were having trouble building traffic at the chain's Alaska restaurants, the marketing team supplied Mr. Cain with a flood of ideas. He wanted a simple approach.
The result was The Big V, a larger pizza with toppings that were spread out more thinly, giving the impression of more pizza for less money. The "value" offering drastically increased customer visits in Alaska within three or four weeks, Mr. Henderson said.
Former employees said the changes Mr. Cain made company-wide resulted in positive growth in stores open for more than a year, and also positive cash flow within months. However, Godfather's market share remained flat even while the pizza industry was growing, according to restaurant consulting firm Technomic Inc.
Ultimately, Mr. Cain succeeded in stanching the bleeding and stabilizing the business, rather than jump-starting growth.
Closely-held Godfather's doesn't disclose financial data, but Technomic said the chain provided it with a sales figure of $262.8 million in 1986, the year Mr. Cain became chief executive. At that time, there were 656 restaurants. Technomic estimates that revenue was flat, at roughly $270 million, when Mr. Cain left in 1995 to focus on his lead role at the National Restaurant Association, the industry lobbying group. But given that the restaurant count was down to 511 at that time, it represented a stabilization of the business.
Godfather's confirms that Mr. Cain sold all his shares in the company for an undisclosed sum.
Former employees said Mr. Cain frequently reminded his management team that they had to keep their eye on improving store operations. "He'd slap his hand on the table and say, 'Alright, it's time to go back to the strategy. Strategy is like religion. Every now and then you need a dose,' " Mr. Baird said.
-
third post of the morning
As the GOP casts about for a response to Occupy Wall Street, at least one prominent Republican isn't sweating it. In the war over class, Mitt Romney is already waving a white flag. And therein lies one of his chief liabilities as a Republican nominee or president.
The Occupy masses don't have a unified message, though the Democrats embracing them aren't making that mistake. President Obama helpfully explained that the crowds in New York and elsewhere are simply expressing their "frustrations" at unequal American society. The answer to their protests is, conveniently, his own vision for the country. If wealthier Americans and corporations are just asked to pay their "fair share," if "we can go back to that then I think a lot of that anger, that frustration dissipates," said the president.
This is a campaign theme in the making, and one with which Mr. Obama has already had plenty of practice. Congressional Democrats, too, see the value of pivoting off Occupy Wall Street to build an election-year class-warfare argument.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's latest answer to any spending proposal is a "millionaire's surtax," which he intends to make Republicans vote against ad nauseam. Labor unions, liberal activist groups—all see an Occupy opportunity to refocus the blame for a faltering economy away from President Obama and to greedy, rich America.
But here's the other big prize, from the White House's perspective: The man they most expect to become the Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, is already running from this debate. Mr. Romney, they see, is in the full throes of Guilty Republican Syndrome.
It's a curious illness, even if its source is clear: success. Mr. Romney is a multimillionaire, and through his own hard work. It's a great American story, yet the Republican is paralyzed at the thought of what his opponents might do with it in a 9% unemployment economy. Democrats have already pounced on his time at Bain Capital, accusing Mr. Romney of "stripping down" companies and "laying off" employees for profit. The press has run exposés on his privileged upbringing, his "oceanfront" vacation home, his use of private jets.
Even his Republican opponents, who should know better, are lobbing anti-wealth pot shots. Herman Cain has taken to comparing his own "Main Street" business experience to Mr. Romney's "Wall Street" past. Rick Perry is running an ad that hits Mr. Romney on his state health-care plan but ends with this bit of class: "Even the richest man can't buy back his past."
Having initially fought these caricatures, Mr. Romney has since begun to exhibit all the syndrome's symptoms. He's put forth a 59-point economic plan that eliminates the capital gains tax—but only for people who earn less than $200,000 a year. He's declared, at a New Hampshire town hall (and at every other opportunity): "I'm not running for the rich people. Rich people can take care of themselves. They're doing just fine." He's developed a form of Tourette's that causes him to employ the term "middle class" in nearly every sentence.
Related Video
James Taranto on how Mitt Romney's guilt as a millionaire feeds Democratic class warfare.
..Mr. Romney is clearly hoping that his own passive form of class warfare will head his opponents off at the blue-collar pass. Really? The 2012 election is shaping up to be a profound choice. Mr. Obama is making no bones about his vision of higher taxes, wealth redistribution, larger government.
Mr. Romney has generally espoused the opposing view—smaller government, fewer regulations, opportunity—but only timidly. This hobbles his ability to go head to head with the president, to make the moral and philosophical case for that America. How can Mr. Romney oppose Mr. Obama's plans to raise taxes on higher incomes, dividends and capital gains when the Republican himself diminishes the role of the "top 1%"? How can he demonstrate a principled understanding of capital and job creation when latching on to Mr. Obama's own trademark $200,000 income cutoff?
At a town hall in Iowa Thursday, Mr. Romney took it further: "For me, one of the key criteria in looking at tax policy is to make sure that we help the people that need the help the most."
These are the sort of statements that cause conservative voters to doubt Mr. Romney's convictions. It also makes them doubt the ability of a President Romney to convince a Congress of the need for fundamental tax reform. If anything he owes a debt to Newt Gingrich, who in a recent debate gave him a taste of how politically and intellectually vulnerable he is on this argument, asking Mr. Romney to justify the $200,000 threshold.
Mr. Romney's non-responsive response included five references to the "middle" class and another admonition that the "rich" are "doing just fine." Mr. Obama can't wait to agree, even as he shames Mr. Romney over his bank account.
Mr. Romney isn't the first Republican to develop Guilty Syndrome, and one option would be to form a support group with, say, George H.W. Bush. A better cure might be the tonic of Ronald Reagan, who never let his own wealth get in the way of a good lower-tax argument. Reagan's message, delivered with cheerfulness and conviction, was that he wanted everyone in American to have the opportunity to be as successful as he had been. If Mr. Romney is looking for a way to connect with an aspiring American electorate, that's a start.
-
Whether it is rich guilt or economic ignorance, Romney's inability to justify the $200,000 threshold is reminiscent of George Bush not knowing why he wanted lower tax rates. Just what we need is another President who can't grasp or articulate incentive-based production.
Iowahowk (humor site) is covering the candidacy of a new establishment Republican candidate to thwart off the tea party insurgency: http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2011/10/together-i-shall-ride-you-to-victory.html
Murphy's Law must have chosen Rick Perry, only after he proved himself a blockhead and his candidacy was declared room temperature, to finally get a tax reform right (IMHO) with just the first two nines of a flat tax package, 20-20 or whatever it will be called. I am very excited to find out if he will credit the forum for inspiring his plan: http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=2112.msg55494#msg55494
My advice to Herman Cain is to take ownership of both plans. Cain should say to Perry: "Nice job. I was first with a bold plan for tax reform and economic growth and my rates are lower, but I like the way you are thinking. If congress passes a flat tax with out without a new consumption tax that accomplishes all our goals, even if it is called the Perry Plan, as your President I will happily sign it, scrap this tax code and then get moving with regulatory reform and our smaller government, larger freedom agenda".
My advice to candidate Romney is to have his marketing people take one more look at his 59 point non-specific addition that keeps the current tax code intact. Gov. Romney, you are running for leader of the free world. Is this really your final answer?
-
Isn't there a software upgrade available for the Romney-bot?
-
Steven Moore of the WSJ is first to report today that the Perry plan announcing tomorrow will be an optional 20% flat tax rate exempting the first 12,500 per person. No one knew until now what this rate would be - although I did call it the 20-20 plan yesterday. :wink:
-------
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204644504576651150539439350.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTSecond
POLITICAL DIARY OCTOBER 24, 2011, 12:18 P.M. ET
Perry's Optional Flat Tax
We are finally starting to get the details about Texas Gov. Rick Perry's flat tax plan to be unveiled formally on Tuesday. Perry insiders confirm that the flat tax will have a rate of 20%, and tax filers will be able to choose between the flat tax and the current code.
This means that workers won't "be forced into the flat tax if they like the current system," a Perry advisor tells me. It would also include a standard deduction of $12,500 for each person in the household.
-------
We will see shortly what the Mitt Romney Version 3.0 reaction will be to it. Romney 1.0 called it "a tax cut for fat cats". In August he said “I love a flat tax” (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/24/us/politics/mitt-romney-changes-his-tone-on-flat-tax-plans.html) He will need his own new plan of his own unless his marketing people think they can do something more catchy with the 59 point non-specific plan with no named new rate on top of the current 59,000 page tax code.
These candidates think they are running against each other. This isn't a job fair and it isn't about them. We are hiring a leader of the free world and choosing our direction. Each candidate including Cain should either endorse this, or come out with a better plan, or better yet - do both. The idea isn't to divide the right; it is to win over the people to the wisdom of the policies and save the nation.
By making it optional which I think Newt offered first, they completely remove that argument used heavily (and unfairly) against Cain that x% of the working poor will actually be worse off. You don't lose your favorite deduction if the old code is still sitting there available with all its forms.
-------
Current tax code requires a half trillion dollars in compliance before the first dollar of revenue is captured, Here is an actual excerpt from Schedule D that could also go on a Tylenol bottle: "These distributions are paid by a mutual fund (or other regulated investment company) or real estate investment trust from its net realized long-term capital gains. Distributions of net realized short-term capital gains are not treated as capital gains. Instead, they are included on Form 1099-DIV as ordinary dividends. Enter on line 13 the total capital gain distributions paid to you during the year, regardless of how long you held your investment. This amount is shown in box 2a of Form 1099-DIV. If there is an amount in box 2b, include that amount on line 11 of the Unrecaptured Section 1250 Gain Worksheet on page D-9 if you complete line 19 of Schedule D. If there is an amount in box 2c, see Exclusion of Gain on Qualified Small Business (QSB) Stock on page D-4. If there is an amount in box 2d, include that amount on line 4 of the 28% Rate Gain Worksheet on page D-8 if you complete line 18 of Schedule D. If you received capital gain distributions as a nominee (that is, they were paid to you but actually belong to someone else), report on line 13 only the amount that belongs to you. Attach a statement showing the full amount you received and the amount you received as a nominee. See the Instructions for Schedule B for filing requirements for Forms 1099-DIV and 1096.
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CSXGlkq_SQ&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CSXGlkq_SQ&feature=player_embedded
-
My Tax and Spending Reform Plan
Individuals will have the option of paying a 20% flat-rate income tax and I'll cap spending at 18% of GDP.
By RICK PERRY
The folks in Washington might not like to hear it, but the plain truth is the U.S. government spends too much. Taxes are too high, too complex, and too riddled with special interest loopholes. And our expensive entitlement system is unsustainable in the long run.
Without significant change quickly, our nation will go the way of some in Europe: mired in debt and unable to pay our bills. President Obama and many in Washington seem unable or unwilling to tackle these issues, either out of fear of alienating the left or because they want Americans to be dependent on big government.
On Tuesday I will announce my "Cut, Balance and Grow" plan to scrap the current tax code, lower and simplify tax rates, cut spending and balance the federal budget, reform entitlements, and grow jobs and economic opportunity.
The plan starts with giving Americans a choice between a new, flat tax rate of 20% or their current income tax rate. The new flat tax preserves mortgage interest, charitable and state and local tax exemptions for families earning less than $500,000 annually, and it increases the standard deduction to $12,500 for individuals and dependents.
This simple 20% flat tax will allow Americans to file their taxes on a postcard, saving up to $483 billion in compliance costs. By eliminating the dozens of carve-outs that make the current code so incomprehensible, we will renew incentives for entrepreneurial risk-taking and investment that creates jobs, inspires Americans to work hard and forms the foundation of a strong economy. My plan also abolishes the death tax once and for all, providing needed certainty to American family farms and small businesses.
My plan restores American competitiveness in the global marketplace and provides strong incentives for U.S.-based employers to build new factories and create thousands of jobs here at home.
First, we will lower the corporate tax rate to 20%—dropping it from the second highest in the developed world to a rate on par with our global competitors. Second, we will encourage the swift repatriation of some of the $1.4 trillion estimated to be parked overseas by temporarily lowering the rate to 5.25%. And third, we will transition to a "territorial tax system"—as seen in Hong Kong and France, for example—that only taxes in-country income.
The mind-boggling complexity of the current tax code helps large corporations with lawyers and accountants devise the best tax-avoidance strategies money can buy. That is why Cut, Balance and Grow also phases out corporate loopholes and special-interest tax breaks to provide a level playing field for employers of all sizes.
To help older Americans, we will eliminate the tax on Social Security benefits, boosting the incomes of 17 million current beneficiaries who see their benefits taxed if they continue to work and earn income in addition to Social Security earnings.
We will eliminate the tax on qualified dividends and long-term capital gains to free up the billions of dollars Americans are sitting on to avoid taxes on the gain.
All of these tax cuts will be meaningless if we do not control federal spending. Last year the government spent $1.3 trillion more than it collected, and total federal debt now approaches $15 trillion. By the end of 2011, the Office of Management and Budget expects the gross amount of federal debt to exceed the size of America's entire economy for the first time in over 65 years.
Under my plan, we will establish a clear goal of balancing the budget by 2020. It will be an extremely difficult task exacerbated by the current economic crisis and our need for significant tax cuts to spur growth. But that growth is what will get us to balance, if we are willing to make the hard decisions of cutting.
We should start moving toward fiscal responsibility by capping federal spending at 18% of our gross domestic product, banning earmarks and future bailouts, and passing a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. My plan freezes federal civilian hiring and salaries until the budget is balanced. And to fix the regulatory excess of the Obama administration and its predecessors, my plan puts an immediate moratorium on pending federal regulations and provides a full audit of all regulations passed since 2008 to determine their need, impact and effect on job creation.
ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank and Section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley must be quickly repealed and, if necessary, replaced by market-oriented, common-sense measures.
America must also once and for all face up to entitlement reform. To preserve benefits for current and near-term Social Security beneficiaries, my plan permanently stops politicians from raiding the program's trust fund. Congressional IOUs are no substitute for workers' Social Security payments. We should use the federal Highway Trust Fund as a model for protecting the integrity of a pay-as-you-go system.
Cut, Balance and Grow also gives younger workers the option to own their Social Security contributions through personal retirement accounts that Washington politicians can never raid. Because young workers will own their contributions, they will be free to seek a market rate of return if they choose, and to leave their retirement savings to their dependents when they die.
Fixing America's tax, spending and entitlement cultures will not be easy. But the status quo of byzantine taxes, loose spending and the perpetual delay of entitlement reform is a recipe for disaster.
Cut, Balance and Grow strikes a major blow against the Washington-knows-best mindset. It takes money from spendthrift bureaucrats and returns it to families. It puts fewer job-killing regulations on employers and more restrictions on politicians. It gives more freedom to Americans to control their own destiny. And just as importantly, the Cut, Balance and Grow plan paves the way for the job creation, balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility we need to get America working again.
Mr. Perry, a Republican, is the governor of Texas and a candidate for president.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YpGAng0EDhE
-
The problem with the debate format is we get snippets and sound bites. I have no idea what Romney is proposing. So I look it up and here is some. I need to review his website and I would assume it gives more details.
Romney has 59 point economic plan. Here is some:
****Mitt Romney in 2012?
Would you support Mitt Romney for president? Vote in poll.
www.newsmax.com
Romney follows former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman in presenting a comprehensive vision for promoting economic growth — but his plan offers few surprises beyond its trueness to GOP talking points, and may be seen as falling short of the "bold, sweeping and specific" plan he promised.
Romney's plan goes out of its way to make space for a potential general election campaign, careful to qualify any potentially damaging statements to lessen their impact. He plays to the tea party, but doesn't wholeheartedly embrace their politics.
For instance, he only wants to eliminate the capital gains tax for middle-income earners, and limits his calls for promoting domestic energy production to "everywhere it can be done safely, taking into account local concerns."
Romney will formally announce his plan today in a 12:30 PDT speech in Nevada.
Via USA Today, here are the basics to Mitt Romney's jobs plan:
Lower marginal tax rates; Elimination of interest, dividend and capital gains taxes for middle-income earners.
Lower the corporate tax rate. "I will press for a total overhaul of our overly complex and inefficient system of taxation," he writes.
Cut government regulations, including ObamaCare. Creating a net-zero cap to the cost of new regulations.
More free trade agreements — including the creation of the "Reagan Economic Zone"
Tougher stance on China: "I will not stand by while China pursues an economic development policy that relies on the unfair treatment of U.S. companies and the theft of their intellectual property. I have no interest in starting a trade war with China, but I cannot accept our current trade surrender."
More domestic energy production "everywhere it can be done safely, taking into account local concerns"
Lessening the influence of unions — including the safeguard of the secret ballot and pushback against the NLRB.
Federal balanced budget amendment
Cutting the size of the federal workforce: "While the private sector shed 1.8 million jobs since Barack Obama took office, the federal workforce grew by 142,500, or almost 7%. A rollback is urgently required."***
-
Thank you CCP. Point 1 in the 59 point plan is "Lower marginal tax rates" and then he doesn't say how much. I read, posted and forgot the Romney Plan already I think because I don't see that he is committed to it. I agree that he has shown an awareness that his words will follow him into the general election as well, but I don't like that he believes that he needs to do that in an Obama-esque sort of way with vague platitudes.
http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=2112.msg53953#msg53953
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/Romney%20for%20president%20jobs%20plan.pdf
I predict he will have to dip his pen in the ink one more time and write specifics rather than face two serious challengers with very specific plans in a Perry-esque sort of way in a debate with no real plan of his own.
The 'trust me to get it right' line takes him straight into his biggest weakness, bringing some other pretty serious changes of positions (cf. cap trade, govt healthcare) back into new relevance.
I don't like that because he is rich he has to be especially tough on the rich who are 'doing just fine'. The rich being idle in our economy is not fine; their resources still sitting on the sidelines is killing employment, national income, government revenues, deficits, debt, the dollar and everything else. He is showing no greater understanding or ability to articulate an incentive based economy than either of the silver spoon Bush presidents.
I don't care about the rich keeping or not keeping more of their own money. I care about getting the American economy up on plane.
-
Doug,
Agreed 100%.
Romney cannot get above 25% of the Republican party to believe in him because he is playing the fork tongue thing trying to be too damn cute and coy.
I, like you do not really trust he is a real Republican. I fear he could easily sell us all out.
His half assedness (a word?) makes me wonder if he is just playing the right as fools or he is playing this only to appeal to the independents after which if and when he gets into power he will turn right.
So the question is we do not no if he will turn right when in office or left. I think many of us the right, after reviewing his record suspect he will turn left and f* us over.
I've learned the hard way never to trust anything anyone says about their intentions. Though far from perfect as a way to guide ones ability to know how one will really behave is to go back and study how they lived their lives. This is the best though surely not a perfect way to know how they will behave in the future. Once a liar and crook always a liar and a crook.
Mitt has clearly been an establishment guy in the past. If this was nihilistic approach to being a Republican in a socialistic like State is possible. Same goes for Cristy in NJ. On the other hand maybe this is the real Romney.
If we applied the principle to Brobrock - that is go by his associations, his liberal voting record, we would have know he was going to govern as the most marxist pres we ever had. We on this board knew what was coming. Many others were foolishly duped. Do not go by what he says. Go by how he lived his life.
I don't know enough about Mitt personally to be sure what his true beliefs are. He is certainly not as Herman Cain is - says what he believes and believes what he says. And that is a big problem with someone who wants to be President.
-
I see on Drudge that Carville calls Cain a "salesman" and he will not be elected. I agree it would extremely remote he could or even should be elected. His lack of knowledge of too many important subjects does scare me about him I admit.
That said one thing I admire about Cain is he is an HONEST salesman. He is selling a product he believes in.
Unlike the present WH occupant who has been dishonest and deceptive about himself and HIS core beliefs all along.
I prefer an honest to a dishonest salesman anyday.
-
Dear Marc,
With great fanfare, Gov. Perry released an optional flat tax proposal that is similar to the proposal outlined in the 21st Century Contract With America. Both proposals implement an optional flat tax as a vehicle towards a simplified tax code. Both plans give American taxpayers the option to do their taxes on a paper the size of a postcard. The plans do, however, have significant differences, and since Rick Perry promised to “bump plans” at the last debate in Las Vegas, our campaign outlined the major differences in an easy to read point by point format. Our plan has a significantly lower flat tax rate - 15% compared to Perry’s 20%. Our plan also does a better job of unlocking job creation with a lower corporate tax of 12.5%. Perry’s 20% is a significant improvement over the current 35% top rate, but it fails to give the United States a significant advantage over other nations. The plan that Speaker Gingrich laid out in the 21st Century Contract With America has many other important differences that spur job creation and make the proposal far more likely to pass.
We welcome a robust policy debate with all the candidates who have the courage to release real policy proposals. The American people deserve more than just platitudes and campaign slogans, and that is why this campaign has always been built around ideas. It was a lack of this kind of in-depth policy discussions that resulted in the election of the woefully unprepared Barack Obama. Speaker Gingrich has the knowledge and experience to speak at length on specific policies, which is why we have also gratefully accepted an invitation to a one-on-one policy debate with Herman Cain.
The debate is being sponsored by the Texas Tea Party Patriots and will feature conservative Congressman and Iowa icon Steve King as emcee. The debate will be held in Houston on November 5, and we will be bringing you details about where you can watch this historic exchange.
Our campaign is experiencing a resurgence as the American people take a hard look at all the candidates. For the month of October, we now stand only about $200,000 from raising a million dollars! The media has tried to use the last quarter fundraising numbers to write off anyone that isn’t one of their chosen candidates. If we can issue a press release that we surpassed $1 million in October, it will simply reinforce how ludicrous that media narrative is! We can do it, but we need your help! We need to raise at least $200,000 before Monday at midnight! Support the reemergence of this campaign by helping us reach this important goal by making a contribution today!
Thank You,
Michael Krull
Newt 2012
Campaign Manager
-
CAIN SOUNDS ANTI-WALL STREET
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on October 25, 2011
Printer-Friendly Version
Liberals often fail to understand the fault lines that run through the Republican Party. But when those fault lines mirror their own, you would think they'd get it.
Even as President Obama rakes in $35,000 per couple at lavish fundraisers after relying on Goldman Sachs to be his largest single donor in 2008, the left sits in a park in Manhattan decrying Wall Street excesses. The Dodd-Frank bill, sold as a measure to crack down on Wall Street, is killing community and small banks throughout the nation, hastening the day when Wall Street will be the only source of corporate or personal lending.
Meanwhile, on the Republican side, voters have clearly opted for a candidate who came from the private sector rather than one who lived his life in politics, as the continuing collapse of Rick Perry and the ongoing ascendancy of Mitt Romney and Herman Cain attest. But which private sector? Wall street and big business, or small business? Between Romney and Cain, a new chasm is emerging. As Cain put it: "Mitt generated jobs on Wall Street. I did it on Main Street."
The same discontent that is brewing over in Lower Manhattan among the extreme left is also raging on the right as small businessmen rally to Cain, emphatically making it clear that the needs of big business are not only not their needs, but often are a direct contradiction.
In a sense, the fault lines the Romney/Cain contest is exposing are very similar to those that first made their appearance when Arizona's Barry Goldwater defeated New York's Nelson Rockefeller for the Republican nomination for president in 1964. The split in the GOP has only grown wider. The evangelical, small-business, economic-freedom, anti-tax and anti-regulation Tea Party vote is lining up behind Cain. The economic-growth conservatives, corporate executives, free-market economists and GOP establishment are backing Romney.
The emerging contest will not be so much the right versus the center as it will be big versus small, the establishment versus insurgents, libertarian Republicans against social conservatives and, yes, Wall Street versus Main Street.
We are going to be treated to a presidential campaign in which both parties' candidates will have to cope with increasing animosity toward the greed and self-serving refusal to be accountable that have characterized Wall Street and the financial industry.
But it is particularly intriguing to compare the impetus for the Cain candidacy with that of the Occupy Wall Street group. Both decry the tendency toward bigness and each disapproves of massive corporate bailouts that choose winners and losers. Both are opposed to crony capitalism and do not want the federal government to be a servant of the financial industry.
And both find themselves in opposition to the mainstream of their political parties. The world is indeed round, with apologies to Thomas Friedman. The far left and the far right unite in their opposition to big business and to the centrist establishments of both parties that maintain cozy and symbiotic relationships with Wall Street.
Can Obama continue to run on Wall Street money while backed by Occupy Wall Street foot soldiers? It seems unlikely. Can Cain tap into the resentment against Wall Street that rises from the demonstrators in Lower Manhattan? Perhaps he can.
The real criticism of Obama is not that he is a socialist -- advocating government ownership and control of business. It is that he is a corporatist -- advocating government control while keeping ownership in private hands. He wants a few big companies and a handful of major banks, the big labor unions and the federal government to work together to divide the pie and deal the cards. He wants to establish here a corporatism reminiscent of de Gaulle's France and modern-day Germany. Soon the left will realize what the right is already coming to know -- that the mainstream of each party is hopelessly in bed with Wall Street.
-
WSJ:
A friend of ours quipped recently that Mitt Romney could do his Presidential candidacy a lot of good if he took even a single position that is unpopular in the polls. Well, we can report that he has done that on housing policy, that he's being pummeled for it, and that it may be his finest campaign hour. It also contrasts favorably with the latest temporary, ad hoc and futile housing effort from President Obama.
Campaigning last week in Nevada, the epicenter of the housing bust, Mr. Romney was asked by the Las Vegas Review-Journal editorial board what he would do about housing and foreclosures. His reply:
"One is, don't try and stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom. Allow investors to buy homes, put renters in them, fix the homes up. Let it turn around and come back up. The Obama Administration has slow-walked the foreclosure processes that have long existed, and as a result we still have a foreclosure overhang."
Enlarge Image
Close...How's that for refreshing? After five years of politicians trying without success to postpone disclosures and levitate the housing market, Mr. Romney dared to tell the truth. Parts of the U.S., including Nevada, still have too many homes, and that supply needs to be sold off and fixed up so the market can find a bottom before home prices can start to rise again. The faster that process proceeds, the faster the recovery will take hold.
For this apostasy, Mr. Romney is getting whacked by the Democratic National Committee in a 30-second TV ad that first aired Tuesday in Arizona: "Almost half of Arizona homeowners underwater. Foreclosures everywhere. And what's Mitt Romney's plan?" the ad intones. Then it quotes Mr. Romney: "Don't try and stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom.'"
The attack ad doesn't quote the second part of Mr. Romney's Las Vegas answer, which spoke another truth: "Number two, the credit [that] was given to first time homebuyers was insufficient and inadequate to turn around the housing market. I think it was an ineffective idea. It was a little bit like the cash-for-clunkers program, throwing government money at something which was not market-oriented, did not staunch the decline in home values anymore than it encouraged the auto industry to take off."
While he was at it, Mr. Romney might have added to his list of "ineffective" housing ideas the Bush Administration's Hope Now program, the Barney Frank-George W. Bush Hope for Homeowners plan, the Obama Administration Home Affordable Modification Program, the Emergency Homeowners' Loan Program, and, this week, an expanded version of the March 2009 Home Affordable Refinance Program (Harp).
All of these government plans used taxpayer cash to forestall foreclosures in an attempt to stop housing prices from falling from their manic heights. How's that working out? Five years into the housing bust, the U.S. still has 10.9 million "underwater" borrowers, whose homes are worth less than the original purchase price. States like Florida, Nevada and New Jersey have long foreclosure backlogs, and home prices still haven't begun to recover in much of the country.
Related Video
Mary Kissel of the editorial board says Mitt Romney has the right answer on housing.
..Mr. Romney's advice to let the foreclosure and resale process take its course as rapidly as possible until the market finds a "bottom" couldn't possibly do any worse than the Obama Administration and its frenetic attempts to "save" homeowners have done. To the extent that it encourages a faster recovery it is also more compassionate. As the nearby chart shows, while the fall in home prices has been painful for current owners, it has also made housing far more affordable for new buyers.
Which brings us to the latest White House housing gesture, Harp II, to make it easier to refinance mortgages guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Harp I was supposed to help four to five million borrowers refinance, but only around 894,000 have used it so far.
So why not double down on lack of success? Harp II will remove many of the restrictions on banks and borrowers that were contained in Harp I to protect taxpayers. These include removing the 125% loan-to-value ceiling for underwater borrowers, dealing with bank litigation concerns, and eliminating the need for a new appraisal. It also extends the end of the program to December 31, 2013, from next June 30.
No doubt this will help some homeowners refinance, especially with the Federal Reserve continuing to push long-bond rates even lower. But it is not a free lunch, especially for investors who hold mortgage-backed securities. Those securities will fall in value as borrowers prepay their old loans, and sure enough the MBS market fell out of bed after the White House announcement on Monday.
The Congressional Budget Office tested an economic model of the mock refinancing plan in September and estimated that while government enterprises like Fannie and Freddie would save $3.9 billion from refinancing, they'd also lose $4.5 billion from the reduced value of their mortgage-backed securities. Pension funds, banks and others would lose as much as $15 billion. Such investors don't get any sympathy these days, but don't be surprised if they're skittish about re-entering America's politicized housing market in the future.
As for Mr. Romney, in his Vegas interview he did add briefly that "the idea of helping people refinance homes to stay in them is one that's worth further consideration," subject to more information. That's the poll-driven candidate talking, but for today let's congratulate the truth-teller.
-
Continuing my Rubio reply here:
I actually believe Rubio that he won't take the VP nomination, even though they all say that. He wants to be a successful senator and keep his promise to do that, unlike others before him. Also it would risk his career in a couple of ways, tying his future to one of our not so perfect possible nominees while cutting his own experience short. He doesn't need to be the VP slot to be seriously considered for the top slot in 4 or 8 years if he wants it. He can be a strong supporter of the ticket from the outside and the top of the ticket needs to be strong enough to stand on his own. If the nominee is an outsider, and really all of them are, then maybe need a sharp, shrewd, experienced professional insider with gravitas, at least as strong as Biden :wink: to balance the ticket.
-
Conservative commentator Marc Levin assesses the Perry tax plan:
http://www.therightscoop.com/mark-levin-rick-perry-has-come-up-with-one-hell-of-a-proposal/
-
Doug,
If only there was a Republican candidate who was half as articulate and able to think and speak on his feet as Mark Levin (or Rush for that matter).
These two guys can articulate positions a hundred times better than any of our candidates except for probably Newt.
I wish Newt could gain more traction.
It looks like we are stuck with Romney.
-
Given Cain's cancer history, should he be nominated Rubio's (lack of) experience would get a lot of attention.
-
CCP, Levin can be abrasive but he makes his points fearlessly and persuasively. I like the Perry plan, but not the candidate at this point. I believe Romney will be the nominee but Cain is staying in there so far. Bachmann for one should drop and join with Cain it seems to me if this is about direction of the country more than personal career. She made a name for herself and could still get out before becoming irrelevant. I would like to pick and choose traits from each to assemble my own candidate but it doesn't work that way.
A good friend and non-conservative asked me in earnest this week what I thought of the Republican contest knowing I would be following it closely. After all these readings and posts I was pretty much speechless to summarize anything. Interestingly, she thought the country wasn't ready for a Mormon. Maybe I am naive, but I already forgot about that. People thought it risky that JFK was Catholic (as if he lived that life). Joe Liebermann broke ground as the first Jewish candidate on a ticket; that didn't become any focus. Obama being half black was only a plus. The issues are so big for something invisible to matter much it seems to me. If he was alleged to have more wives, that would be another different.
Newt is the one with the too many wives problem.
I like a lot about Newt, but we can't have a candidate that pushes voters like Mrs. Crafty away for having good moral sense. Not just Newt but his first lady was also a home wrecker, any chance that will come up on Oprah? He shouldn't have run, just my opinion. Republicans are held to a higher standard, he knows it and didn't abide by it. Now he won't quit because his support is swinging up. But if he was out, where would that support go? Perry isn't leaving either because he has money at this point. He will quit after he fails in a key primary unless he turns things around. If Newt, Bachmann and Perry were out, and it was down to Romney vs one top challenger Herman Cain, this contest would become very, very interesting. With no challenge on the Dem side, swing voters would likely show up. Some say that favors Romney, but I would not be so sure.
-
Saw Cain on Face the Nation this AM. Thought he did reasonably well with a fairly hostile Washington insider interview. Improving answering questions on foreign affairs, but still not at a level that seems presidential.
Saw Ron Paul handle CNN's Candy Crowley VERY well too. He really has gotten quite good at handling heart string questions such as "Surely you can't be against helping people go to college." He articulates well things like actually shutting down entire departments such as Energy, Education, Commerce, etc. Too bad his foreign affairs are what they are. Too bad he has too many stray crackpot comments, such as the one about a border fence with Mexico being used to keep us in. On the Bret Baier Report's "hot seat" interview, Charles Krauthammer badly stuffed him to his face with it.
-
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/
-
Herman Cain on Face the Nation:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7386472n&tag=contentMain;contentBody
Cain sounds very good in the interview.
Try this link for day by day cartoon tough on Romney: http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2011/10/30/
Much improved Rick Perry with MSM Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/30/rick_perry_on_fox_news_sunday.html
Very sad to see story from Politico that is now the lead story on Drudge:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67194.html - 4 internet pages, starts with this:
Exclusive: Two women accused Herman Cain of inappropriate behavior
(Politico has done some sourcing on this. They also quote board members who vouch strogly for his behavior. There is probably some truth in that there were probably two or more complaints made and settled. That doesn't mean guilt, but it does mean a serious challenge and distraction for the campaign is coming. I'm surprised there haven't been more twists like this in the campaign. And I hope it is all proven false. but proving a negative is usually impossible to do.)
During Herman Cain’s tenure as the head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s, at least two female employees complained to colleagues and senior association officials about inappropriate behavior by Cain, ultimately leaving their jobs at the trade group, multiple sources confirm to POLITICO.
The women complained of sexually suggestive behavior by Cain that made them angry and uncomfortable, the sources said, and they signed agreements with the restaurant group that gave them financial payouts to leave the association. The agreements also included language that bars the women from talking about their departures.
In a series of comments over the past 10 days, Cain and his campaign repeatedly declined to respond directly about whether he ever faced allegations of sexual harassment at the restaurant association. They have also declined to address questions about specific reporting confirming that there were financial settlements in two cases in which women leveled complaints.
POLITICO has confirmed the identities of the two female restaurant association employees who complained about Cain but, for privacy concerns, is not publishing their names.
Cain spokesman J.D. Gordon told POLITICO the candidate indicated to campaign officials that he was “vaguely familiar” with the charges and that the restaurant association’s general counsel had resolved the matter.
The latest statement came from Cain himself. In a tense sidewalk encounter Sunday morning outside the Washington bureau of CBS News — where the Republican contender had just completed an interview on “Face the Nation” — Cain evaded a series of questions about sexual harassment allegations.
Cain said he has “had thousands of people working for me” at different businesses over the years and could not comment “until I see some facts or some concrete evidence.” His campaign staff was given the name of one woman who complained last week, and it was repeated to Cain on Sunday. He responded, “I am not going to comment on that.”
He was then asked, “Have you ever been accused, sir, in your life of harassment by a woman?”
He breathed audibly, glared at the reporter and stayed silent for several seconds. After the question was repeated three times, he responded by asking the reporter, “Have you ever been accused of sexual harassment?”
Cain was president and CEO of the National Restaurant Association from late 1996 to mid-1999. POLITICO learned of the allegations against him, and over the course of several weeks, has put together accounts of what happened by talking to a lengthy roster of former board members, current and past staff and others familiar with the workings of the trade group at the time Cain was there.
In one case, POLITICO has seen documentation describing the allegations and showing that the restaurant association formally resolved the matter. Both women received separation packages that were in the five-figure range.
On the details of Cain’s allegedly inappropriate behavior with the two women, POLITICO has a half-dozen sources shedding light on different aspects of the complaints.
The sources — which include the recollections of close associates and other documentation — describe episodes that left the women upset and offended. These incidents include conversations allegedly filled with innuendo or personal questions of a sexually suggestive nature, taking place at hotels during conferences, at other officially sanctioned restaurant association events and at the association’s offices. There were also descriptions of physical gestures that were not overtly sexual but that made women who experienced or witnessed them uncomfortable and that they regarded as improper in a professional relationship.
Peter Kilgore, who was the association’s general counsel in the 1990s, and remains in that position today, has declined to comment to POLITICO on whether any settlements existed, saying he cannot discuss personnel matters.
But one source closely familiar with Cain’s tenure in Washington confirmed that the claims related to allegations of sexual harassment – behavior that disturbed members of the board who became aware of it, as well as the source, who otherwise liked Cain.
“I happen to know there were sealed settlements reached in the plural. I think that anybody who thinks this was a one-time, one-person transgression would be mistaken,” this source said...
-
Anonymous sources quoting unnamed people about alleged behavior twenty years ago; is another high tech lynching (see Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill-- who was busted while trying to be anonymous) under way? Looks like it.
-
Yes. And supposedly these people took five figured money and agreed to a non disclose clause.
Don't now they have to give that money back?
OF course the DNC will gladly reimburse them for time.
And anyway what is the big deal to a Democrat? Even what he appears to be accused of is not as serious as anything Bill Clinton did. That was always about his "personal" life not important to his apologists. It was only a matter between Bill and Hill. :roll:
-
Cain: "Never have I committed any kind of sexual harassment."... If they paid a settlement, I hope it wasn't for much, because nothing happened.
The lead author at Politico is one who went after Sarah Palin with lies. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l72UAaftnwk
The author goes from not naming the women to not detailing the accusations. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2011/10/31/politicos-martin-dodges-question-cain-details
Note the exculpatory interviews are dropped in at the end of a mulit-page story, after the damage is done. People who would have known vouch strongly for his character and integrity.
Interesting that these are liberals trying to take down Cain still in the primaries. If the facts had legs, they should want to let him run and win further and then destroy him a little later in the process. I would guess that the facts were not leading them any further so they decided not to get beat to press on what they had. It wasn't just he said -she said, it was that what she said didn't amount to harassment. I agree with CCP, that certainly someone on the left will give them the money they might have to give back in order to talk about what happened. Unless something more breaks, I would guess that was already tried and didn't amount to anything. They say they have been working on this for several weeks.
Example of missing details: Paula Jones was called white trash for turning Clinton and Juanita Broderick said that Bill Clinton said she oughtta put some ice on that, and Hillary sought her out later and gave her the knowing look. Not enough to upset any left leaning women's groups.
Redstate.com which at least earlier was in the Perry camp is running a story saying there is no there there. The allegations if they were true do not amount to sexual harassment. []
http://www.redstate.com/curt_levey/2011/10/31/cain_allegations/
Cain Allegations: No There There
Posted by Curt Levey
Monday, October 31st at 9:01AM EDT
In light of last night’s Politico story about allegations against Herman Cain, it is important to clarify the legal meaning of the term “sexual harassment.” Specifically, Politico reports allegations that Herman Cain made an “an unwanted sexual advance” and engaged in “innuendo or personal questions of a sexually suggestive nature.” Politico suggests that this amounts to sexual harassment, using the term at least six times.
The truth is that the reported allegations, even if true, do not constitute sexual harassment under the law unless – as the Supreme Court has stated – they are “sufficiently severe or pervasive” to “create an abusive working environment,” among other requirements. Even the guidance of the decidedly liberal U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission cautions that “sexual attraction may often play a role in the day-to-day social exchange between employees” and that
“Sexual flirtation or innuendo, even vulgar language that is trivial or merely annoying, would probably not establish a hostile environment.”
The “severe or pervasive” requirement is not a legal technicality. Trivializing the term “sexual harassment” undermines the seriousness with which cases of severe and pervasive harassment are taken. There is no suggestion in the Politico article that Cain’s alleged behavior was either severe or pervasive, so at least for now, the suggestion of sexual harassment is unsupported.
Politico places a lot of weight on the report that “there were financial settlements in two cases in which women leveled complaints [against Cain].” In fact, without knowing more about the details of the settlements, it’s impossible to draw any conclusions from them. Corporate America is very risk averse when it comes to negative publicity, and in-house settlements often occur even when the evidence of harassment falls far short of the threshold needed to be taken seriously by a court.
-
I guess the Journolists at Politico feel bad about not vetting the last black guy that ran for president and are trying to make up for it now...... :roll:
-
http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/31/i-have-in-my-hand-a-list-of-herman-cain-accusers/
Jornolist-ism, at it's finest.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/lawyer-cain-accuser-wants-allowed-talk-025045050.html
-
Of course. Think of all the money she can make now! Furthermore I somehow doubt the request includes an offer to repay the money originally paid plus compound interest. :roll:
-
Folks bringing the story forward already succeeded. You cannot google search his experience at the restaurant association and find anything other than this story. A couple of days ago you might have found the youtube of him eating Pres. Clinton's lunch over healthcare mandates killing private business.
Whether it is truth against Cain or falsehoods escalated, I will guess there will be more developments, even if it is just the same accusers going public and specific. In the meanwhile we continue the campaign of get to know the candidates. Here is a local story here of my former neighbor Cain from his days as VP of Mpls based Pillsbury as reported by Mpls StarTribune and Mpls-based Powerline. It occurred to me earlier in this process that perhaps Cain was chosen as VP of Coca Cola, VP of Pillsbury, CEO of Godfathers, head of the National Restaurants Association and Chairman of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank because they all liked the look of having a black man in the picture on their color glossy corporate annual reports. In fact, he was quite accomplished before his business experience with a very impressive and technical education and quite hands-on and high achieving on the job in these very high level management positions. I would add that these aren't the types of businesses that tolerate much in terms of loose moral behavior on company paid travel.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/10/herman-cain-at-pillsbury.php
http://www.startribune.com/business/132823328.html
Business success has never guaranteed political success. But Cain demonstrated during a tour with Pillsbury Co. in the 1980s that he is a successful, charismatic leader. With flair and hard work, he turned around Pillsbury’s struggling Philadelphia Burger King region and revived a near-dead Godfather’s Pizza.
“My career spans 38 years and I’ve worked for 26 different managers,” said Frank Taylor, a recently retired Burger King financial executive whom Cain hired as his regional controller in 1983. “Herman was far and away the best I’ve worked for in terms of getting a team together, sharing a vision and accomplishing the goals. And nothing diverted him.”
Cain also shared the wealth. When Burger King distributed $50,000 apiece to the regional vice presidents as reward for good performance in 1985, most of the regional bosses spent it on a trip to a posh resort for themselves and other managers and spouses. The enlisted troops got a dinner. Cain took everybody in his office, including administrative staff, on the same three-day reward cruise, Taylor recalled. …
The Philadelphia region of Burger King ranked near the bottom among Burger King’s 12 groups. Cain brought analytical strengths and energy. He fired and hired. He praised and exhorted the survivors. He turned the region into a top performer within two years.
“I worked with him fairly closely at Burger King,” recalled George Mileusnic, a former Pillsbury executive, now a Twin Cities consultant. “He was good strategically and good with people, including working long hours in Burger King stores to get that bottom-up experience. He had about 500 stores in that Philadelphia region and he did a great job.”
Impressed, Jeff Campbell, the head of Pillsbury’s restaurant operations, put Cain in charge of Godfather’s Pizza, a then-struggling chain that Pillsbury acquired when it bought an Omaha restaurant consolidator that also was a big franchisee of Burger Kings.
Godfather’s was started by an entrepreneur in the 1970s but slid after it was acquired by a big Burger King corporate franchisee and waylaid by a tired menu, demoralized employees and lousy results. Campbell gave the 40-year-old Cain a year to right Godfather’s, make a buck, or shut it down.
At the time, Campbell told Cain that there was a very slim chance Godfather’s could be “a home run for you and the company.”
“I said, ‘Sounds like my kind of odds,’” Cain recalled in an 1987 interview with the Star Tribune. “That’s how I got to Philadelphia.” …
Along with his analytical skills, Cain brought an entrepreneurial fervor to the hurried turnaround at Godfather’s in 1986-87. He listened, asked questions and acted, including closing stores, shifting people and even cooking and testing new products in the company’s kitchen.
“I’m Herman Cain and this ain’t no April Fool’s joke,” he told Godfather’s employees when he arrived on April 1, 1986. “We are not dead. Our objective is to prove to Pillsbury and everybody else that we will survive.”
An accomplished singer and pianist, Cain occasionally led the headquarters crew in after-hours song, and performed charitable gigs in Omaha, backed by a chorus of managers. He also demanded that senior managers know every employee working for them on a first-name basis and occasionally quizzed executives on that and other personnel issues.
“That was pretty unique,” Mileusnic said. “Those stories got around Pillsbury. Herman was very quantitative and analytical, but he demanded that everybody be engaged and every employee must be appreciated and respected.”
By 1987, Cain and longtime executive Ronald Gartlan, now the CEO of Godfather’s, stabilized the company and produced an operating profit.
-
I wonder if we should have listened to Paula Jones? Of course not, she was just trying to ruin the career of a presidential hopeful...
http://news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-third-worker-says-cain-harassed-her-205655781.html
-
I wonder if we should have listened to Paula Jones? Of course not, she was just trying to ruin the career of a presidential hopeful...
http://news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-third-worker-says-cain-harassed-her-205655781.html
No, there is always a different standard when the media ignores dems scandals while inventing republican ones. Remember the MSM's coverup of Silky Pony's love child?
-
Documents show media plotting to kill stories about Rev. Jeremiah Wright
By Jonathan Strong - The Daily Caller 1:15 AM 07/20/2010
It was the moment of greatest peril for then-Sen. Barack Obama’s political career. In the heat of the presidential campaign, videos surfaced of Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, angrily denouncing whites, the U.S. government and America itself. Obama had once bragged of his closeness to Wright. Now the black nationalist preacher’s rhetoric was threatening to torpedo Obama’s campaign.
The crisis reached a howling pitch in mid-April, 2008, at an ABC News debate moderated by Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. Gibson asked Obama why it had taken him so long – nearly a year since Wright’s remarks became public – to dissociate himself from them. Stephanopoulos asked, “Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?”
Watching this all at home were members of Journolist, a listserv comprised of several hundred liberal journalists, as well as like-minded professors and activists. The tough questioning from the ABC anchors left many of them outraged. “George [Stephanopoulos],” fumed Richard Kim of the Nation, is “being a disgusting little rat snake.”
Others went further. According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.
In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”
Michael Tomasky, a writer for the Guardian, also tried to rally his fellow members of Journolist: “Listen folks–in my opinion, we all have to do what we can to kill ABC and this idiocy in whatever venues we have. This isn’t about defending Obama. This is about how the [mainstream media] kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the people.”
“Richard Kim got this right above: ‘a horrible glimpse of general election press strategy.’ He’s dead on,” Tomasky continued. “We need to throw chairs now, try as hard as we can to get the call next time. Otherwise the questions in October will be exactly like this. This is just a disease.”
(In an interview Monday, Tomasky defended his position, calling the ABC debate an example of shoddy journalism.)
Thomas Schaller, a columnist for the Baltimore Sun as well as a political science professor, upped the ante from there. In a post with the subject header, “why don’t we use the power of this list to do something about the debate?” Schaller proposed coordinating a “smart statement expressing disgust” at the questions Gibson and Stephanopoulos had posed to Obama.
“It would create quite a stir, I bet, and be a warning against future behavior of the sort,” Schaller wrote.
Tomasky approved. “YES. A thousand times yes,” he exclaimed.
The members began collaborating on their open letter. Jonathan Stein of Mother Jones rejected an early draft, saying, “I’d say too short. In my opinion, it doesn’t go far enough in highlighting the inanity of some of [Gibson's] and [Stephanopoulos’s] questions. And it doesn’t point out their factual inaccuracies …Our friends at Media Matters probably have tons of experience with this sort of thing, if we want their input.”
Jared Bernstein, who would go on to be Vice President Joe Biden’s top economist when Obama took office, helped, too. The letter should be “Short, punchy and solely focused on vapidity of gotcha,” Bernstein wrote.
In the midst of this collaborative enterprise, Holly Yeager, now of the Columbia Journalism Review, dropped into the conversation to say “be sure to read” a column in that day’s Washington Post that attacked the debate.
Columnist Joe Conason weighed in with suggestions. So did Slate contributor David Greenberg, and David Roberts of the website Grist. Todd Gitlin, a professor of journalism at Columbia University, helped too.
Journolist members signed the statement and released it April 18, calling the debate “a revolting descent into tabloid journalism and a gross disservice to Americans concerned about the great issues facing the nation and the world.”
The letter caused a brief splash and won the attention of the New York Times. But only a week later, Obama – and the journalists who were helping him – were on the defensive once again.
Jeremiah Wright was back in the news after making a series of media appearances. At the National Press Club, Wright claimed Obama had only repudiated his beliefs for “political reasons.” Wright also reiterated his charge that the U.S. federal government had created AIDS as a means of committing genocide against African Americans.
It was another crisis, and members of Journolist again rose to help Obama.
Chris Hayes of the Nation posted on April 29, 2008, urging his colleagues to ignore Wright. Hayes directed his message to “particularly those in the ostensible mainstream media” who were members of the list.
The Wright controversy, Hayes argued, was not about Wright at all. Instead, “It has everything to do with the attempts of the right to maintain control of the country.”
Hayes castigated his fellow liberals for criticizing Wright. “All this hand wringing about just
how awful and odious Rev. Wright remarks are just keeps the hustle going.”
“Our country disappears people. It tortures people. It has the blood of as many as one million Iraqi civilians — men, women, children, the infirmed — on its hands. You’ll forgive me if I just can’t quite dredge up the requisite amount of outrage over Barack Obama’s pastor,” Hayes wrote.
Hayes urged his colleagues – especially the straight news reporters who were charged with covering the campaign in a neutral way – to bury the Wright scandal. “I’m not saying we should all rush en masse to defend Wright. If you don’t think he’s worthy of defense, don’t defend him! What I’m saying is that there is no earthly reason to use our various platforms to discuss what about Wright we find objectionable,” Hayes said.
(Reached by phone Monday, Hayes argued his words then fell on deaf ears. “I can say ‘hey I don’t think you guys should cover this,’ but no one listened to me.”)
Katha Pollitt – Hayes’s colleague at the Nation – didn’t disagree on principle, though she did sound weary of the propaganda. “I hear you. but I am really tired of defending the indefensible. The people who attacked Clinton on Monica were prissy and ridiculous, but let me tell you it was no fun, as a feminist and a woman, waving aside as politically irrelevant and part of the vast rightwing conspiracy Paula, Monica, Kathleen, Juanita,” Pollitt said.
“Part of me doesn’t like this shit either,” agreed Spencer Ackerman, then of the Washington Independent. “But what I like less is being governed by racists and warmongers and criminals.”
Ackerman went on:
I do not endorse a Popular Front, nor do I think you need to. It’s not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.
And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.
Ackerman did allow there were some Republicans who weren’t racists. “We’ll know who doesn’t deserve this treatment — Ross Douthat, for instance — but the others need to get it.” He also said he had begun to implement his plan. “I previewed it a bit on my blog last week after Commentary wildly distorted a comment Joe Cirincione made to make him appear like (what else) an antisemite. So I said: why is it that so many on the right have such a problem with the first viable prospective African-American president?”
Several members of the list disagreed with Ackerman – but only on strategic grounds.
“Spencer, you’re wrong,” wrote Mark Schmitt, now an editor at the American Prospect. “Calling Fred Barnes a racist doesn’t further the argument, and not just because Juan Williams is his new black friend, but because that makes it all about character. The goal is to get to the point where you can contrast some _thing_ — Obama’s substantive agenda — with this crap.”
(In an interview Monday, Schmitt declined to say whether he thought Ackerman’s plan was wrong. “That is not a question I’m going to answer,” he said.)
Kevin Drum, then of Washington Monthly, also disagreed with Ackerman’s strategy. “I think it’s worth keeping in mind that Obama is trying (or says he’s trying) to run a campaign that avoids precisely the kind of thing Spencer is talking about, and turning this into a gutter brawl would probably hurt the Obama brand pretty strongly. After all, why vote for him if it turns out he’s not going change the way politics works?”
But it was Ackerman who had the last word. “Kevin, I’m not saying OBAMA should do this. I’m saying WE should do this.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/20/documents-show-media-plotting-to-kill-stories-about-rev-jeremiah-wright/
-
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903554904576458044101389966.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion
What's more, supermarket tabloids have been known to break important political stories that the mainstream press shied away from--and in this regard, the Los Angeles Times has an especially embarrassing record. In 2008 Kaus published an email from Tony Pierce, an editor at the L.A. Times, to the paper's online contributors (quoting verbatim):
Hey bloggers,
There has been a little buzz surrounding John Edwards and his alleged affair. Because the only source has been the National Enquirer we have decided not to cover the rumors or salacious speculations. So I am asking you all not to blog about this topic until further notified.
If you have any questions or are ever in need of story ideas that would best fit your blog, please don't hesitate to ask
Keep rockin,
Tony
As Kaus quipped: "That will certainly calm paranoia about the Mainstream Media (MSM) suppressing the Edwards scandal." Two weeks later, Edwards partially confessed, and Times columnist Tim Rutten weighed in:
When John Edwards admitted Friday that he lied about his affair with filmmaker Rielle Hunter, a former employee of his campaign, he may have ended his public life but he certainly ratified an end to the era in which traditional media set the agenda for national political journalism.
Rutten acknowledged that "too many newsrooms, including that of The Times," were derelict in ignoring the Edwards story. But his column reflected a telling defeatism. By proclaiming the "end to the era" of traditional media, he seemed to be suggesting that those media, including his own paper, were incapable of applying any lessons from the experience of being shown up by the Enquirer--that they were too hidebound to do anything other than keep rockin.
-
Good reminders of media bias, but pertaining more to the Media thread.
BTW BD in the Paula Jones case:
a) SHE PUT HER NAME TO IT.
b) Her allegation was that she was summoned to the Governor's presence by a State Trooper
c) and that Slick Willie dropped his drawers. I gather that she also gave some specifics about the appearance of Clinton's penis (that it curved when erect) though one wonders how verifying evidence would be obtained , , ,
d) Clinton had quite the rep as the ladies man
e) Clinton was married to Hillary
Quite a contrast here!
-
c) and that Slick Willie dropped his drawers. I gather that she also gave some specifics about the appearance of Clinton's penis (that it curved when erect) though one wonders how verifying evidence would be obtained , , ,
In investigations of sexual assault, a subpeona for non-testimonial evidence can require a medical exam of a suspect to confirm notable physical characteristics, or to gather evidence of the assault.
-
http://www.mobar.org/journal/1998/janfeb/swingle.htm
Potential Uses of Investigative Subpoenas
The potential uses of investigative subpoenas are limited only by the imagination of the prosecutor and the bounds of reasonableness. As the Supreme Court of Missouri has said, a prosecutor armed with investigative subpoena power "stands in essentially the same position as the grand jury and is governed by similar limitations."90 Like its fraternal twin, the grand jury subpoena, an investigative subpoena might be issued:
(1) For bank records showing whether a bad check suspect has written other bad checks, the balance of the account, the signature card, or the date the account was closed;91
(2) For financial records or books and ledgers of a person or corporation suspected of fraudulent activity, unfair trade practices, or the depositing of large sums of stolen money or drug sale proceeds;92
(3) For medical records pertaining to the blood alcohol level of a suspect in a DWI or involuntary manslaughter case;93
(4) For medical records or testimony pertaining to wounds a murder or rape suspect may have acquired during the attack upon the victim, unless barred by physician-patient privilege;
(5) For telephone records corroborating the placing of certain calls at certain times or to certain places;94
(6) For the testimony of a recalcitrant witness, such as someone who saw a drive-by shooting but refuses to tell police officers what happened;95
(7) For the testimony of a family member or friend who may have heard the suspect make admissions or may have seen the suspect hide or destroy evidence;96
(8) For the suspect to submit to a taking of fingerprint samples for comparison to those left at the scene of a crime;97
(9) For a suspect to submit to the taking of a photograph, so that it can be put into a lineup to be shown to a victim;98
(10) For a suspect to participate in a physical lineup to be viewed by the victim;99
(11) For a suspect to submit to the taking of a blood sample for DNA or other genetic testing for comparison to samples left at a crime scene;100
(12) For a suspect to give a voice sample for comparison to a voice on tape;101
(13) For a suspect to appear to display a limp, tattoo, or scar described by a victim;
(14) For a suspect in a forgery case to give a handwriting sample;102
(15) For airline or other transportation records pertaining to the travel of the suspect;
(16) For utility records or papers showing occupancy or ownership of a suspected drug house or excessive electrical use showing a marijuana growing operation;103
(17) For sales records pertaining to a weapon thought to have been used in a crime;
(18) For sales records pertaining to materials commonly used to manufacture illegal drugs or weapons;
(19) For motel records showing that the suspect was staying in the area at the time of the crime;
(20) For VISA, Mastercard or other credit card records showing purchases of materials used to commit or cover up a crime;
(21) For a private club's employees to bring books, records and invoices pertaining to a gambling investigation;104
(22) For a library to supply a list of patrons who have checked out a book about bomb-making in a bombing case, or witchcraft in an animal mutilation case.105
-
"c) and that Slick Willie dropped his drawers. I gather that she also gave some specifics about the appearance of Clinton's penis (that it curved when erect) though one wonders how verifying evidence would be obtained , , ,"
"In investigations of sexual assault, a subpeona for non-testimonial evidence can require a medical exam of a suspect to confirm notable physical characteristics, or to gather evidence of the assault."
I was wondering how he would be aroused for the exam , , , and who would do it, , , ,
-
Depending on the applicable state statute, either an MD or Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner, and it's my understanding that Clinton has a disorder that involves calcium deposits that result in the curvature that are present no matter the state of the organ's blood flow.
-
A) The point of the article I posted was first was that the woman was willing to and trying to put her name to it.
B) An abuse of power is an abuse of power. Some have more power, Guro, like the use of a state's police force, but coercion, blackmail, abuse of position, or whatever, is still an abuse.
C) So, dropping trou is the only way to be sexual explotive, abusive, or ....????
D) There are now three women making an accusation. My point about Clinton and Jones is that some point there MAY be a pattern emerging. You'll forgive me, I hope, if I want the GOP frontrunner to be vetted. Maybe we can prevent Clinton 2.0 from taking the Oval Office.
E) I don't understand this point.
I am not saying that the media aren't biased. I am not saying that there might not be a copy cat effect going on with number three. I am saying that at some point you have to recognize that there is a possibility that there is something there. And, when you run for the POTUS, you should expect that stories like these will break. Why? Because they do. It is 24/7 media driven cycle. And, I would like to note that Cain blames Perry (http://news.yahoo.com/struggling-cain-accuses-perry-harassment-case-022511386.html). It is also true that presidential candidates work to discredit, miscredit, or downright blame/attack their opponents.
Good reminders of media bias, but pertaining more to the Media thread.
BTW BD in the Paula Jones case:
a) SHE PUT HER NAME TO IT.
b) Her allegation was that she was summoned to the Governor's presence by a State Trooper
c) and that Slick Willie dropped his drawers. I gather that she also gave some specifics about the appearance of Clinton's penis (that it curved when erect) though one wonders how verifying evidence would be obtained , , ,
d) Clinton had quite the rep as the ladies man
e) Clinton was married to Hillary
Quite a contrast here!
-
"I am not saying that the media aren't biased. I am not saying that there might not be a copy cat effect going on with number three. I am saying that at some point you have to recognize that there is a possibility that there is something there. And, when you run for the POTUS as a REPUBLICAN, you should expect that stories like these will break."
I think that when it's discovered that he attended a racist church for 20 years, got his house from a shady deal with a convicted felon and had his political career started by an unrepentant terrorist, he's done, right?
:roll:
-
"I am not saying that the media aren't biased. I am not saying that there might not be a copy cat effect going on with number three. I am saying that at some point you have to recognize that there is a possibility that there is something there. And, when you run for the POTUS as a REPUBLICAN, you should expect that stories like these will break."
I think that when it's discovered that he attended a racist church for 20 years, got his house from a shady deal with a convicted felon and had his political career started by an unrepentant terrorist, he's done, right?
:roll:
So, you misquoted me to make a point. Cool. Let's get this straight, again. I did not vote for Obama. I won't be voting for Obama. What I am asking for is the media to actually be a watchdog. They are in this case.
Sex sells, GM. It is not as if the media turned a blind eye to the Weiner wiener scandal. It isn't Dem. v. Rep on this front. It isn't. And after all the conservative talk about Clinton and Weiner and etc., I am rather frustrated that this issue is seen as a media slant. Cain MIGHT have done the things he is accused of. I would think that his supporters, or those who want the best possible conservative in office, would want the truth to come out. And, if he emerges from this then he is really battle tested, and likely a stronger candidate for it.
You guys talk about immorality in the Oval Office all the damn time. Do you REALLY want to know the truth, or does your fondness for Cain cloud your willingness to learn that he might be less moral than he appears?????
-
"What I am asking for is the media to actually be a watchdog. They are in this case."
Pretty selective in their watch-doggery, ain't they?
"Cain MIGHT have done the things he is accused of. "
And those would be?
-
"What I am asking for is the media to actually be a watchdog. They are in this case."
Pretty selective in their watch-doggery, ain't they?
Good dodge. And it answers my question your level of concern about the GOP candidates. Morality is optional with you, as long as they are REAL conservatives.
"Cain MIGHT have done the things he is accused of. "
And those would be?
You've read the stories, GM. Don't play dumb. You're better than that.
-
Good dodge. And it answers my question your level of concern about the GOP candidates. Morality is optional with you, as long as they are REAL conservatives.
Sounds like you are projecting. You are concerned about morality, as long as they are REAL conservatives.
I've read the Journolist-ism "sources say something might have happened". Did he make a reference to a Seinfeld episode? :-o
-
https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=87+Va.+L.+Rev.+381&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=925e6c09fd5020fffb9aaf3cfd3ee8a3
JEROLD Mackenzie had been an employee of Miller Brewing Company for nineteen years when he was accused of sexual harassment by Patricia Best, a co-worker. Best complained that Mackenzie had made her feel terribly uncomfortable when he described a portion of the previous night's episode of the television series Seinfeld to her. 1 As a result of his behavior, Mackenzie was discharged. 2 He filed a wrongful termination lawsuit and was awarded $ 26.6 million by a jury in July of 1997. 3
The "Seinfeld case" is a good example of how employees accused of sexual harassment sometimes experience particularly harsh discipline, 4 but it does not represent the outcome of most lawsuits by alleged harassers against their employers. In fact, accused harassers are rarely successful in such actions, 5 and the judgment of the court in the "Seinfeld case" was reversed on appeal. 6 While more alleged harassers prevail today than ever before, 7 most courts still tend to favor employers who are zealously attempting to rid their workplaces of sexual harassment. 8
-
(hot topic - 'while you were typing 10 new replies were posted')
A close, trusted, mostly non-political friend told me last evening that he paid 20,000 to settle a harassment case against an employee similar to what is known about Cain's case, except that genders were reversed, and that he had no belief whatsoever that the claim was true. Total BS in his opinion, yet paid. I share that only as one anecdotal piece of evidence that money paid does not mean the one paying believes something happened. The business owner is confronted with a menu of costs to choose from: the cost to settle, the cost to go to trial even if you win, or the cost of losing whether your employee is really innocent or guilty. You make a business decision and choose one of these payments. It is a very ugly part of doing business in our litigious society. (This also belongs in one of threads to explain one big reason why no one wants to hire anyone anymore.)
My first reaction to this is something like what BD said We want candidates vetted now so we aren't blindsided during the general election or during the Presidency. If this guy has or had a problem, more will come out. But if we pay a $40,000 per person (26 mil in GM's example) to say you felt uncomfortable, what have we learned, about whom? At this point we didn't find a third victim, we found a third accuser right while the accusing was getting good.
From the side of the accuser with the settlement, she was faced with the CHOICE of taking a large sum or pursuing a public court record to try to make sure this uncomfortable experience with this executive never happens to anyone else ever again. She chose the money. Now it seems she wants a do-over as it looks like there is far more money on the table now.
How much did Anita Hill make on her book and her speaking fees? Was she telling the truth? Was the money commensurate with her wounds? She followed him to the next job!
Regarding the third anonymous accuser, whatever happened to statute of limitations and a right to a speedy trial.
If the the accusers' stories were true about Bill Clinton in 3 cases, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broderick, the behavior I believe involved criminal sexual conduct, not harassment. At least 2 of those were Democrats NOT trying to derail his candidacy; the other was 'trailer trash'. Later he lied under oath and was dis-barred. Still he is the rock star of the party and the most loved politician of all Democrats, and still loved by feminists and the media. There IS a double standard, but that is only useful information to a Republican candidate if you are guilty. Herman Cain for sure has a sense of humor. If (hypothetically) as a 100% faithful and loving husband, his joking or humor had in fact included flirtation and innuendo on more then one occasion, is he still Presidential material?
What I hate most is the diversion at this critical moment away from issues. No one seems to know what to do with this incomplete information but it has completely absorbed the news cycle.
-
I think the guns Cain gave to the Mexican drug cartels is a bigger scandal. Why isn't CNN covering that?
-
BD:
I'm all for vetting across the spectrum. What I am NOT for is unsourced reports of anonymous accusations.
Clinton's serial philandering (which included groping a woman in the WH when she came to beg for her husband's job -- no doubt GM will remember the names and facts :lol: ) was given a pass by the MSM. The MSM gleefully particpated in cruel politics of personal destruction (e.g. repeating and spreading Carville's description of "trailer park trash", mocking the woman's nose, her use of make up, etc) where, as I noted, she was brought to the governor by a trooper and the governor dropped his pants. She put her name to the accusations! and offered supporting details -- his curved penis.
Here there is a firestorm over unsourced reports of anonymous accusations of alleged events (none of which involved state troopers, dropping pants, or any other such thing) some 15 years ago.
I don't think GM is playing dumb here. I think, like me, he is saying that essentially nothing is known of the accusations or the accusers. In that an agreement was signed to STFU and go away, that is the way it should be.
-
http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/11/dan-rather-has-documents/
Dan Rather has documents
Posted by William A. Jacobson Thursday, November 3, 2011 at 9:20am
which prove that George W. Bush lied about his military service.
History No. 1: Dan cannot let you see the documents which he obtained from an anonymous source he cannot reveal. But the documents, in Dan’s estimation, reflect “inappropriate” conduct the exact nature of which cannot be disclosed. You can trust Dan. George W. Bush must drop out of the presidential race.
History No. 2: Dan lets you see the documents and identifies the source. The documents and the accuser are subjected to vigorous scrutiny by guys in pajamas sitting in their parents’ basements. George W. Bush is elected President.
-
This would be better in Media Matters.
-
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/45561
That was then. This is N.O.W.
November 3, 2011 by Don Surber
I am going to keep this simple. What was said by National Organization President Patricia Ireland about Paula Jones on April 2, 1998, and what NOW is saying now about Herman Cain.
From April 2, 1998:
Judge Susan Webber Wright’s ruling dismissing Paula Jones’ complaint against Bill Clinton certainly gives lie to the right-wing charge that anti-discrimination laws have gone too far. And it shoots down the tired complaint that a man can’t even compliment a woman at work anymore.
Jones alleges that Clinton ran his hand up her thigh, exposed himself to her, asked for oral sex and pointedly reminded her of his friendship with her immediate boss. No woman should have to put up with such behavior at work. But according to the judge, even if then-Governor Bill Clinton propositioned and pawed then-state employee Paula Jones — certainly misconduct for any employer or supervisor, Jones does not have a valid harassment claim because she could not prove that the overall result was a hostile work environment.
This ruling does not mean it’s open season on women in the workforce.
Women who face unwelcome sexual behavior at work can still win in court if the harassment is so pervasive or so severe that it interferes with their jobs. When it does, lewd bosses and crude co-workers can and will be held accountable.
From Erin Matson, NOW Action Vice President on Monday:
Revelations that presidential candidate Herman Cain was accused of sexual harassment while heading the National Restaurant Association, as well as suggestions that financial settlements bought silence, are deeply troubling.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits sexual harassment in the workplace. Unfortunately that has not stopped the widespread practice of unwelcome sexual advances, innuendos and jokes in the workplace being leveraged by men against women.
Last night, Mr. Cain’s campaign responded to news reports of the allegations with a statement that the press were “Spreading rumors that never stood up to the facts.” And yet this morning, Mr. Cain acknowledged that he was accused of sexual harassment while he was at the National Restaurant Association.
Setting the Cain campaign’s utter disregard for the facts aside, it’s outrageous for anyone to suggest that sexual harassment allegations represent political smears to be dismissed rather than the bravery and dignity of women simply trying to go to work.
This morning, Mr. Cain made a statement saying: “Yes, I do have a sense of humor. Some people have a problem with that. Herman is going to stay Herman. Thank you very much.” Feminists will continue to closely follow this story with the seriousness it deserves.
From Wikipedia: “On November 13, 1998, Clinton settled with Jones for $850,000, the entire amount of her claim, but without an apology, in exchange for her agreement to drop the appeal.”
This case that NOW kissed off as dismissed was settled for every dime she demanded 6 months later.
According to press accounts, Herman Cain’s accuser received $35,000 — 4 cents for every $1 Miss Jones received.
-
Separate from the debating skills problem and attacking fellow Republicans over the wrong issues, I agree strongly with these points of the Perry agenda.
PERRY: When I am president …
By Gov. Rick Perry
The Washington Times
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Washington is broken and must be completely overhauled to get America working again.
The tinkering technocrats think Washington can be fixed with a pair of tweezers. I, on the other hand, think it will require a president with the courage to take a sledgehammer to the three pillars of big government: overspending, overtaxation and overregulation.
Upon taking the oath of office, I will take immediate executive action to begin dismantling the Washington establishment so we can rebuild the American economy from the foundation up.
First, I will issue an executive order prohibiting the Department of Health and Human Services from any further implementation of Obamacare until we can fully repeal this unconstitutional government mandate, which, if it stands, will diminish our health care and kill jobs.
Second, I will order federal agencies to begin opening American energy fields for exploration and development, which will kick-start economic growth, reduce our dependence on energy from hostile foreign sources and eventually create 1.2 million jobs across every sector of the economy. I also will work with Congress to ensure that new revenue generated from energy production on federal lands is used to pay down the national debt.
Third, I will impose an immediate moratorium on all pending federal regulations, during which government agencies must audit every measure passed since 2008 to determine its necessity and impact on job creation. Those measures that kill jobs will be repealed.
And fourth, I will deploy thousands of National Guard personnel to secure our southern border until we can provide the permanent increase in manpower, technology and fencing needed to protect the American homeland in the long run. If I am elected, Washington will no longer abdicate its constitutional responsibility to secure the border or force states to fend for themselves.
In addition to exercising executive authority during the first 100 days of my presidency, I also will lay out a sweeping legislative agenda that will fundamentally change the way Washington works.
My Cut, Balance and Grow plan will jolt our economy back to life by cutting taxes and spending, balancing the budget by 2020 and growing private-sector jobs.
With a 20 percent flat tax that will enable Americans to file their tax returns on a postcard, we will end the Internal Revenue Service as we know it.
My-flat tax proposal will derail the gravy train of lobbyists and lawyers feeding at the government trough by eliminating the loopholes and carve-outs that the biggest companies with the most lobbyists exploit to avoid paying any taxes whatsoever. My plan not only will level the playing field for small businesses, it will cut the corporate tax to make American employers of all sizes more competitive in the global marketplace and encourage job growth at home.
My plan also will force government to live within its means by cutting billions of dollars from discretionary spending, capping spending at 18 percent of gross domestic product and putting Congress on track to balance the budget by 2020.
Despite all the promises of reform, earmarks remain a congressional addiction. My plan will make Congress kick the habit cold turkey. Throughout my presidency, I will veto any budget that contains earmarks. The same goes for bailouts.
I am confident we can make progress on all of these reforms in the first 100 days. But ultimately, the status quo will never change until voters take back Washington.
As the federal government grows and grows, the ruling elites in Washington are insulated from the economic mess they created. Consider just two examples: While home prices have continued to slump in virtually every other region of the country over the past year, Washington bureaucrats have seen their homes increase in value, thanks in part to a surge in government spending.
And according to a Bloomberg analysis, Washington is now America’s richest metropolitan area on a per capita basis, surpassing even Silicon Valley. While millions of Americans have lost jobs since 2009, the average federal worker in our nation’s capital has seen his pay increase to more than $126,000 per year, including benefits.
This is simply obscene. As president, I will fight for an across-the-board pay freeze for Congress and all federal employees, excluding the military and public-safety workers, until the budget gets balanced.
There is a massive reality gap between the American people and the ruling elites in Washington. Our next president must have the courage to close it.
America cannot afford four more years of a president who continues on the course to economic ruin or a Republican alternative who simply tinkers with the status quo while the Washington establishment brazenly continues its spendthrift ways.
If I am elected, I will take a wrecking ball to the Washington establishment so we can get America working again.
Gov. Rick Perry is a Texas Republican and candidate for president.
-
By JONATHAN WEISMAN
Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney waded into the hot-button issue of Medicare, proposing to offer future seniors a choice between the current fee-for-service health plan or a voucher to purchase health insurance plans offered by private insurance companies.
The proposal, offered to conservative activists Friday afternoon, would be similar to one proposed by Republican Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin earlier this year, but with one big difference. Mr. Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, said he would keep the current system as an option, while Mr. Ryan and House Republicans voted to drop traditional Medicare altogether, except for those now 55 and older.
Still, the overall impact of the Romney and Ryan plans might not be that different over time. Under Mr. Romney's proposal, if competition from private plans drove down the cost of those options, premiums would rise on the traditional fee-for-service option, coaxing seniors away from the government-run plan, the Romney campaign said.
"These ideas will give tomorrow's seniors the same kinds of choices that most Americans have in their health care today. The future of Medicare should be marked by competition, choice, and innovation—rather than bureaucracy, stagnation, and bankruptcy," Mr. Romney said.
The Romney Medicare plan could become a hallmark of the 2012 presidential campaign should he win the Republican nomination. Democrats had already planned to make the Ryan plan a centerpiece of their efforts to unseat Republicans in Congress. Now, Mr. Romney has thrust Medicare privatization into the presidential race.
Mr. Romney did not say how much money he believes his proposal would save the government. He cautioned that he would make no changes to the system for current Medicare beneficiaries or those approaching retirement, meaning that any savings from his plan would be slow in coming.
But by turning the federal role in seniors' health care into a voucher – or "premium support – Mr. Romney would give the government considerably more latitude to lower its costs. A Congressional Budget Office analysis of the Ryan plan suggested that a voucher system would shift costs from the taxpayers to seniors, as the rising cost of health care outstrips the value of the voucher.
The Romney campaign, however, is putting its faith in the ability of a competitive market place to maintain health-care quality at lower costs and greater efficiency. He said the private plans would be required to offer coverage at least as good as Medicare's. Seniors could choose more generous plans but would have to pay more out of pocket. Seniors who choose less expensive plans would be able to keep leftover cash from their vouchers to pay other medical expenses such as co-payments and deductibles.
Ironically, the plan Mr. Romney laid out parallels President Barack Obama's health-care law, which the former governor has vowed to repeal. In both cases, taxpayers would subsidize the purchase of private health plans, with larger subsidies going to poorer consumers.
A campaign fact sheet stated that Mr. Romney's "goal is for Medicare to offer every senior affordable options that provide coverage and service at least as good as what today's seniors receive. Lower income seniors in the future will receive the most generous benefits to ensure that they are able to get care every bit as good as that provided in the current Medicare program."
-
The Left’s Racist Witch Hunt
Posted By Ann Coulter On November 4, 2011
By spending the last three decades leveling accusations of “racism” every 10 seconds, liberals have made it virtually impossible for Americans to recognize real racism — for example, the racism constantly spewed at black conservatives.
In the last year alone, a short list of the things liberals have labeled “racist” include:
– Being a Republican;
– Joining the tea party;
– The word “the” (Donald Trump’s statement that he has a “great relationship with the blacks”);
– References to Barack Obama’s playing basketball (Trump again);
– Using Obama’s middle name;
– Scott Brown’s pickup truck;
– Opposing Obamacare;
– Opposing Obama’s stimulus bill;
– Opposing Obama’s jobs bill.
The surge in conservative support for Herman Cain confuses the Democrats’ story line, which is that Republicans hate Obama because he’s black.
Cain is twice as black as Obama. (Possible Obama campaign slogan: “Too Black!”)
This is why the liberal website Politico ran with a story on Cain that had everything — a powerful black man, a Republican presidential candidate, the hint of sexuality — except facts.
All we learned was: About a decade ago, as many as two anonymous women accused Cain of making unspecified “inappropriate” remarks and one “inappropriate” gesture in the workplace. (We had more than that on John Edwards’ mistress a year into the media’s refusal to report that story.)
If the details helped liberals, we’d have the details.
To have been accused of sexual harassment in the 1990s is like having been accused of molesting children at preschools in the 1980s or accused of being a witch in Massachusetts in the 1690s.
In the 1990s, one plaintiff won a $50 million jury verdict against Wal-Mart on the grounds that a “hostile environment” was created by her supervisor’s yelling at both male and female employees. In another case, a plaintiff won a $250,000 award for sexual harassment based on her complaint that a male colleague had reached for a pastry saying, “Nothing I like more in the morning than sticky buns,” while “wriggl(ing)” his eyebrows.
It got so crazy that a 6-year-old boy was suspended from class for a day for kissing a classmate on the cheek, and a Goya painting had to be removed from a Penn State classroom because a professor complained that it constituted sexual harassment.
With no standard other than the subjective offense taken by the accuser, absolutely anyone could be called a witch, i.e., a sexual harasser. So it’s striking that the only two conservative public figures accused of being witches both happened to be conservative blacks: Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain.
Liberals go straight to ugly racist stereotypes when attacking conservative blacks, calling them oversexualized, stupid and/or incompetent.
The late, lamented, white liberal reporter Mary McGrory called Justice Antonin Scalia “a brilliant and compelling extremist” — while dismissing Thomas as “Scalia’s puppet.”
More recently, Democratic Sen. Harry Reid called Scalia “one smart guy.” In the next breath, he proclaimed Thomas “an embarrassment to the Supreme Court,” adding, “I think that his opinions are poorly written.”
When Bush made Condoleezza Rice the first black female secretary of state, terror swept through the Democratic Party. What if people began to notice and ask questions: “Who’s that black woman always standing with George Bush?” Never mind! He’s probably arresting her.
In addition to an explosion of racist cartoons portraying Rice as Aunt Jemima, Butterfly McQueen from “Gone With the Wind,” a fat-lipped Bush parrot and other racist cliches, allegedly respectable liberals promptly called her stupid and incompetent.
Joseph Cirincione, then with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said Rice “doesn’t bring much experience or knowledge of the world to this position.” (Unlike Hillary Clinton, whose experience for the job consisted of being married to an impeached, disbarred former president.)
Democratic consultant Bob Beckel — who ran Walter Mondale’s 1984 campaign so competently that Mondale lost 49 states — said of Rice, “I don’t think she’s up to the job.”
When Michael Steele ran for senator in Maryland in 2006, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee dug up a copy of his credit report — something done to no other Republican candidate. He was depicted in black face with huge red lips by liberal blogger Steve Gilliard. Oreo cookies were rolled down the aisle at Steele during a gubernatorial debate in 2002.
Trafficking in racist imagery is consequence-free for liberals because they have ruined charges of “racism” with their own overuse of the term. By now, any accusation of racism has the feel of a Big Foot sighting.
It’s a neat trick, rather as if the Nazis had called everything “genocide” right before launching the Holocaust, and then admonished resisters not to “play the genocide card.”
Liberals step on black conservatives early and often because they can’t have black children thinking, “Hmmm, the Republicans have some good ideas; maybe I’m a Republican.”
The basic setup is:
Step 1: Spend 30 years telling blacks that Republicans are racist and viciously attacking all black Republicans.
Step 2: Laugh maliciously at Republicans for not having more blacks in their party.
It is beyond insane that Herman Cain would have considered running for president if he had the tiniest skeleton in his closet. To be an out-of-the-closet black Republican, you had better be a combination rocket scientist/Baptist preacher. Which, as it happens, Cain is.
Meanwhile, MSNBC is cutting into its prime-time programming to announce updates in the fact-free hit on Cain. That’s not because anyone there thinks he’ll be the nominee. Everyone knows it’s going to be Mitt Romney.
But liberals are determined to make sure that, six months from now, everyone has forgotten Herman Cain so they can go back to claiming Republicans oppose Obama because they hate blacks.
-
So, do you guys still think Herman Cain is serious?
9/9/9 plan from Sim City: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/14/herman-cain-999-plan-simcity_n_1011933.html
Herman Cain quotes Pokemon as a great poet: http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/scarce/herman-cain-pok-mon
How ironic, he settled on 9/99: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67627.html
Herman Cain sings: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/31/herman-cain-sings-national-press-club_n_1067783.html
Really? At least we know who needs the tax breaks... his brothers from another mother: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/herman-cain-i-koch-brothers-brother-mother-article-1.972623
He did take a month off to tour his book when he first took the lead in the polls. Is he begging to get knocked down? This whole thing seems like a joke.
-
So, do you guys still think Herman Cain is serious?
9/9/9 plan from Sim City: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/14/herman-cain-999-plan-simcity_n_1011933.html
Do you think Huffpo is serious? I'd be willing to bet Cain had never even heard of Sim City before. He's not exactly in a videogame playing demographic group. I wish the current president didn't get his taxation plan from Karl Marx......
-
http://www.c-span.org/Events/Cain-Gingrich-Debate-Lincoln-Douglas-Style/10737425199/
Under 'Video Playlist', click on "Cain, Gingrich Debate". The thank yous end and the first question from the moderator Iowa Rep, Steve King begins around the 6:00 mark
-
Cranewings: "do you guys still think Herman Cain is serious?"
1) He was this year's keynote speaker at CPAC earlier this year, sort of a dream candidate for people on the conservative side of the spectrum. What changed?
2) Not much overlap IMO between video game players and Republican primary voters, but I am thankful to have someone else follow the Huff Post and post their best content so that I don't have to.
3) Nothing in the settlement story says that Cain was part of the settlement nor that the date was inspiration for a tax plan, lol. The well compensated women who once felt uncomfortable story has now been beaten to death without us knowing either what he is accused of or what actually happened. More likely it has served like a small virus to have caused the buildup of strong antibodies around the candidate to fight off the next wave of attacks from the chorus of haters who started singing long before this non-story broke.
4) The smear against the Koch brothers lands excitement only on the anti-business, anti-capitalism side of electorate that is not going to be pro-Cain or pro-Republican in the first place.
5) "He did take a month off to tour his book when he first took the lead in the polls." FYI, he still leads in the polls and they all have a book. It is a form of self promotion that every professional adviser must tell all of them to do. Traveling and speaking about a book about how you will make a great President is remarkably similar to traveling and promoting yourself as a candidate who will make a great President. Book sales are how Bill and Hillary got rich, how Obama got rich, and Palin, Gingrich, etc. Pawlenty tried it: http://www.amazon.com/Courage-Stand-American-Tim-Pawlenty/dp/1414345720/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1320616513&sr=1-1Romney book: http://www.amazon.com/No-Apology-Believe-Mitt-Romney/dp/B0055X6EPW/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1 Perry book: http://www.amazon.com/Fed-Up-Fight-America-Washington/dp/B005X495KO/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1320597359&sr=1-1 Bachmann: http://www.amazon.com/Core-Conviction-Story-Michele-Bachmann/dp/1595230904 Even Huntsman: http://www.amazon.com/Winners-Never-Cheat-Everyday-Forgotten/dp/0131863665 Cain already has financial success but the ability to hop on a plane and criss-cross the country without worrying about the cost or going broke is staying power in a long race, and the ability to take a year and a half off of work to campaign is a necessity in their business. Every book sold puts a conversation piece into the living room an American household. For a guy who started with near zero name recognition, that serves a purpose.
6) Cains sings, Clinton played saxophone, Obama played a little pick up basketball and some really lousy golf. Doesn't seem to be the deciding issue for any of them.
7) "This whole thing seems like a joke." It could be that your summary points of his candidacy did not cover: "this whole thing", such as any of his good qualities.
Who do YOU support? Why?
-
DougMac, fair enough. I was just kind of pulling your chains with that last post anyway.
I'm voting for Obama. I never voted for a democrat or republican in a presidential election, but I have to go with Obama on this one. I don't think Herman Cain is going to win the primary. I think his original reason for running was to build up his reputation. I don't think he really meant to get this far and I don't think it is his time. His 9/9/9 tax plan isn't something I can buy into. I don't believe for a second that it is going to spur enough economic growth to offset the fact that the government will only pull in half the amount under it, and without a lot of growth, this just shifts the tax burden to the poor. Right now, half the country doesn't pay any income tax. Under Cain, already poor people will end up paying a 9% sales tax. It isn't right in my book. I think his plan was invented to earn street cred with hard core trickle down conservatives, but I don't think it is good for the country.
Mitt Romney could come back, but I can't trust him. I wish he would just be the liberal he was born to be, but I'm afraid his soulless desire to be popular will cause him to do some unpredictable and unappreciated things.
In any case, I'd never support anyone from the tea party. They don't break from republican leadership. They came into congress claiming to be about financial responsibility and jobs, but I'm not seeing it. I think they just want to watch the country burn so that Obama will get voted out.
Besides, the tea party candidates won't fix the economy. All they will actually end up doing is waging war on women and homosexuals. I'm sure they will try to bring back don't ask don't tell and attack abortion rights and planned parenthood. While I don't agree with abortion as contraception, I don't believe I have the right to restrict it. The tea party's hard core attack on civil liberties and excitement for torture make them really scary, even if I could believe they were really looking out for the welfare of the country. Personally, I think the movement has been fabricated to appeal to conservatives' sense of fairness and responsibility for the purpose of helping unleash the full power of the 1% to rip them off.
As far as Obama, I don't know that he failed. The economy is stalled, but would it be worse without the stimulus? Some people think so. Does he help his donors get rich? Sure. I think there is some corruption. But he's done a lot for civil liberties, I don't know that the stimulus was the wrong move, I agreed with the action in Libya, I LOVE his attitude on foreign policy. I think the fact that he bows to kings is brilliant. I'm not so prideful that I need to see him walk over them. I think it is righteous that he lowers himself, because he is in the higher position. He's not perfect, but, he is good. I didn't vote for him before because I thought his hope and change was full of shit, but I'm a little sorry now I didn't.
Edit: By the way, I like to let Brian Williams do my thinking for me ;)
-
CW, I can't tell with just the written word if you are still pulling my chain a little, but thanks for opening up on a variety of issues.
-
CW, I can't tell with just the written word if you are still pulling my chain a little, but thanks for opening up on a variety of issues.
I do troll on occasion, but those really are my thoughts.
-
CW writes
On the Tea Party "I think they just want to watch the country burn so that Obama will get voted out"
No doubt they want Obama out but it is to save the country. The country is burning precisely because of the spending of the Democrats and the spending of Republicans trying to out buy votes.
You may not agree with them but your post suggests you miss their points entirely. You state you never voted for a Dem or Rep in a presidential election. So do you vote Nader or Paul didn't he run as a libertarian?
"But he's done a lot for civil liberties"
"All they will actually end up doing is waging war on women and homosexuals."
Who is stopping anyone from being or living gay? Waging war on women? What? Could you mean the millions fo single women who now want the taxpayers to pay for the care and nurturing of their children? Or is this an abortion thng you speak of?
As for abortion that is a difficult issue. Everyone has their own view. I am generelly against it yet to say it is wrong in rape incest etc is too far for me. And generally, I can't feel as emotionally agianst it as many Evangelicals who for a long time absolutely did hyjack the Rep party and make this the single paramount issue.
"As far as Obama, I don't know that he failed. The economy is stalled, but would it be worse without the stimulus?"
Yes, many make this argument. Bush of course started the stimulus thing. Unfortunately we are 14 + trillion in debt and if Brock has his way this can only get worse.
"I think the fact that he bows to kings is brilliant."
Do you really think they like us more because he does. He looks like a fool and I can assure you *they* think he he is a fool.
Why should they not bow to him?
"excitement for torture"
You mean water boarding of a small handful of enemies and murderers of US citizens? This is pure partisan stuff.
What about Brock's cover up of guns going to Mexico that leads to torture/murder there?
CW I am not sure if you are a liberal Democrat or possibly a Paul fan, or gay or single mother or what but it is great to have your divergent opinion on the board.
-
CCP: "CW I am not sure if you are a liberal Democrat or possibly a Paul fan, or gay or single mother or what but it is great to have your divergent opinion on the board."
:-D My feeling exactly. I was thinking shoot back with point by point arguments but my views are already all over these pages. I asked who he liked and why, and he gave a straight answer. That is a great post!
-
ccp, I'm all for prosecuting politicians. The guns to mexico thing is ripe for investigation. I don't know a whole lot about it honestly. I do support any legitimate legal action taken against the administration. I just don't know much about the inner workings of those organizations, what they could really expect to accomplish, or what isn't finger pointing spin.
By waging war on homosexuals and women, I mean appointing conservative judges that will block gay rights, defunding planned parenthood, anti-abortion legislation, reinstating Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I'm a white straight male, engaged, and never had a problem understanding birth control. These things don't concern my life, but I understand that they impact other peoples. I don't know who is right about a lot of complicated issues, but I do know which side is attacking their civil liberties. Without a dog in the fight, I want to leave those people alone. I don't buy that the military will be sub-par with gays or that homosexual marriage damages strait marriage. I'm unprejudiced towards them. I feel no effect from them. I don't empathize from people that claim their marriages are being weakened by encountering homosexuals.
"I think the fact that he bows to kings is brilliant."
Do you really think they like us more because he does. He looks like a fool and I can assure you *they* think he he is a fool.
Why should they not bow to him?
Well, he is a pig faced book nerd. I don't doubt they think he is a fool. Displaying humility is important and I think his effort was a good one. I don't think it was genuine. He looked like an uppity bitch when Netanyahu schooled him, but at least he is trying and I think it works.
As far as the water boarding, I've got a no tolerance policy on that sort of thing. I have some idea of the fantastic levels of suffering you can put a person through without damaging them. Using those techniques on them is only a step on the way to what they really want, using them on us. Next thing you know they will be grabbing OWS protestors to find out who the rapists are (;
Anyway, I feel a giant slap on the wrist for being off topic on the way so I say that this is more defense on why I do not support the conservative candidates for president.
I used to be a Ron Paul supporter, obviously I guess. I think I only ever caught him on his best days. He seemed like a tool during the recent debates. I am a registered republican so you know Mitt can expect a vote from me.
-
said Cain suddenly reached out and grabbed her after drinks and dinner in Washington D.C. in the summer of 1997. She had left her association job in Chicago, Bialek said, and had traveled to Washington to meet with Cain to ask him for help finding a new job.
I dunno. Perhaps he was a sleaze but this sounds weird to. Travel from Chicago to DC and have dinner and drinks and go to the mans car.
Sounds somehow like a set up.
In any case I find it difficult to accept Cain based not on any of this stuff but anyone who doesn't know China has nucs running for the Presidency....
Maybe Newt can still turn it around. Maybe he needs some ADHD meds...
-
Mitt Romney's Presidential campaign strategy so far has been to play it safe and leave the bold policy ideas to others. So it's notable that the former Massachusetts Governor is finally beginning to wade into the deeper end of the reform pool.
In a speech last Friday, Mr. Romney laid out in more detail than he has before how he'd attack our fiscal maladies, and his remarks deserve more attention than they've received as a guide to how he might govern. His policy outline isn't the 2012 House Republican budget, but it qualifies as progress, especially on entitlements.
Like most other Republicans, Mr. Romney sets out a target of returning federal spending to around 20% of the economy by the end of his first term. That's in line with the modern historic average and down from the Obama heights of 24%-25%. It's also the right fiscal priority, because returning to pre-2009 spending levels is the only way to balance the budget without a huge tax increase.
To get there, Mr. Romney says he'll apply a simple cost-benefit test across the government: "Is this program so critical, so essential, that we should borrow money from China to pay for it?" That's a needless jingoistic formulation, but it does frame the question correctly in terms of choosing the programs that government should still pay for.
The mistake budget-cutters have made in the past is assuming that you can cut everything across the board. The political price of cutting a program is a high as it is for killing it, but the programs live to spend another day and grow back over time. To really balance the books, the feds have to make choices. Mr. Romney says his choices for elimination would include both the large (the Affordable Care Act) and less so (Amtrak, Planned Parenthood funding), and at least he's naming a few names.
Enlarge Image
CloseAssociated Press
Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney
.Mr. Romney's bigger breakthrough is on the growth of the entitlement state, which is now 55% of the government and climbing. On Social Security, he endorsed "progressive indexing," essentially an income test that would slow the increase in future benefits for wealthier seniors. He would also gradually raise the retirement age to adjust for longer life spans.
The candidate notably didn't endorse private Social Security accounts so younger workers can build up wealth that they would own and be able to pass along to heirs. On this point his proposal is inferior to Rick Perry's or Herman Cain's, but he's offering more reform than President Obama ever has.
On Medicaid, Mr. Romney favors block grants to the states capped at inflation plus 1%, which means Governors would lead a wave of federalist experimentation instead of merely expanding the rolls with national taxpayers picking up the bill. This is now GOP orthodoxy, but no less valuable for that.
As for the hardest nut, Medicare, Mr. Romney has moved about two-thirds of the way toward Paul Ryan's "premium support" plan. Like the Wisconsin Congressman, he'd give all seniors a defined cash contribution to choose among private insurance options.
Still to come are major details like how the premium-support payments would grow over time, but even endorsing the Ryan concept is unusual in this Republican field. (Jon Huntsman is the laudable exception.) Mr. Romney also attempts to inoculate himself against Mr. Obama's inevitable Mediscare attacks by retaining traditional fee-for-service Medicare with its arbitrary price controls as an option for seniors, unlike Mr. Ryan.
But the key reform point is that Mr. Romney says that all beneficiaries would receive the same fixed payment whatever plan they chose. In other words, premium support would ensure that all seniors get basic coverage, but if they wanted more expansive coverage they'd have to pay for it themselves. This would introduce competition to keep down costs over time—the alternative to the brute price controls and rationing of ObamaCare.
Once seniors begin to see the results of competition, our guess is that most of them would migrate away from the Medicare status quo. Mr. Ryan's plan is purer and would do more practical good sooner, but Mr. Romney's revision may be an easier sell in a campaign. He also ruled out new taxes as part of entitlement reform, an important political marker.
***
This reform progress is politically important because it moves Mr. Romney toward making the 2012 contest a philosophical choice over the direction of government, rather than merely a technocratic argument over who can create more jobs. One problem with Mr. Romney's earlier rollout of 59—count 'em, 59!—proposals for job creation is that by the end of the campaign Mr. Obama will claim to agree with 50 or more of them.
Mr. Obama will want to blur the philosophic differences, while attacking Mr. Romney's bona fides on jobs by trashing his record at Bain Capital. Mr. Romney's record in Massachusetts makes it hard for him to draw a distinction with Mr. Obama on health care, and the Republican seems to be shying away from a fight over taxes—for example, he's adopted Mr. Obama's $200,000 income threshold for cutting capital gains and dividend taxes. That would let Mr. Obama fight the tax debate solely on his terms of soaking the rich, rather than on reform to spur economic growth.
What next year's GOP nominee needs is a clear reform alternative to Mr. Obama's vision of ever more government and the higher taxes necessary to pay for it. Mr. Romney still needs a bolder economic growth agenda, but his fiscal awakening is encouraging.
-
second post
Re Cain and China's nukes: I think if you look at the whole transcript it will be clear that he was talking about development of a certain aspect of nuke technology. The Pravdas simply are trying to plant a false meme.
-
Cain's 4th accuser made a statement. Looks like part of CCP's post cut out, here is one link to it: Intro: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/gloria-allred-represents-4th-woman-accusing-herman-cain-14898436?tab=9482931§ion=2808950&playlist=2808979 Accuser: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/herman-cain-accuser-sharon-bialek-says-he-reached-for-my-genitals-14898646
I watched it. She sounds believable to a point. Suddenly in a place where no one but the two of them will know, he put his hand on her thigh... This is either true or not true, only the two of them will know. Otherwise there was a great deal of specificity in her story including a real name for once, a real face, a real reason for being there, she told real people contemporaneously, has put herself up for scrutiny and didn't profit from it, at least then.
Seems to me that something will break down in her story if he is innocent and something will break down in his story if all accusations are true. I will guess they are either all true or all false. If true, it is too late to just accept him as a Bill Clinton / Sam Malone babe-hound; he has staked his reputation and his campaign on his denials, and did I mention the double standard. If it is all false, there will be some crack in the accusers' stories.
On first listen I didn't find the steamy details very believable, and she has a celebrity level attorney. But... it is number 4 and the first two made serious, contemporaneous complaints. This is not a Clarence Thomas, one accuser, no report story. It is also not what Bill Clinton faced in January 1992. Gennifer Flowers was a consensual relationship, Clinton denied it and he had a Democrat constituency and media to persuade. Paula Jones did not come forward for another 2 years. Clinton, who didn't inhale, won with 43% of the vote in the general election.
-
"Re Cain and China's nukes: I think if you look at the whole transcript it will be clear that he was talking about development of a certain aspect of nuke technology. The Pravdas simply are trying to plant a false meme."
Video at this link: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/herman-cain-worried-about-china-developing-nuclear-capability-despite-50-year-nuclear-program/
Can't say that I agree with you but I would say that what he said flew fine with interviewer Judy Woodruff who moved right on to the next question.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/07/opinion/bennett-cain-sex-harassment-allegations/
Bill Bennett writing on CNN:
When I became one of Bill Clinton's earliest and chief accusers for the sexual harassment charges against him, two things were eminently true about my motives: (a) I did not become an accuser because Bill Clinton was a Democrat and I was a Republican, I didn't care one whit what the partisan fallout would be; and (b) I spoke out because the charges were plentiful enough and serious enough (I repeat, charges, not facts) to degrade not only all of our politics but all of our country, and because there are certain codes of honor, written and unwritten, for all men, Democrat and Republican. Indeed I wrote a book on this, laying it out, even before we knew the full extent of Bill Clinton's lies.
It is hypocritical in the extreme for those members of the media who didn't take the charges and allegations against Bill Clinton seriously to be taking the allegations against Herman Cain that we now have as seriously as they are. Hypocritical is probably too soft a word, frankly.
That said, Herman Cain and his campaign chief of staff, Mark Block, cannot go on as they have. There has been a pattern now that is both unhealthy for our politics and unhealthy for our polity.
Four women are not an insignificant number. One or two anonymous charges, perhaps. Three anonymous charges (where, as I understand the story, Cain knows of at least two of the women) plus one woman who went very public and opened herself up to all manner of investigation are a lot. It is no longer insignificant. Neither is it insignificant that the Cain campaign discounted the charges in the initial stories, saying they were based on anonymous sources, only to make a mockery by blaming other campaigns with less substantiation than the original stories.
If Herman Cain wants to be taken seriously as a public advocate for anything, never mind running for the chief executive and commander in chief of the most powerful and important and blessed country in the world, he needs to give a full press conference dedicated exclusively to this issue and these allegations.
I have watched long enough and held my tongue long enough to give him the benefit of the doubt, but can no longer say this is a witch hunt, "a lynching" to use his word, or any other euphemism. There are allegations out there that matter and they have stacked up. For we who led the charge against Bill Clinton on a number of related issues to continue to blame the media or other campaigns or say it simply doesn't matter makes us the hypocrites as well.
As I say, all of this is bad for our politics and polity. If Herman Cain cannot stand up to these charges, if he refuses to, then he should step out of the race. A man big enough to run for president should be big enough to have a full and candid press conference on all of this -- he wants us to elect him president after all, he's asking us to trust our lives and the country's life to him. This could be one of his finest moments and it could be one of his worst. But either way, he must confront the moment candidly and manfully.
-
Anonymous accusations carry little weight with me.
Women listen to other women in these things on a different level than men do. FWIW my wife watched the snippets on the news and reacted rather poorly to this particular woman (thought she was looking for her 15 minutes of fame and how she could profit from it) and wondered why Gloria Alred, or any attorney for that matter, needed to be there.
Although Bill Bennet over the years has made points with which I agree, has never impressed me that much and his logic here does not overwhelm me. He certainly understates the case against Bill Clinton. In addition to the serial philandering (which included using state troopers as lookouts for Hillary) As an attorney general in AK Bill Clinton was accused of rape (Juanita Broderick) As Gov. he had a trooper bring a state employee to him and dropped his drawers. As president, he groped a woman (name slips my mind) who came to him to plead for her husband's job and while she was there her husband committed suicide (not to mention getting a blow job while in the Oval Office from Monica Lewinsky).
-
Yes the double standard about Clinton vs Cain is obvious with regards to the MSM.
Someone points out that Jones didn't come out with her allegations for two years. However, this lady didn't come out with it for 14.
In any case for her to pretend she is so innocent and was cruely injured for life over this is a stretch. As Savage points out it was by her own statement a weird response on her part to state she told him she wouldn't do anything with him because she "has a boyfriend".
For her to say she is coming forward to give other women the strength to come forward is totally non believable. Of course she wants money out of this.
Allred has been making big bucks off these cases and of course is a liberal crat who relishes in taking down Republicans as she did the same to Arni and Meg.
Neither one in my book has much credibility.
OTOH Cain has proven he is in way over his head. I hoped he would handle this in a way he would've come out stronger but he obivously has no clue and his handlers are obviously not wrold class.
For me it is down to Mit or Newt. Just my armchair take.
-
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/chicago-radio-host-describes-cain-accuser-encounter-to-beck-she-bum-rushed-me-to-hug-him/
-
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-herman-cain-accuser-1108-20111108,0,2247743,full.story
Cain accuser has history of financial troubles, legal squabbles
Her father, fiance say they stand with her
10:03 p.m. CST, November 7, 2011
The emerging portrait of Herman Cain's most recent accuser shows a suburban homemaker with a history of financial and legal troubles, but one who supporters say has the guts to do the right thing.
Sharon Bialek, 50, is the fourth woman — and the first publicly — to accuse the Republican presidential hopeful of sexual harassment. In a dramatic news conference Monday in New York, Bialek, a former employee of the National Restaurant Association Educational Foundation, said she had sought Cain's help in finding a new job in July 1997 shortly after the organization had fired her.
Instead, Bialek said, Cain, who was then head of the restaurant association, reached under her skirt while the two were seated in a parked car and attempted to move her head toward his crotch. Cain's campaign quickly issued a denial, calling her allegations "completely false."
Bialek said she shared her allegations with her then-boyfriend and another male friend shortly after her meeting with Cain. However, the man she is now engaged to said she did not tell him about her history with the former Godfather's Pizza CEO until Friday night, when she told him she was going to New York for the news conference.
Her fiance, Mark Harwood, said he was in "a bit of shock" but admired her decision to come forward.
"It's not an anti-political thing. It's not a money thing," said Harwood, who shares a large, five-bedroom home with Bialek in north suburban Mundelein. "She's just trying to do the right thing, and that takes guts."
Born and raised in Chicago, Bialek graduated from Carl Schurz High School on the Northwest Side and briefly attended Northeastern Illinois University before enrolling at Arizona State University. She graduated from ASU in 1983 with a communications degree, a school spokesman said.
Records show she twice has filed for personal bankruptcy, first in 1991 and then again in 2001. In the latter case, she claimed $5,700 in assets and more than $36,000 in liabilities. Among the creditors seeking payment was a management firm demanding back rent of $4,500, four credit card companies and a lawyer asking for his legal fees.
After the case was discharged, she accused a former boyfriend of harassing her for repayment of a loan, court records in the bankruptcy case show. Bialek borrowed $4,500 from William Concha, though Concha now believes she had no intention of paying him back, according to his brother, Mario.
Reached Monday night in Spain, William Concha declined comment.
At least two liens have been filed against Bialek, according to records from the Cook County recorder of deeds.
The IRS filed a tax lien against her in 2009 for nearly $5,200. In August, the Illinois Department of Revenue claimed Bialek owed the state more than $4,300, including penalties and interest, relating to income taxes from 2004, according to county records.
Court records also show creditors took legal action against her during the past decade, including at least one lawsuit filed in Cook County.
Bialek's fiance, however, denied she had any current money problems. Harwood, a corporate executive in the medical equipment industry, said he supports her financially so she can stay at home with her 13-year-old son from a previous relationship.
Bialek has not had a job outside the home in about two years, according to her attorney, Gloria Allred.
After leaving the restaurant foundation in 1997, Bialek worked for five years in WGN Radio's marketing department, Allred said. A Tribune Co. spokesman declined comment on her employment with the station.
Bialek also spent 21/2 years at CBS Radio as managing director for nontraditional revenue, Allred said. She previously had co-hosted a cooking show on television for nine years and worked for Revlon as an account manager and for the Easter Seals Society in corporate development, according to her lawyer.
Allred described her client as a "registered Republican," though Bialek does not have an active voter card in Illinois, election officials said. The state does not allow voters to register by party, but records show she pulled a GOP ballot in the 2008 primary.
As well as becoming acquainted with Cain, Bialek has had at least one more famous friend over the years. Current White Sox analyst Steve Stone confirmed Monday night that he dated Bialek in the 1980s.
Bialek met her fiance online several years ago. After communicating via email for many months, they fell in love on their first date, which lasted 72 hours, Harwood said.
The couple moved in together four years ago and got engaged while vacationing in Venice, Italy, in June 2010.
"Sharon is very much one of these women with a huge heart and always trying to do the right thing," Harwood said. "Sometimes I have to pull the reins in."
Bialek told reporters she had not seen Cain for more than 14 years after the alleged incident, until she went to a tea party convention organized by WIND 560-AM in the northwest suburbs last month. While at the event, she approached Cain, who indicated he remembered her and looked uncomfortable, she said.
"I kept wondering whether he had done to other women what he had done to me and whether anyone was going to speak up about it," she said.
Monday night on CNN, Piers Morgan asked Bialek if she thinks Cain should become president.
"I don't think we can have anyone in the White House who is unable to tell the truth," Bialek replied.
Her father, Chester Bialek, said he did not know about his daughter's allegation until Monday. Reached at his home in Arizona, he said he was surprised by the revelation but supported her decision to come forward.
"I'm very proud of my daughter, that's all I can tell you," he said.
As TV trucks pulled up in front of her Mundelein home and reporters rang the doorbell, Harwood said his fiancee does not plan any legal action against Cain and does not intend to stand in the political spotlight for very long.
"We're in it together," he said. "My only concern is that it not become some type of media circus."
-
http://www.nomblog.com/8568/
My father, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, has been in politics as long as I can remember.
And as long as I can remember, media coverage about him has contained misstatements of facts. The vast majority are simple mistakes that are easily corrected, understood and rewoven into an ongoing storyline.
But one of them seems to have taken on a life of its own, and simple corrections have not sufficed to set the record straight. Why does this happen? I can't be sure, but I suspect that the narrative created by these untruths proves to be so much more compelling and more dramatic than what actually happened that it proves irresistible.
I'm talking about the story of my father's visit to my mother while she was in the hospital in 1980.
For years, I have thought about trying to correct the untrue accounts of this hospital visit. After all, I was at the hospital with them, and saw and heard what happened. But I have always hesitated, as it was a private family matter and my mother is a very private person. In addition, for the four people involved, it was one of a million interactions and was not considered a defining event by any of us.
My mother and I have both recently run into quite a few people who hold an inaccurate understanding of this hospital visit. Many think my mother is dead.
So, to correct the record, here is what happened: My mother, Jackie Battley Gingrich, is very much alive, and often spends time with my family. I am lucky to have such a "Miracle Mom," as I titled her in a column this week.
As for my parents' divorce, I can remember when they told me.
It was the spring of 1980. I was 13 years old, and we were about to leave Fairfax, Va., and drive to Carrollton, Ga., for the summer. My parents told my sister and me that they were getting a divorce as our family of four sat around the kitchen table of our ranch home.
Soon afterward, my mom, sister and I got into our light-blue Chevrolet Impala and drove back to Carrollton.
Later that summer, Mom went to Emory University Hospital in Atlanta for surgery to remove a tumor. While she was there, Dad took my sister and me to see her.
It is this visit that has turned into the infamous hospital visit about which many untruths have been told. I won't repeat them. You can look them up online if you are interested in untruths. But here's what happened:
My mother and father were already in the process of getting a divorce, which she requested.
Dad took my sister and me to the hospital to see our mother.
She had undergone surgery the day before to remove a tumor.
The tumor was benign.
As with many divorces, it was hard and painful for all involved, but life continued.
As have many families, we have healed; we have moved on.
We are not a perfect family, but we are knit together through common bonds, commitment and love.
My mother and father are alive and well, and my sister and I are blessed to have a close relationship with them both.
My sister and I feel that it is time to move on, close the book on this event and focus on building a great future. We will not answer additional questions or make additional comments regarding this meaningless incident, which occurred more than three decades ago.
As I said, my mother is a private person. She will not give media interviews. She deserves respect and should be allowed to live in peace.
-
second post-- following up with more detail to what GM already posted:
Who is Sharon Bialek?
Posted on November 8, 2011 by admin
As Ms. Sharon Bialek has placed herself in the public spotlight through making patently false allegations against Herman Cain, it is only fair to compare her track record alongside Mr. Cain’s.
In stark contrast to Mr. Cain’s four decades spent climbing the corporate ladder rising to the level of CEO at multiple successful business enterprises, Ms. Bialek has taken a far different path.
The fact is that Ms. Bialek has had a long and troubled history, from the courts to personal finances – which may help explain why she has come forward 14 years after an alleged incident with Mr. Cain, powered by celebrity attorney and long term Democrat donor Gloria Allred.
In the courts, Ms. Bialek has had a lengthy record in the Cook County Court system over various civil lawsuits. The following cases on file in Cook County are:
■2000-M1-707461 Defendant against Broadcare Management
■2000-M1-714398 Defendant in lawsuit against Broadcare Management
■2000-M1-701522 Defendant in lawsuit against Broadcare Management
■2005-M1-111072 Defendant in lawsuit against Mr. Mark Beatovic.
■2007-M1-189176 Defendant in lawsuit against Midland Funding.
■2009-M1-158826 Defendant in lawsuit against Illinois Lending.
Ms. Bialek was also sued in 1999 over a paternity matter according to ABC 7 Chicago (WLS-TV). Source: WLS-TV, November 7, 2011
In personal finances, PACER (Federal Court) records show that Ms. Bialek has filed for bankruptcy in the Northern District of Illinois bankruptcy court in 1991 and 2001. The respective case numbers according to the PACER system are 1:01-bk-22664 and 1:91-bk-23273.
Ms. Bialek has worked for nine employers over the last seventeen years. Source: WLS-TV, November 7, 2011
Curiously, if Ms. Bialek had intended to take legal action, the statute of limitations would have passed a decade ago.
Which brings up the question of why she would make such reprehensible statements now?
The questions should be – who is financing her legal team, have any media agreed to pay for her story, and has she been offered employment for taking these actions?
For More Information:
J.D. Gordon, Vice President of Communications
Friends of Herman Cain, Inc.
-
Third post:
Good conversation!
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report/index.html#/v/1265332888001/special-report-online-newt-gingrich/?playlist_id=86927
Now that we have learned that Newt did not divorce his dying wife on her deathbed, maybe the fact that he is head and shoulders above any of the other candidates will carry more weight.
-
Let's see if I have this right. Cain Accuser no. 4 is not convincing, has already accused and sued everyone, accusers 1, 2 and 3 are anonymous and not coming forward. The opportunistic liberal attorneys brought forward accuser no. 4, who is a registered Republican and nothing is even alleged to have happened on 5 who never got the message or attended the imagined romantic dinner. That figures. Friend of Anonymous 1 corroborates something contemporaneous was said, would come forward but stays anonymous to protect the anonymity of Anonymous Accuser 1. Is that about it? The Caper about the Copper Clappers with Jack Webb and Johnny Carson is easier than this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVkZZsS-66c
------------
Newt has one remaining episode to explain and then he is good to go. When did he start seeing Callista (1993?) and when did he quit starting every sentence with Marianne and I? (1999) The overlap was roughly during the time of the contract with America, the takeover of Congress, the government shutdown and the Clinton impeachment until Newt gave up his Speakership and resigned from his seat in Congress. Newt converted Catholic, but maybe should have gone with the Mormon defense.
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2010/08/an-unabridged-guide-to-all-of-newt-gingrichs-wives
-
Newt still has major character issues and questionable judgement that outshadow his considerable intellect.
Third post:
Good conversation!
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report/index.html#/v/1265332888001/special-report-online-newt-gingrich/?playlist_id=86927
Now that we have learned that Newt did not divorce his dying wife on her deathbed, maybe the fact that he is head and shoulders above any of the other candidates will carry more weight.
-
Woof,
I'm shocked!
AP Exclusive: Accuser filed complaint in next job
By BRETT J. BLACKLEDGE and SUZANNE GAMBOA - Associated Press | AP – 1 hr 5 mins ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — A woman who settled a sexual harassment complaint against GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain in 1999 complained three years later at her next job about unfair treatment, saying she should be allowed to work from home after a serious car accident and accusing a manager of circulating a sexually charged email, The Associated Press has learned.
Karen Kraushaar, 55, filed the complaint while working as a spokeswoman at the Immigration and Naturalization Service in the Justice Department in late 2002 or early 2003, with the assistance of her lawyer, Joel Bennett, who also handled her earlier sexual harassment complaint against Cain in 1999. Three former supervisors familiar with Kraushaar's complaint, which did not include a claim of sexual harassment, described it for the AP under condition of anonymity because the matter was handled internally by the agency and was not public.
To settle the complaint at the immigration service, Kraushaar initially demanded thousands of dollars in payment, a reinstatement of leave she used after the accident earlier in 2002, promotion on the federal pay scale and a one-year fellowship to Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, according to a former supervisor familiar with the complaint. The promotion itself would have increased her annual salary between $12,000 and $16,000, according to salary tables in 2002 from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Kraushaar told the AP she considered her employment complaint "relatively minor" and she later dropped it.
"The concern was that there may have been discrimination on the job and that I was being treated unfairly," Kraushaar said.
Kraushaar said Tuesday she did not remember details about the complaint and did not remember asking for a payment, a promotion or a Harvard fellowship. Bennett, her lawyer, declined to discuss the case with the AP, saying he considered it confidential. Kraushaar left her job at the immigration service after dropping the complaint in 2003, and she went to work at the Treasury Department.
Details of the workplace complaint that Kraushaar made at the immigration service are relevant because they could offer insights into how she responded to conflicts at work. She now works as a spokeswoman in the office of the Treasury Department's inspector general for tax administration.
Kraushaar's complaint was based on supervisors denying her request to work full time from home after a serious car accident in 2002, three former supervisors said. Two of them said Kraushaar also was denied previous requests to work from home before the car accident.
The complaint also cited as objectionable an email that a manager had circulated comparing computers to women and men, a former supervisor said. The complaint claimed that the email, based on humor widely circulated on the Internet, was sexually explicit, according to the supervisor, who did not have a copy of the email. The joke circulated online lists reasons men and women were like computers, including that men were like computers because "in order to get their attention, you have to turn them on." Women were like computers because "even your smallest mistakes are stored in long-term memory for later retrieval."
Kraushaar told the AP that she remembered the complaint focusing on supervisors denying her the opportunity to work from home after her car accident. She said other employees were allowed to work from home.
Kraushaar, who is married and lives in suburban Maryland, was among two women who formally settled harassment complaints against Cain in exchange for severance payments in the late 1990s when they worked at the restaurant association. Bennett has said Kraushaar settled her claim during the summer of 1999, shortly after Cain left the organization. Neither Kraushaar nor Bennett have described exactly what Cain was accused of saying or doing to Kraushaar when she worked there, although Bennett said Kraushaar wants to conduct a joint news conference with all the women who have accused Cain. The New York Times reported previously that Kraushaar received $45,000 in the settlement with the restaurant association.
Kraushaar agreed to discuss some aspects of the complaint at the immigration service if the AP agreed to protect her privacy, as it did in previous accounts of her complaint against Cain. She subsequently waived her privacy by confirming for news organizations her identity as one of two women who settled complaints against Cain, so the AP no longer is protecting Kraushaar's identity.
Cain has denied that he sexually harassed Kraushaar and others who have accused him of inappropriate behavior.
In a news conference Tuesday evening, Cain said allegations of sexual harassment by Kraushaar — whom Cain identified by name for the first time — were determined to be "baseless," but he did not explain who made this determination and Kraushaar has disputed this. Cain said that after negotiations between Bennett and the restaurant association's outside counsel she received money under an employment agreement, which Cain said was different from a legal settlement.
"When she made her accusations, they were found to be baseless and she could not find anyone to corroborate her story," Cain said.
Cain said he remembered gesturing to Kraushaar and noting that she was the same height as Cain's wife, about chin-high to Cain. The Georgia businessman said Kraushaar did not react noticeably, but he said the restaurant association lawyer later told him that was the most serious claim that Kraushaar made against him, "the one she was most upset about."
"Other things that might have been in the accusations, I'm not aware of, I don't remember," Cain said.
Sharon Bialek, a Chicago woman who once worked for the restaurant association's education foundation, accused Cain in a nationally televised news conference this week of groping her and attempting to force himself on her inside a parked car after they had dinner in 1997. Another woman told the AP that Cain made unwanted sexual advances to her while she worked for the association, and a pollster said he witnessed Cain sexually harass another woman after an association dinner.
Kraushaar's complaint at the immigration service prompted managers to use caution when writing and speaking to Kraushaar while the complaint was being investigated, another former supervisor told the AP. Two supervisors said Kraushaar asked a colleague to act as a witness when she had conversations with one manager after she filed her complaint.
The complaint at the immigration service was "nobody's business," Kraushaar said, because it was irrelevant to her sexual harassment settlement with Cain years earlier. "What you're looking for here is evidence of an employee who is out to get people," she said. "That's completely untrue."
Kraushaar, who started her career in Washington as a reporter, was praised for her work in 2000 when she traveled to Miami to help agency officials during the coverage of the Elian Gonzalez case, when federal agents seized the boy from relatives to return him to his father in Cuba.
"Ms. Kraushaar's assistance was invaluable and her performance extraordinary," wrote Robert A. Wallis, the immigration service district director in Miami. Kraushaar provided seven such letters of recommendation to show that her performance was commendable while working at the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the restaurant association and the immigration service.
P.C.
-
Dust in the Wind: Time for the EPA to Go!
by Newt Gingrich
The key to eliminating our oppressive regulatory regime is simply to replace the existing bureaucracy rather than try to reform it. The current systems are so entrenched that we need to start over with new organizations and new people.
Overbearing bureaucrats are especially prominent at the Environmental Protection Agency. The arrogance, economic ignorance, and dictatorial attitude of the current organization are well known throughout much of America.
The EPA bullies and dictates to businesses, small towns, and states. It routinely tells states what they have to do and then claims not to be at fault when the states tell local communities and businesses they must comply.
The EPA has become a clear example of "bureaucratic socialism"—an ingenious adaptation of European socialism.
Under "bureaucratic socialism," you get to own your company, but federal bureaucrats tell you how to run it.
Two recent events surrounding the rumors of stiffening "dust regulation," which led to a new height of anger against the bureaucrats, highlight the need to replace the EPA with a brand new Environmental Solutions Agency.
In a speech last week, EPA Administrator Linda Jackson acknowledged the anger when she said people referred to her officials as "jack-booted thugs."
What was amazing about her comments was her complete inability to ask why people would use terms like "jack-booted thugs" to describe the agency's behavior. She exhibited a total unwillingness to listen to her critics or try to understand their frustration.
Similarly, a Washington Post report on the dust rules was so infuriatingly one-sided and dishonest that it was easy to see why many Americans feel their concerns are trampled by an evasive bureaucracy.
On November 3 the Washington Post ran a story that claimed members of Congress were working to "ban [a] phantom EPA dust rule."
With great glee, the Post writers reported:
"Earlier this year, Republicans found what they saw as an ideal talking point to illustrate a federal bureaucracy gone batty.
"The Environmental Protection Agency, they warned, was trying to regulate something only God could control: the dust in the wind.
"'Now, here comes my favorite of the crazy regulatory acts. The EPA is now proposing rules to regulate dust,' Rep. John Carter (R.-Texas) said on the House floor. He said Texas is full of dusty roads: 'The EPA is now saying you can be fined for driving home every night on your gravel road.'
"There was just one flaw in this argument: It was not true.
"The EPA's new dust rule did not exist. It never did."
I was stunned by this assertion.
Everywhere I had gone in Iowa, people had been complaining about the proposed dust rule. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R.-Iowa), a senior and informed leader in the Senate, had been speaking out against the rule aggressively. In fact, he assigned a staff person to fight the EPA over the proposed rule.
The assertion that it was never considered was plainly dishonest.
Although there was never a formal proposal to create the rule, the prospect of stricter dust regulations had been on the table for months after EPA panels gave conflicting recommendations. Since the EPA makes no distinctions between urban, industrial dust and dust from agriculture or rural roads, many rural Americans were justifiably terrified that the agency was dragging its feet. It was not until mid-October that the EPA finally said it wouldn't tighten the rules, as its panel had recommended.
The Post's characterization of the issue as "hubbub over this phantom rule — surely one of the most controversial regulations that never was" was both false and insulting to the 112 House members and 26 Senators who had cosponsored legislation to prevent the agency from regulating farm dust.
The article, obviously based on one-sided, dishonest EPA description of the fight, suggested all of these elected representatives and their staffs were ignorant and cynical, instead of acknowledging their legitimate concerns on behalf of rural Americans. It was the Washington elite at its most infuriating.
Rep. Kristi Noem, a freshman Republican from South Dakota, the author of the bill on farm dust regulation, issued a powerful statement of myths and facts demolishing the EPA argument.
Between an administrator, who jokes that Americans perceive her officials as "jack-booted thugs," and widespread dishonesty and evasion about proposed dust regulations, it is clear the EPA must be replaced, not reformed.
We need a true Environmental Solutions Agency to replace the EPA—an agency that will emphasize innovation, collaboration, common sense and economic rationality. It can't be done with the same old bureaucrats. It will require new people in a new institution.
Your Friend,
Newt
-
Ending the EPA doesn't seem politically feasible, won't play well beyond the base. Redefining its scope is long overdue. We have pollution control agencies in 50 states. The focus of the Feds, like interstate commerce, should be limited to just those areas and issues between states where emissions in one is contaminating another and the two are unable to work it out between themselves.
One good point of Newt's attack is that Bush was afraid to fire obvious hack-zealots for fear of making himself look political. Newt is addressing it head-on.
-
MITT ROMNEY IN A RUT
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on November 8, 2011
Printer-Friendly Version
Mitt Romney has maintained his one-quarter vote share in the Republican contest against all comers...and against those who stayed home. Whether confronting hypothetical threats from Donald Trump, Mitch Daniels, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin or Chris Christie -- or real ones from Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry or Herman Cain -- the former Massachusetts governor, with maddening consistency, has gotten a quarter of the primary vote.
But the key question for Mitt is whether his glass is one-quarter full or three-quarters empty. No matter what the matchups, he never drops below one-quarter of the vote or rises above it.
It would seem that 75 percent of the Republican primary voters will vote for anybody but Romney, no matter the flavor du jour. And, when candidates fade, their vote share is picked up by the next flavor du jour, rather than going to Mitt Romney.
Right now, Herman Cain, on the strength of his bold and audacious 9-9-9 program, has surged into a tie with Romney. Hopefully the baseless charges against Cain will fade away or be discredited. But if they are not, one can already see former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) poised to inherit the wind. Anybody but Romney!
As the field narrows down to a few candidates, will the Ron Paul voters -- or those now for other candidates -- come to Mitt, or will they embrace anybody but?
And, should Romney win the nomination, this lack of enthusiasm among three-quarters of the GOP vote does not augur well for his capacity to generate the turnout among his party's base he will need to defeat Obama in November.
It is not that Romney is only getting a quarter of the vote, it is that three-quarters oppose him no matter his opponent or what's going on.
Why the aversion to voting for Romney?
Perilously, his support comes mainly from the establishment of the GOP. He is the favorite of the Fortune 500, the Club for Growth, chambers of Commerce, Wall Street and party insiders. But his appeal is much more limited among evangelicals and Tea Party supporters.
In a sense, Mitt is a traditional Republican candidate harking back to the days before Ronald Reagan united the economic conservatives, the national-security backers and the evangelicals under one tent. Unfortunately for Romney, it was the union with evangelicals -- now increasingly recast as Tea Party supporters -- that let Reagan create a majority electoral coalition. Romney must follow in those footsteps if he hopes to win.
Mitt's position supporting RomneyCare in Massachusetts and his flip-flop-flip on abortion and gay rights cause understandable concern among conservative voters. Less reasonable is the aversion to a Mormon candidate among evangelical Protestants. But, regardless of its cause, Romney's candidacy is now reaching too limited a base for success in November.
The energy and kinetic enthusiasm that must animate the Republican campaign has to come from precisely the voters who are, at best, now lukewarm to Romney's candidacy.
Disappointingly, it seems that Romney is not as willing as he should be to reach out to the Tea Party groups. Recently, he rejected an invitation from the Tea Party Patriots -- the largest of the Tea Party groups -- to a Lincoln-Douglas-style debate on Nov. 28 covered by C-SPAN. While Romney can hardly be accused of ducking debates -- it seems he is in one every few weeks -- it was a needless affront to a group that embraces more than half of the Tea Party organizations to plead a scheduling conflict for the date. (Even though it is my birthday!)
Romney must not sit on his lead and calmly watch the other candidates battle it out. He needs to do more to reach out to the GOP base, with which he is badly out of touch.
-
What is the case for the unethical nature of the lawyers who are going after Cain using the sex harrasment angle.
Alred and Bennett don't give attorneys a good name with political assasination on evidence that is so shoddy it would clearly go no where in a court of law.
When does this become defamation of character? I think it already is though for Cain to pursue this avenue probably would just prolong the political damage. If he loses can he not sue these attorneys? The clients have no money it sounds.
-
I thought tonight's debate was very good. A few snap impressions:
a) Newt had set the tone with his praise of his fellow candidates. Nary a snarky word was heard all night and several positive comments were made about other candidates.
b) I thought Newt was the strongest one there by far. The depth of his answers impresses. His ability to handle "wife beater" questions smoothly is a vital skill and one in which he exceeds all the other candidates-- but Ron Paul comes close on economics.
c) Perry continues to show himself to be all hat and no cattle. He makes Dubya Bush look positively eloquent, and his moment where he couldn't even remember all three of which departments he would eliminate will be causing much merriment around the net tomorrow.
d) ALL the candidates continue to improve. The high number of debates has been a good experience for all of them and they are all better for it.
e) the CNBN reporters thought themselves part of the debate, respresenting the Demcrat side. Very funny moment when Newt looked at the cute reporter (forget her name) and said "That is humor posing as a question." She tried calling him on it and his response nailed it. You are in waaay over your head sugar!
-
The Left’s Special Hatred of Herman Cain
Posted By Arnold Ahlert On November 10, 2011
In his press conference on Nov. 8, Tuesday afternoon, Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain defiantly addressed the claims against him, rejecting them in full. “The machine to keep a businessman out of the White House is going to be relentless,” Cain robustly affirmed. But the machine Cain referred to is not overly concerned with his business acumen. Rather, the leftist media hit squad, personified by celebrity sleaze lawyer Gloria Allred, has mobilized for the primary objective of destroying the most prominent African-American conservative on the scene today. This is not coincidental. The Left reserves a special destructive zeal for Republican minorities of any variety.
The Left’s distinct hatred of Herman Cain has been transparently evident for some time now. Its assaults rely on classic racist stereotypes of black stupidity and sexual preoccupation. The belittling of Cain’s intelligence and achievement has taken especially appalling and humiliating forms. In August, on Keith Olbermann’s newly resuscitated “Countdown” show, now on Current TV, progressive harridan Janeane Garofalo neatly summarized how such white leftists view any black American who dares to eschew progressive ideology. “[Cain's] a businessman,” she said sarcastically, continuing:
Whoever pays him. And he may have a touch of Stockholm syndrome. There may be a touch of Stockholm syndrome in there because anytime I see a person of color or a female in the Republican Party or the conservative movement or the Tea Party, I wonder how they could be trying to curry favor with the oppressors. Is it Stockholm syndrome, or does somebody pay them?
Stockholm Syndrome is a psychological condition in which hostages express sympathy and/or empathy with their captors. Thus for Garofalo and her odious ilk, Herman Cain couldn’t possibly be a free-thinking individual. He’s either mentally impaired or simply so stupid as to be exploited by his oppressors for pay.
Garofalo is hardly alone. Speaking on Martin Bashir’s program on MSNBC, Democratic strategist and MSNBC analyst Karen Finney offers a similar take on Mr. Cain: “One of the things about Herman Cain is I think that he makes that white Republican base of the party feel okay, feel like they are not racist because they can like this guy,” she explains. “I think he is giving that base a free pass. And I think they like him because they think he’s a black man who knows his place. I know that’s harsh, but that’s how it sure seems to me.”
HBO’s Bill Maher, offering a rundown of Republican presidential candidates last May, offered the same rationale to his viewers. “Herman Cain, I never heard of this guy, but apparently he ran Godfather’s Pizza, and Republicans say they love him so they’re not racist–right.” And MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell took Herman Cain to task, insinuating that he and his father were little more than house Negroes. MSNBC host Ed Schultz contended Herman Cain panders to “white Republicans out there who don’t like black folks” while “The View’s” Joy Behar warned Herman Cain that the Republican party “hasn’t been black friendly over the many centuries in this country,” a statement of stunning historical ignorance. Jon Stewart mocked Cain’s manner of speaking and said he didn’t like to read.
What’s telling is that every one of the above statements and interviews occurred before the first story about Cain’s alleged sexual harassment was reported by Politico. The fix has always been in.
The Politico stories–more than 90 and still counting since last week–represent an interesting shift. Two nameless women accusing Cain of “sexually suggestive behavior…that made them angry and uncomfortable” turns Cain into a potential predator. When Sharon Bialek appeared on the scene on Monday the accusations moved from sexual harassment to those that could be construed as sexual assault. As a result, the alleged predator becomes a potential criminal.
From what we know so far, Cain’s description of Bialek as a “troubled woman” is putting it politely. If it were a left-wing politician in the crosshairs, when it is the accusers who are actually on trial, Politico would probably have run 90 stories on her chronic failure at life management and record of desperate living standards. Despite claiming she isn’t in it for the money, a friend described her as “a complete gold digger. It’s all about the money.” She has also declared bankruptcy twice, lost several court judgments for large debts, hasn’t held a job for two years and lives with her fiance–who said he only learned of the allegations as recently as last Friday. Furthermore, a witness who saw her encounter with Cain last month at a Tea Party event claims Bialek and Cain “hugged like old friends.” Not exactly as tantalizing to the media as the number of anonymous sources Politico has talked to, which talk show hosts endlessly repeat.
Just as curious and unsavory is the involvement of Gloria Allred in this case. She is a staunch Democratic supporter, having donated more than $10,000 to Democratic candidates and party committees, according to Federal Election Commission records dating back to 1998. Her role in the controversy is somewhat unclear — If Bialek’s claim that she has no intention of filing either criminal or civil litigation is true, why does she need a lawyer? How exactly did they become involved together? The answer to those questions might be far more enlightening than anything revealed by either woman so far.
One of the original anonymous women cited in the Politico stories stepped forward on Tuesday. Yet much like Bialek, 24 hours after Karen Kraushaar went public, she appeared less credible as well. The Associated Press revealed that Ms. Kraushaar, who settled her complaint against Cain with the NRA, filed another complaint three years later, when she was working as a spokesperson for the Immigration and Naturalization Service. She demanded to be allowed to work at home after a car accident, and accused a manager of circulating a “sexually charged email.” Other initial demands, filed by the same lawyer she used against Cain, included thousands of dollars in payments, a reinstatement of leave she used after the accident, a promotion, and a one-year fellowship to Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. “The concern was that there may have been discrimination on the job and that I was being treated unfairly,” Kraushaar contended. Ironically, considering the details the media expect Cain to remember about 14-year-old charges, Kraushaar, claimed she didn’t remember any of the details of her second complaint. Perhaps the memories of some complaints are more vivid than others.
America is witnessing the grim determination of a movement that cannot countenance the idea that a black American could possibly embrace conservative values. Such an embrace is a mortal threat to a political party that must continually convince black America that any ideology that steers individuals away from lives of government dependency and low expectations is something to fear. Like Clarence Thomas before him, Mr. Cain has been charged with the one type of allegation that the Left couldn’t have cared less about when Bill Clinton was under the microscope.
The effort to smear both Cain and the Republican party continued on NBC’s “Today” show on Tuesday. In response to a question from Ann Curry, who contended that Republicans want Cain to “go away” because he’s “continuing to suck the air out of the narrative the Republican party really wants to tell,” David Gregory, host NBC’s “Meet the Press,” said there is no “Grand Wizard in the party right now who can really force the issue.” Someone might want to remind Gregory that the most recent member of the KKK to inhabit the federal government was the late Democratic Senator Robert Byrd. Later in the day Gregory tweeted an apology saying he didn’t mean to “make the connection at all.” Sure he didn’t. Perhaps the best statement to sum up the ongoing progressive attempts to take down yet another black conservative was made by one of their own.
To paraphrase Bill Maher, “leftists aren’t racist–right.”
-
http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/16002149/investigator-herman-cain-innocent-of-sexual-advances
-
DAVID AXELROD'S PATTERN OF SEXUAL MISBEHAVIOR
By Ann Coulter - November 9, 2011
Herman Cain has spent his life living and working all over the country -- Indiana, Georgia, Minnesota, Nebraska, Kansas, Washington, D.C. -- but never in Chicago.
So it's curious that all the sexual harassment allegations against Cain emanate from Chicago: home of the Daley machine and Obama consigliere David Axelrod.
Suspicions had already fallen on Sheila O'Grady, who is close with David Axelrod and went straight from being former Chicago mayor Richard M. Daley's chief of staff to president of the Illinois Restaurant Association (IRA), as being the person who dug up Herman Cain's personnel records from the National Restaurant Association (NRA).
The Daley-controlled IRA works hand-in-glove with the NRA. And strangely enough, Cain's short, three-year tenure at the NRA is evidently the only period in his decades-long career during which he's alleged to have been a sexual predator.
After O'Grady's name surfaced in connection with the miraculous appearance of Cain's personnel files from the NRA, she issued a Clintonesque denial of any involvement in producing them -- by vigorously denying that she knew Cain when he was at the NRA. (Duh.)
And now, after a week of conservative eye-rolling over unspecified, anonymous accusations against Cain, we've suddenly got very specific sexual assault allegations from an all-new accuser out of ... Chicago.
Herman Cain has never lived in Chicago. But you know who has? David Axelrod! And guess who lived in Axelrod's very building? Right again: Cain's latest accuser, Sharon Bialek.
Bialek's accusations were certainly specific. But they also demonstrated why anonymous accusations are worthless.
Within 24 hours of Bialek's press conference, friends and acquaintances of hers stepped forward to say that she's a "gold-digger," that she was constantly in financial trouble -- having filed for personal bankruptcy twice -- and, of course, that she had lived in Axelrod's apartment building at 505 North Lake Shore Drive, where, she admits, she knew the man The New York Times calls Obama's "hired muscle."
Throw in some federal tax evasion, and she's Obama's next Cabinet pick.
The reason all this is relevant is that both Axelrod and Daley have a history of smearing political opponents by digging up claims of sexual misconduct against them.
John Brooks, Chicago's former fire commissioner, filed a lawsuit against Daley six months ago claiming Daley threatened to smear him with sexual harassment accusations if Brooks didn't resign. He resigned -- and the sexual harassment allegations were later found to be completely false.
Meanwhile, as extensively detailed in my book "Guilty: Liberal 'Victims' and Their Assault on America," the only reason Obama became a U.S. senator -- allowing him to run for president -- is that David Axelrod pulled sealed divorce records out of a hat, first, against Obama's Democratic primary opponent, and then against Obama's Republican opponent.
One month before the 2004 Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate, Obama was way down in the polls, about to lose to Blair Hull, a multimillionaire securities trader.
But then The Chicago Tribune -- where Axelrod used to work -- began publishing claims that Hull's second ex-wife, Brenda Sexton, had sought an order of protection against him during their 1998 divorce proceedings.
From then until Election Day, Hull was embroiled in fighting the allegation that he was a "wife beater." He and his ex-wife eventually agreed to release their sealed divorce records. His first ex-wife, daughters and nanny defended him at a press conference, swearing he was never violent. During a Democratic debate, Hull was forced to explain that his wife kicked him and he had merely kicked her back.
Hull's substantial lead just a month before the primary collapsed with the nonstop media attention to his divorce records. Obama sailed to the front of the pack and won the primary. Hull finished third with 10 percent of the vote.
Luckily for Axelrod, Obama's opponent in the general election had also been divorced.
The Republican nominee was Jack Ryan, a graduate of Dartmouth and Harvard law and business schools, who had left his lucrative partnership at Goldman Sachs to teach at an inner-city school on the South Side of Chicago.
But in a child custody dispute some years earlier, Ryan's ex-wife, Hollywood sex kitten Jeri Lynn Ryan, had alleged that, while the couple was married, Jack had taken her to swingers clubs in Paris and New York.
Jack Ryan adamantly denied the allegations. In the interest of protecting their son, he also requested that the records be put permanently under seal.
Axelrod's courthouse moles obtained the "sealed" records and, in no time, they were in the hands of every political operative in Chicago. Knowing perfectly well what was in the records, Chicago Tribune attorneys flew to California and requested that the court officially "unseal" them -- over the objections of both Jack and Jeri Ryan.
Your honor, who knows what could be in these records!
A California judge ordered them unsealed, which allowed newspapers to publish the salacious allegations, and four days later, Ryan dropped out of the race under pressure from idiot Republicans (who should be tracked down and shot).
With a last-minute replacement of Alan Keyes as Obama's Republican opponent, Obama was able to set an all-time record in an Illinois Senate election, winning with a 43 percent margin.
And that's how Obama became a senator four years after losing a congressional race to Bobby Rush. (In a disastrous turn of events, Rush was not divorced.)
Axelrod destroyed the only two men who stood between Obama and the Senate with illicitly obtained, lurid allegations from their pasts.
In 2007, long after Obama was safely ensconced in the U.S. Senate, The New York Times reported: "The Tribune reporter who wrote the original piece (on Hull's sealed divorce records) later acknowledged in print that the Obama camp had 'worked aggressively behind the scenes' to push the story."
Some had suggested, the Times article continued, that Axelrod had "an even more significant role -- that he leaked the initial story."
This time, Obama's little helpers have not only thrown a bomb into the Republican primary, but are hoping to destroy the man who deprives the Democrats of their only argument in 2012: If you oppose Obama, you must be a racist.
COPYRIGHT 2011 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK
1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106; 816-581-7500
-
Interesting followup points on the debate from Crafty. Gingrich for sure is emerging as the alternative with the best timed surge to challenge Romney, but I think Romney will be the nominee. We will see. Gingrich's best moments may have been when his peers picked him for VP. That makes him look Presidential though it still is the male vote. The line about humor disguised as a question was excellent. When did the media get its economic coverage wrong, you must be joking, when have they ever gotten it right?
Who knows what to make of the Perry oops moment, radio news versions leave out the awkward struggling, but comedy shows won't. It exposed an inability to think on his feet and work around it. Should I suppose have quickly shifted to insisting on using his time to expand on the first two points. On follow up then insisted there will be plenty of federal programs facing the chopping block. I would prefer a discussion only of what federal functions we will keep. His stand on energy was already well-known. Other than that my reaction to Perry is somewhat neutral, not as negative as Crafty. For Perry, this was another great opportunity to gain momentum and he didn't.
AP has a story today, Romney stronger than ever: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/11/10/romney_stronger_than_ever_in_gop_race_112017.html
I think the truth on Romney is in between that assessment and the Morris take, is the glass 1/4 full or 3/4 empty? Tea Party types want better than Romney because it is still early and are still searching. They want electability, but they also want true conservatism and they want the power or persuasion to get it all done.
But the early part of the process is going to wrap up quickly. Iowa is Jan3. New Hampshire Jan. 10. South Carolina Jan. 21, Florida Jan. 31 and 4 more the week of Feb and done with super Tuesday on March 6. That means the one on one part of the general election campaign will likely be at least 7, 8 or perhaps 9 months long! Voters will pick the lowest risk candidate to hold up and prevail through all that. Who right now is that lowest risk candidate?
If Romney is the nominee, he will have promised a hundred thousand times to end Obamacare on his first day and have espoused endlessly his mostly conservative economic principles as contrasted with the incumbent. Whatever he thinks states should do, he won't suddenly spring Massachusetts Romneycare on the nation. He is smart enough to know, even if just poll savvy, that he can't win without nearly 100% of conservatives and more than half of the center. Obama will still be defending Obamacare, will never agree to end it, and will be inciting envy and division, whining about the need more failed artificial stimuli, and about how it is all other people's fault.
The vanilla candidate (no racial slur intended) unfortunately has the greatest ability to keep the focus on the failed opponent.
-
My own informal polling survey (i.e. my wife) reacted as follows
Perry's gaffe "OMG! What a dumbass!"
To Newt's 10 minute speech cited in the Newt thread a couple of days ago, her reaction was one focused, respectful interest. She really liked the way Newt cited the way Lincoln followed Douglas around and spoke after him and promised to do the same with Baraq until Baraq agreed to Newt's proposal for 7 three-hour Lincoln-Douglas debates.
Most everyone who hears this idea knows that Newt alone has what it takes to take Baraq down in such a format.
-
While I am basically ambivalent about the accusations against Cain, some still repeatedly called for Obama's college grades (as if they matter) and there are still a few blind and ignorant birthers out there, but no one calls for all the facts to be released in this matter. An issue that may or may not have substance. Let's review the actual accusations. The investigation, if any. The agreements. Etc. Why not let the chips fall.... And then let's move on to the real issues.
______________
Washington (CNN) -- When you consider the array of public men who have been forced, in one way or another, to come clean on their bad behavior, the list is not insubstantial: a president (Bill Clinton), presidential candidates (John Edwards, Gary Hart), governors (Mark Sanford, Eliott Spitzer), senators (John Ensign, David Vitter). And that's just the top tier.
The bar has been set -- and it's awfully low. And by the way, many of these men managed to crawl right under that bar and survive, even thrive.
Gloria Borger
Eventually, they found there was just one way out -- owning up to their own shortcomings. Sure, it may have been due to legal pressure. Or political reality. Or both. But some discovered the public can be forgiving, especially if it believes you have something important to offer to the nation. Just ask Bill Clinton, now serving as philanthropist to the world.
So now comes Herman Cain, accused of sexual harassment by four women. He calls the charges baseless and defends his integrity. His political campaign and supporters have gone into full damage-control mode, scrutinizing the women. All predictable -- and reflexive -- enough.
But here's the rub: Cain also tells us that the National Restaurant Association investigated the charges against him and found them to be "baseless." If he wants to get this behind him, how about getting the facts out? Give the association's board permission to release the results of their internal investigation, if there was a formal inquiry. Then, as they say, the truth will out.
And there's another plus: The partisans and the interest groups will have to start dealing with the facts. And the public can decide for itself.
It's not as if this predicament is new to us. Recall back in the day when Clinton was in the middle of the Lewinsky mess. Republicans were (rightly) outraged, demanding his resignation or impeachment. Feminist groups, by and large, remained largely on the sidelines or supportive of Clinton -- because he was, um, not a sexual harasser. Oh, and yes, he was good on their issues.
Now the tables have turned. Feminist groups are outraged by the charges against Cain and lots of Republican partisans are defending him, choosing to level their scrutiny on the women instead. (We've come a long way, baby, in that some conservative women's groups are criticizing Cain's I-don't-recall defense.)
Conservative CNN contributor Bill Bennett sees the hypocrisy of those who raised the red flag about Clinton, but not Cain. "For we who led the charge against Bill Clinton on a number of related issues to continue to blame the media or other campaigns or say it simply doesn't matter makes us the hypocrites as well," he wrote on CNN.com. He is, of course, right.
And it is exactly what we are seeing, much of it from the Cain campaign itself.
When declarations of innocence do not seem to be enough, there's the change-the-subject tack: How about fingering a leaker, say from Rick Perry's staff? When that's denied, back off. Then take a turn, and start decrying "anonymous" charges. When the charges are on the record, take on the accuser. And when all else fails, blame the media. And the liberal "Democrat machine."
Ah, it takes me back to the days when Monica Lewinsky was whispered to be a "stalker" and Hillary Clinton was taking on the "right wing conspiracy."
But here's what we learned in that case: The fact that Monica inappropriately bared her underwear to the president did not excuse his behavior. And the fact that Hillary was right about those who were "out to get" Clinton does not mean he was in the clear. It's just not that simple.
The voters will figure it all out, as always. The bar may be set low for the politicians, but the public somehow manages to rise above it.
-
"some still repeatedly called for Obama's college grades (as if they matter)"
They do, given that he was sold as the smartest guy in any room, when he's really just an affirmative action warm body.
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omHUsRTYFAU[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omHUsRTYFAU
-
JDN:
Methinks you miss quite a few real distinctions, but frankly after reading what has been posted here you are unpersuaded, I find I am little interested in parsing it out.
-
I wasn't making comparisons unless you are referring to my reference to the ridiculous demands for Obama's grades and the few Birthers still in existence.
Further, I don't think much of the general public is persuaded by Cain's constantly changing explanations. I'm not saying he's guilty of anything, but perception is the rule in politics.
Cain has not IMHO handled this situation well. My suggestion, or should I say Gloria Borger's suggestion is to simply lay out the facts rather than pointing fingers at the women, other Republicans, Liberal Democrats, the Media, et al. Assuming there is no substance, I would hope that the matter would die and everyone would then move on to important issues. It seems quite reasonable.
Is there something wrong with the facts?
-
JDN: I second Crafty's admonishment. My own sister makes your argument, which is essentially "where there is smoke there is usually fire." Said sister is a staunch conservative and wants to believe Cain. My response to her is similar to Crafty's response to you. Examine the evidence before you jump to an emotionally-based conclusion. There is plenty of evidence posted in this thread which casts serious doubt on the credibility of Cain's accusers. If you are unpersuaded after actually reviewing said evidence, then you are - quite frankly - not thinking clearly.
Crafty: I would pay big money to watch a series of Lincoln-Douglas-style debates between Newt and Obama. I think everyone knows that Newt would wipe the floor with Obama in such a setting, (as would Mark Levin, to mention just one other) and as such, Obama would sooner resign from the presidency than agree to this. I.E. - it ain't EVER going to happen.
-
Like your sister I too want to believe Cain. And, I too question his accusers.
But 4 of them? If 4 people saw smoke, even if I didn't trust them, I'ld still
want to see and check out if there is a fire. Wouldn't you?
It seems rather simple for him to lay out all the facts.
Then we would know if it's just harmless smoke. And everyone could move on.
-
I forget, did Cain forget and leave his secretary in a submerged vehicle, or wander around sloshed while soliciting women with his pants around his ankles?
Is there a semen stained blue dress?
What I'm asking is, is Cain actually a democrat?
-
Concerning Baraq trying to duck Newt's Lincoln-Douglas challenge-- check out his strategy in the final couple of minutes of this 10 minute clip-- which after a minute or two of speech intro pleasantries, is quite strong. Baraq wouldn't have a choice!
http://www.therightscoop.com/newt-gingrich-speech-at-ronald-reagan-dinner/
Newt will destroy Obama in such a context. It is an absolutely brilliant strategy!
I rather like the sound of President Gingrich! (the idea of Cain vs. Biden for the VP debates appeals to me too)
-
Dick Morris was Bill Clinton's pollster, so his opinion may carry particular weight on this subject :lol:
I learned something important from my polling in the Lewinsky scandal. While the political world and the media were focused on the narrow question of who was right, Clinton or Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr, most voters opted for a third choice: "We don't care. We don't want to hear more about this. This is no way to run a government or choose a president." Some resented the public discussion of oral sex, noting that their children were watching. They didn't want to hear it.
So it is with the accusations against Herman Cain. We are mired in the worst economic condition in eighty years and will not tolerate more talk about who invited whom up to their room and for what. We don't care. We don't want to know. We want you to go away and let us choose a president based on the serious and grave issues we are trying to consider. We think the media is a distraction and we want it to stop its drumbeat coverage. Pro-Cain or anti-Cain is irrelevant. We want the issue to go away!
This third dimension of public reaction was evident when the CNBC reporters in last night's debate tried to ask Cain about the accusations. The crowd would have none of it. When the reporters tried to couch the questions as relating to managerial ability or the character required of a CEO, they still hooted down the question. In that moment, I realized that Cain would survive for the same reason Clinton made it - we have more important things to worry about.
The media does not admit of this third dimension. Its mavens and executives give themselves the job of deciding what is news. They present the news. We render our verdict on it. That's how its supposed to work. But when the news media goes crazy covering something we don't care about, we make our voices heard. And that's what the audience did last night.
In the meantime, Cain was his usual charismatic, brilliant debater articulating his 9-9-9 proposal better than he ever has and demonstrating its centrality to solving our economic problems. The contrast between the statesmanship and breadth of his remedy and the tawdriness of the charges and counter-charges was evident.
In case the media didn't get the message, it is this: WE DON'T WANT TO HEAR, READ, OR SEE MORE ABOUT THIS STUPID STORY -- GO AWAY!
-
Crafty: While I certainly agree with you that this would be beautiful to watch, and would love to see it happen - I think you and Newt are overlooking two important factors:
1) Obama and his handlers will simply claim that agreeing to such a format would be "beneath the office of President" and the media echo chamber will repeat it endlessly.
2) The so-called "mainstream" media - quite unlike the media in Lincoln's day - will simply refuse to cover Newt's response speeches, or possibly replay/print only small sound bites.
I think Newt's quite naive to think that this strategy is going to be successful in today's media environment, much as I wish it were otherwise.
-
"I think Newt's quite naive to think that this strategy is going to be successful in today's media environment, much as I wish it were otherwise."
Agreed. Much of the public has been dumbed down to such a degree by the leftist indoctrination industrial complex that if it's not a soundbite or part of a late night host's stand up, it's beyond them.
Newt will be preaching to the choir.
-
Disagree completely.
The MSM needs "product"!
Should Newt become the Rep. candidate and he simply went wherever Baraq went and issued his challenge, it would become impossible to ignore.
-
Obama and his media minions will just resort to character attacks and assert that Newt is evil and racist.
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/282765
November 10, 2011 12:00 A.M.
The Real Cain Scandal
The law tolerates and encourages frivolous lawsuits.
The real scandal in the accusations against Herman Cain is the corruption of the law, the media, and politics.
Let’s start with the law. Some people may think the fact that the National Restaurant Association reportedly paid $45,000 to settle a claim made by one of its employees against Cain is incriminating.
Most of us are not going to part with $45,000 without some serious reason. But that is very different from the situation of an organization in the present legal climate.
The figure $45,000 struck a chord with me because, some years ago, my wife — who is an attorney — was fervently congratulated when her client had to pay “only” $45,000 in a jury award when the plaintiff was demanding $1 million, in a case that was as frivolous a lawsuit as you could find.
The person who was suing was a drunk driver, whose car went out of control and slammed into a tree. After the sheriff’s deputies arrested her, she sued them on dubious charges, and the sheriff’s department was glad it had to pay “only” $45,000.
The department was painfully aware of the uncertainty about what ruinous costs a jury might impose on the deputies.
The real scandal goes far beyond the case of Herman Cain and his accusers. The real scandal is that the law allows people to impose heavy costs on others at little or no cost to themselves. That is a perfect setting for legalized extortion.
The fact that neither judges nor juries stick to the letter of the law means that people who have zero basis for a lawsuit, under the law as written, can still create enough uncertainty to extract money from people who cannot afford the risk of going to trial.
As for a $45,000 settlement, that is what an organization would pay to settle a nuisance lawsuit — if it’s lucky.
If we had a legal system where judges threw frivolous cases out of court, instead of letting them go to trial, that would put a damper on legalized extortion.
If those who bring charges that do not stand up in court had to pay the other party for their legal fees — and had to pay for their time as well — these games could not go on.
It turns out that the women making televised charges against Herman Cain have histories that do not inspire confidence, including in at least one case a history of making similar complaints against others.
Another woman who has come forward tells of Herman Cain asking her, at some conference, to see if she could locate some woman in the audience who had asked him a question, so that he could take her to dinner. This apparently struck her as suspicious.
This too reminded me of something I knew about personally. Many years ago, I was at a conference where a woman made some very insightful comments, and I took her to lunch to continue the discussion.
It so happens she was a nun. Contrary to cynics, there is more than one reason for a man to take a woman to lunch or dinner.
The same mainstream media whose response to proven charges against Bill Clinton was “Let’s move on” is not about to move on from unproven charges against Herman Cain.
What role does race play in all this?
It is probably not racism, as such, that motivates these attacks on Herman Cain. The motivation is far more likely to be politics, but politics makes a prominent black conservative such as Clarence Thomas or Herman Cain far more dangerous to the Democrats than an equally prominent white conservative.
The 90 percent black vote for Democrats is like money in the bank on Election Day. A prominent black conservative who offers an alternative view of the world is a serious danger politically, because if that alternative view has the net effect of reducing the black vote for Democrats just to 75 percent, the Democrats are in big trouble at election time.
In this political context, merely defeating a black conservative at the polls or at confirmation hearings is not enough. He must be destroyed as an influence in the future — and character assassination is the most obvious way to do it.
-
"Disagree completely. The MSM needs "product"!"
My 2cents, Reagan began the technique of putting out the story for the evening news and staying with that one story all day so the networks had to cover it. He had a gift of simplicity and staying on message. Newt doesn't, but he could push his challenge until it gets covered. And then what?
Debates in this situation always elevate the challenger to be on the same stage at the same level as the Commander in Chief, leader of the free world. That alone is a victory for the challenger. The incumbent with all the advantages of incumbency always tries to avoid that, then agrees only to only what is necessary or customary. Obama will laugh off the demands of a challenger dictating terms, while throwing mud back at him. Then he will settle (my best guess) with having one of the traditional debates be in the format Newt is demanding. From that, the evening news will still pick just one 10 second sound bite out of that exchange and their story will not be that Newt ate the President's lunch. People will have to watch to get that.
-
http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=1&subcatid=4&threadid=5764615
Backed Huntsman once, never again
Member Since: Oct. 29, 2006
For Utah’s school choice movement, Jon Huntsman is a disappointment, the author writes.
Photo by AP Photo
In mid-2004, Jon Huntsman, who was running for Utah governor, sat in my Salt Lake City living room and asked about my political beliefs. I only care about one state-level issue, I told him: school choice.
“Vouchers are my main issue, too!” Huntsman replied. “Vouchers are the reason I am running for governor.” He waxed enthusiastically, “I want to go down in history as the voucher governor.” (These are direct quotes, to which I have two witnesses.)
On the strength of his display of conviction, I donated $75,000 to Huntsman’s campaign — becoming (I believe) his largest financial backer. In November, 2004 Huntsman won the election.
During the 2005 legislative session, now-Gov. Huntsman scuttled the progress of a voucher bill that had momentum in the legislature. State legislators in 2006 drafted another voucher bill that would have created the most universal, Friedmanesque school choice in the nation. Once again, to the dismay of Utah’s school choice movement, Huntsman worked behind the scenes to water it down, then signed a highly attenuated version.
The federal and state teachers’ unions quickly filed a referendum to withdraw it. Thus began a long, nasty, public controversy for Utah. Huntsman and I received invitations to debate teachers’ union officials and representatives across the state. I accepted. But Huntsman not only did not appear, he refused to make any public comment.
I sent word, asking, “I thought that this was your ‘main issue’, and ‘the reason you ran for governor’?” Huntsman replied with only a text: “Campaigning for vouchers is outside my comfort zone.”
This incident was not unique. Here is a similar episode that confirms how characteristic this behavior is for Huntsman. In 2005, I became aware of various sharp practices on Wall Street — including “naked short selling” — that were destabilizing our financial system. Utah ‘s legislature passed a bill that prevented Utah brokers from engaging in these manipulative practices.
Since most Wall Street brokerage houses have back-office operations in Utah, the bill would have curtailed the activity nationwide. Within hours of its passage, Huntsman signed and celebrated his support of the law on television and in news interviews. Wall Street lobbyists descended on Utah like locusts. They focused on Huntsman, who flipped his position in a backroom — just one day after publicly cheering the new law. Huntsman then used legal maneuvering to delay the law’s implementation. In 2007, Huntsman caused the law that he had so strongly supported to be virtually reversed.
In July, 2008, the financial system began imploding. Those same Wall Street banks demanded, and received, an unprecedented Securities and Exchange Commission Emergency Order, protecting them from precisely those practices that the original Utah law had sought to curtail. The Emergency Order was, in fact, far more aggressive than Utah’s law had been.
If Huntsman had not gone weak in the knees in 2006-2007, I have no doubt that the 2008 financial collapse would have been less severe.
History has given Huntsman two enormous opportunities to make a difference — but he has spent his life hugging the base. Having once been his largest donor, and having had substantial personal involvement with him, the possibility that he might be elected this nation’s president is something I now consider unthinkable.
-
It seems Cain is dropping like a lead weight in the polls.
"Cain is struggling with the charges of sexual harassment, and while most Republicans tend to dismiss those charges, roughly four in 10 Republicans think this is a serious matter and tend to believe the women who made those charges," CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said.
The survey indicates that only a bare majority of Republicans tend to believe Cain, and more than a third say he should end his presidential campaign. Among the general public, Cain has a bigger credibility problem - 50% of all Americans say they tend to believe the women and only a third say they believe Cain."
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/14/cnn-poll-gingrich-soars-cain-drops/?hpt=hp_t1
-
Sorry no link until she admits it but it has come to my attention that Herman Cain's wife is an Obama Democrat. I posted my view on that regarding the lost years of Ahnold in the Calif thread. If he slept with the restaurant gals, had govt officials arrange it, and if occupied the other party he could have been the 42nd President.
The truth test of allegations is measured in a poll? "50% of all Americans say..." Not all Americans have looked carefully into this and not all Americans vote at all much less in Republican primaries in early key states. For one thing it is called push polling and is scientifically tainted to run (Google search) "about 67,700,000 results for Cain allegations" and then ask people for their response and get a 50/50 split. For anyone out there believing the ONE accusation known, please answer convincingly: when did YOU quit beating your wife?
Newt does not deny a 6 year relationship during marriage 2 and his numbers are surging.
Cain has a two edged problem. While his support is softening, his cash donations are surging. Usually quitting the race has to do with running out of money as you run low on support.
It was THE story of the last 2 weeks, but the thigh touching allegation is not the only dynamic in the Cain candidacy or the Republican contest. There are foreign policy questions and there are voters with doubts on economic plans and there are people who do believe him but worry about electability.
-
This election might be about the economy, but the president will be forced to deal with the global chaos left by Buraq. Cain is especially weak in this area.
-
Romney does two things right here. Goes after Obama on another one of these revealing deep thoughts, and in the piece he is photographed in an American factory with his hair mussed.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/romney-criticizes-obama-for-criticizing-u-s/
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/11/15/us/politics/caucus-romney-south-carolina-1115/caucus-romney-south-carolina-1115-articleInline.jpg)
According to the piece he may not have the Obama quote perfect and to that I would say to the President welcome to the club. You Mr. President and NYT distort for a living. (IMHO)
“We’ve been a little bit lazy over the last couple of decades,” Mr. Obama said. “We’ve kind of taken for granted — ‘Well, people would want to come here’ — and we aren’t out there hungry, selling America and trying to attract new businesses into America.”
Mr. Romney’s critique sounded a familiar theme in the Republican primary contest — that the president is out of touch with the ordinary American worker.
Mr. Romney, in an attempt to paint the president as out of touch, focused much of his speech here on reciting a litany of statements by Mr. Obama that he disagrees with.
“Before that, I think it was in October, he was saying that we have lost our inventiveness and our ambition, and before that, he was saying other disparaging things about America, and he was saying that we just weren’t working hard enough,” Mr. Romney said.
“I don’t think he gets what’s happening in this country, because the people in America are just as imaginative, just as ambitious and just as hard-working as ever,” Mr. Romney said. “In fact, we are the most productive nation in the world. The things we make per person in America exceeds that of any other country in the world. Our problem is not that the private sector isn’t productive enough. The problem is the government sector is too heavy and too burdensome, and is keeping the private sector from growing and thriving like it should.”
-
My sympathies for Newt are of long standing record around here, yet I should mention Brit Hume's comments the other night on the Bret Baier Report: Now that Newt is number 1 or 2, there are things that are going to get scrutiny that haven't e.g. his ethics troubles while Speaker of the House, his demise as Speaker, etc.
-
SUPER busy-- Would someone be kind enough to give the URL for the debates that took place while I was out of town?
TIA,
Marc
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/11/13/full_cbsnj_republican_foreign_policy_debate.html
-
Thank you.
-
Just watched the debates last night. Overall I thought everyone did pretty well and some real differences were expressed.
Perry had a nice moment on a human level about his brain fart, but continues to underwhelm and comes across as a simplistic jingoistic Texan stereotype.
Ron Paul presented his POV without coming across as a crank.
Bachman actually sounded somewhat substantive at moments
Romney actually plainly stated that if all else failed, he would war on Iran to stop its nukes! (Did I get this right?!?)
For me, again Newt stood out head and shoulders above the rest. Tangentially I note how utterly he has set the standard that the others now follow when it comes to how they all talk about each other.
-
How do you guys feel about Herman Cain's recent brain fart in his interview, and his comment after it was over that he, "Isn't suppose to know anything about foreign policy?
-
How do you guys feel about Herman Cain's recent brain fart in his interview, and his comment after it was over that he, "Isn't suppose to know anything about foreign policy?
FAIL.
-
Some additional thoughts on the debate:
*Major division between Huntsman and Romney on China. Romney got the better of it I thought.
*Though the conversation about Afpakia was serious, I don't think anyone really came to grips with the idea that we are on a trajectory to leave Afg (with pretense at continuing to train) and that the place on the planet where AQ is closest to acquiring nukes is by snatching the ones the Paks are driving down the street.
Not saying I have any better ideas, just saying , , ,
-
There is an arresting moment in Walter Isaacson's biography of Steve Jobs in which Jobs speaks at length about his philosophy of business. He's at the end of his life and is summing things up. His mission, he says, was plain: to "build an enduring company where people were motivated to make great products." Then he turned to the rise and fall of various businesses. He has a theory about "why decline happens" at great companies: "The company does a great job, innovates and becomes a monopoly or close to it in some field, and then the quality of the product becomes less important. The company starts valuing the great salesman, because they're the ones who can move the needle on revenues." So salesmen are put in charge, and product engineers and designers feel demoted: Their efforts are no longer at the white-hot center of the company's daily life. They "turn off." IBM and Xerox, Jobs said, faltered in precisely this way. The salesmen who led the companies were smart and eloquent, but "they didn't know anything about the product." In the end this can doom a great company, because what consumers want is good products.
Jobs's theory of decline was elegant and simple as an iPad, and when I asked business leaders about it the past few weeks, they agreed, some with the kind of engagement that suggested maybe their own companies had experienced such troubles.
The theory applies also to our politics. America is in political decline in part because we've elevated salesmen—people good on the hustings and good in the room, facile creatures with good people skills—above people who love the product, which is sound and coherent government—"good government," as they used to say. To make that product you need a certain depth of experience. You need to know the facts, the history, how the system works, what the people want, what the moment demands.
You might say the rise of Barack Obama was the triumph of a certain sort of salesman. He didn't know the product, but he was good at selling an image of the product, at least for a while. In time even his salesmanship came to seem hollow. One of the most penetrating criticisms of Mr. Obama came again from Jobs, who supported him but was frustrated by him. He met with the president last year and urged him to move forward on visas for foreign students who earned an engineering degree in the U.S. Mr. Obama blandly replied that this was covered in his comprehensive immigration bill, which Republicans were holding up. Jobs told Mr. Isaacson: "The president is very smart, but he kept explaining to us reasons why things can't get done."
He does do that a lot. Nothing is ever shovel-ready with him. But leaders tell us how things will get done, how we can move forward. They can tease a small element out of a large bill, and get it passed.
Enlarge Image
CloseChad Crowe
.Mr. Obama is a very dignified and even somber man, but he never seems to get the seriousness of the moment, the sense that we're in a gathering crisis.
But then a lot of his would-be contenders seem unserious and unresponsive, don't they? Which gets us briefly to Herman Cain, who thought he was engaged in a yearlong branding experiment and wound up a serious contender for the GOP presidential nomination.
Mr. Cain's famous version of the brain freeze this week wasn't really that, a brain freeze. It was more like a public service. Because he was showing us a candidate for the presidency of the United States desperately trying to retrieve a soundbite and not even trying to hide the fact that he was trying to retrieve a soundbite. Because we're kind of all in on the game, and it is a game, right?
The reporter asked him if he agreed, in retrospect, with President Obama's decisions on Libya. Mr. Cain said, "OK, Libya." Ten seconds of now famous silence ensued. Then: "I do not agree with the way he handled it for the following reasons." Another pause, and then: "Um, no, that's a different one."
He was saying: That's a different soundbite.
Later, with an almost beautiful defiance, Mr. Cain told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: "I'm not supposed to know anything about foreign policy." That's what staffers are for. "I want to talk to commanders on the ground. Because you run for president [people say] you need to have the answer. No you don't! No you don't!"
More Peggy Noonan
Read Peggy Noonan's previous columns
click here to order her new book, Patriotic Grace
.Yes you do. It was as if history itself were unknown to him, as if Harry Truman told Douglas MacArthur, "Do what you want, cross the Yalu, but remember to tell me if we invade China."
As for the commanders on the ground, Mr. Cain clearly doesn't know something crucially important about modern American generals: that they tend to be the last to want to go to war and the last to want to leave. They're the last to want to go to war because they know what war is—chaos, destruction, always "a close-run thing." And they know the politicians who direct them to go to war often don't know this, or know it fully. But once action has been taken—once they've fought, seen their men die, planned, executed, taken and held territory—generals tend to counsel against leaving. Because they've worked with the good guys and seen the bad guys, and know what they'll do on our departure.
A candidate for president ought to be at least aware of this dynamic, and many other dynamics, too. To know little and to be proud of knowing little is disrespectful of the democratic process, and of the moment we're in.
The purpose here isn't to slam Mr. Cain but to point out that when Republicans talk like this—no, when GOP voters cheer Republicans who talk like this—it leads their opponents to smile in smug satisfaction.
A central line of Democratic attack against Republicans is that they're not really for anything, they just hate government. That, Democrats say, is why Republicans speak so disrespectfully of government as an institution, that's why they blithely dismiss the baseline requirements of a public office, as Mr. Cain does.
The charge that Republicans just hate government carries other implications—that they're stupid, that they're haters by nature, that they're cynical and merely strategic, that they enjoy having phantom foes around whom to coalesce, like cavemen warming themselves around a fire.
Republicans don't hate government, but they're alive to what human beings are tempted and even inclined to do with governmental power, which is abuse it. And so they want that power limited. It's not really that complicated. Democrats may try to paint it one way, but when they do, Republicans shouldn't help them. They should show respect for the moment. They shouldn't be unserious.
-
Some additional thoughts on the debate:
*Major division between Huntsman and Romney on China. Romney got the better of it I thought.
*Though the conversation about Afpakia was serious, I don't think anyone really came to grips with the idea that we are on a trajectory to leave Afg (with pretense at continuing to train) and that the place on the planet where AQ is closest to acquiring nukes is by snatching the ones the Paks are driving down the street.
Not saying I have any better ideas, just saying , , ,
As I understand it, Romney is talking tough on the Chinese, currency manipulation (as if we don't) and other things. Huntsman says Romney is just pandering to the tea party. Huntsman would do nothing about these problems, therefore avoid a trade war, and he is saying I think that Romney won't do anything about it either (same policy). Hard to land a punch with that.
----------
Over to AfghPakia... It is Huntsman who supports leave now. His reason is that it has been long enough - in other words no reason. Cain is more articulate here - Admits he doesn't know and would have to talk to the commanders. The crucial issue is what to do about Pakistan, home of nukes and AQ. It is the prolonged nature of our Afghan presence that has brought us actionable intelligence in Pakistan. It has been our relatively small foreign aid bribery that has given us the limited good side of the two-faced treatment we get from the government of Pakistan. There has been surprisingly little uproar over there to the continuing U.S. drone attacks and to the OBL kill operation. As a YA post described, we have a game hunting relationship with them.
The question remains: if and when the known bad situation in Pak becomes a crisis, are we better of to be stationed with forces and equipment next door or 12,000 miles away? I think the rest other than Huntsman and Paul get that, but fail to articulate it? After all we put into Iraq, how do we leave without keeping at least a base? Seems like a post WWII presence in Europe and Asia had a stabilizing effect.
-
After all we put into Iraq, how do we leave without keeping at least a base? Seems like a post WWII presence in Europe and Asia had a stabilizing effect.
The impression I get is that I don't think either Iraq or Afghanistan want us to stay. It seems to me we are being pushed out.
-
On an iPad in Chicag; difficult to type. JDN, IMHO you have been deceived. lots of folks wated us to stay in Iraq, but none are wiling to say s because for four years now Baraqv has made it clear he wants us out.
-
On an iPad in Chicag; difficult to type. JDN, IMHO you have been deceived. lots of folks wated us to stay in Iraq, but none are wiling to say s because for four years now Baraqv has made it clear he wants us out.
Who?
Perhaps "lots of folks wanted us to stay in Iraq", but I don't think the Iraqi's themselves wanted us to stay. That is the key.
Even Iraq's President, Foreign Minister and their Legislature i.e. the people of Iraq kept insisting that we should leave ASAP, basically saying we are not wanted.
As I have said, and frankly I think a lot of Americans agree, I'm not sure why we keep fighting wars where we are not wanted and not appreciated.
American lives and billions upon billions of dollars lost; for what?
Don't blame Obama. Frankly, I'm grateful we're out.
"The U.S. will pull its last troops from Iraq by the end of the year, President Obama announced Friday, after Washington and Baghdad failed to reach an agreement over a dispute on the legal immunity of the estimated 3,000 to 5,000 soldiers expected to remain in the country after December 31. Instead, the U.S. will leave about 160 military personnel to guard the embassy and manage the military relationship, over 4,000 private State Department security contractors, and a significant CIA presence. About 40,000 troops currently remain in Iraq in a training capacity.
The date of the December 31, 2011 pull-out was set in motion by President Bush in 2008, when he approved a deal calling for U.S. troops to withdraw by the upcoming date."
-
George Will was very tough on Newt yesterday:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/11/20/george_will_on_newt_gingrich_hes_the_classic_rental_politician.html
"Gingrich's is an amazingly efficient candidacy in that it embodies everything that is disagreeable about modern Washington. He's the classic rental politician," George Will said on "This Week" today.
"People think that his problem is his colorful personal life. He'll hope that people concentrate on that rather than on, for example, ethanol. Al Gore has recanted ethanol. Not Newt Gingrich who served the ethanol lobby, Industrial policy of the sort that got us Solyndra, he's all for it. Freddie Mac, he says, hired him as a historian. He's not a historian."
(He prefaced this with his weekly disclosure that Mrs. Will is advising the Perry campaign.)
-
It's still Bush's fault. I know he gets the pension and secret service attention, I hope he is still getting boots on the ground updates before he makes his final determination - 3 years gone by and counting.
The Bush 'agreement', FYI, was "subject to possible further negotiations". The negotiations to maintain a base, a fortress over the horizon as Democrats used to call it, a readiness to quickly address future threats, apparently never happened... because first and foremost this is about American political considerations now ahead of future American or global security interests, IMHO.
-
What do you do if "free" Iraq has stated very clearly and unequivocally that they simply don't want us there?
Further, Iraq felt so strongly about our timely withdrawal they they refused to grant legal immunity to any of our remaining troops; a condition
that I am sure Bush would have insisted upon as well. We hardly want our soldiers being charged with murder for collateral damage for example.
Combine this with an American public who overwhelmingly wants us out of Iraq and Afghanistan? Not many left who count who want us to remain.
Bush's fault? Heck, I give him credit. Bush started the ball rolling to get us out. Obama finished it and I'm, as well as most Americans, are glad we are getting out.
-
Credit and blame are sides of the same coin; it is 3 years out.
"What do you do if "free" Iraq has stated very clearly and unequivocally that they simply don't want us there?"
Things like negotiations, leverage, leadership and diplomacy come to mind. None of those were needed if your only goal was to read polls at home and exit no matter the conditions or ramifications.
-
Mitt Romney, the pretzel candidate
George F. Will, Published: October 28
The Republican presidential dynamic — various candidates rise and recede; Mitt Romney remains at about 25 percent support — is peculiar because conservatives correctly believe that it is important to defeat Barack Obama but unimportant that Romney be president. This is not cognitive dissonance.
Obama, a floundering naif who thinks ATMs aggravate unemployment, is bewildered by a national tragedy of shattered dreams, decaying workforce skills and forgone wealth creation. Romney cannot enunciate a defensible, or even decipherable, ethanol policy.
.Life poses difficult choices, but not about ethanol. Government subsidizes ethanol production, imposes tariffs to protect manufacturers of it and mandates the use of it — and it injures the nation’s and the world’s economic, environmental, and social (it raises food prices) well-being.
In May, in corn-growing Iowa, Romney said, “I support” — present tense — “the subsidy of ethanol.” And: “I believe ethanol is an important part of our energy solution for this country.” But in October he told Iowans he is “a business guy,” so as president he would review this bipartisan — the last Republican president was an ethanol enthusiast — folly. Romney said that he once favored (past tense) subsidies to get the ethanol industry “on its feet.” (In the 19th century, Republican “business guys” justified high tariffs for protecting “infant industries”). But Romney added, “I’ve indicated I didn’t think the subsidy had to go on forever.” Ethanol subsidies expire in December, but “I might have looked at more of a decline over time” because of “the importance of ethanol as a domestic fuel.” Besides, “ethanol is part of national security.” However, “I don’t want to say” I will propose new subsidies. Still, ethanol has “become an important source of amplifying our energy capacity.” Anyway, ethanol should “continue to have prospects of growing its share of” transportation fuels. Got it?
Every day, 10,000 baby boomers become eligible for Social Security and Medicare, from which they will receive, on average, $1 million of benefits ($550,000 from the former, $450,000 from the latter). Who expects difficult reforms from Romney, whose twists on ethanol make a policy pretzel?
A straddle is not a political philosophy; it is what you do when you do not have one. It is what Romney did when he said that using Troubled Assets Relief Program funds for the General Motors and Chrysler bailouts “was the wrong source for that funding.” Oh, so the source was the bailouts’ defect.
Last week in Ohio, Romney straddled the issue of the ballot initiative by which liberals and unions hope to repeal the law that Republican Gov. John Kasich got enacted to limit public employees’ collective bargaining rights. Kasich, like Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, is under siege. Romney was asked, at a Republican phone bank rallying support for Kasich’s measure, to oppose repeal of it and to endorse another measure exempting Ohioans from Obamacare’s insurance mandate (a cousin of Romneycare’s Massachusetts mandate). He refused.
His campaign called his refusal principled: “Citizens of states should be able to make decisions . . . on their own.” Got it? People cannot make “their own” decisions if Romney expresses an opinion. His flinch from leadership looks ludicrous after his endorsement three months ago of a right-to-work bill that the New Hampshire legislature was considering. So, the rule in New England expires across the Appalachian Mountains?
A day after refusing to oppose repeal of Kasich’s measure, Romney waffled about his straddle, saying he opposed repeal “110 percent.” He did not, however, endorse the anti-mandate measure, remaining semi-faithful to the trans-Appalachian codicil pertaining to principles, thereby seeming to lack the courage of his absence of convictions.
Romney, supposedly the Republican most electable next November, is a recidivist reviser of his principles who is not only becoming less electable; he might damage GOP chances of capturing the Senate. Republican successes down the ticket will depend on the energies of the Tea Party and other conservatives, who will be deflated by a nominee whose blurry profile in caution communicates only calculated trimming.
Republicans may have found their Michael Dukakis, a technocratic Massachusetts governor who takes his bearings from “data” (although there is precious little to support Romney’s idea that in-state college tuition for children of illegal immigrants is a powerful magnet for such immigrants) and who believes elections should be about (in Dukakis’s words) “competence,” not “ideology.” But what would President Romney competently do when not pondering ethanol subsidies that he forthrightly says should stop sometime before “forever”? Has conservatism come so far, surmounting so many obstacles, to settle, at a moment of economic crisis, for this?
georgewill@washpost.com
-
Yes, G. Will is very tough on Romney. Ethanol subsidies probably aren't the best test for purity on principles. Pawlenty, author of Courage to Stand, said in his announcement speech (in Iowa) that he would end subsidies to ethanol. Later he said he didn't get an applause for that line - how's he doing now? Perry says no federal subsidies for any of the energies. Also not surging, each for different reasons.
People think conservatives have a purity test. What a joke. We are look for candidates with views we agree with, just like centrists and liberals do. We would like to find one candidate who shares our principles AND can stand at least even with the incumbent on competence, moral integrity and communications skills. That should not be too much to ask.
The polls opening in a little over a month, and it will come down to electability. Romney may seem like a wishy washy, poll watching, principle lacking mish mash of positions held, a 'recidivist reviser of his principles', but he is still in the strongest position.
Will's point that Romney is becoming less and less electable is interesting. The reason we searched through all these others is that a clear contrast in direction would make for a better chance at governing and solving our problems. Technocratic competency questions bring it back to the person, not the direction. Obama will save the day though by making even Romney look like a sharp turn toward conservatism. With all I find lacking in Romney, he is not really another Dukakis.
-----------
Looking again at those already written off, Glen Beck had Michele Bachmann on a radio interview for 45 minutes yesterday and said he agreed with every word she said. She is probably the most connected of any of them on foreign policy - she at least receives intelligence from her committee assignments - but she has no executive experience and this propensity to go running off on wrong, small things.
-----------
The always interesting Dennis Miller was on Leno last night. He liked Cain a while back but didn't find him ready enough, now leaning toward Romney, and he likes Gingrich. He said of Gingrich that people should see the video of his daughter - the story about the hospital room was not true, but that piece does not remove Newt's baggage, political and personal.
-----------
Rich Perry on a Fox panel, link below, is worth a watch. He starts with his deer in the headlights smile but follows with pretty good substance. Krauthammer asks him an excellent question on his tax proposal, why not put a sunset provision on the old code. Instead of fake some answer, he said that is a pretty good idea and would consider it, and went on to show how they used a sunset provision elsewhere to repatriate American assets back into the economy. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/11/21/rick_perry_goes_on_the_special_report_panel.html I think he might be next to get a second look and make a mini-comeback. That doesn't make his flaws and earlier flops go away either.
One of these folks will soon be the nominee.
-
I just gave another $25 to Newt.
-
I just gave another $25 to Newt.
They say admitting you have a problem is the first step to getting better..... :wink:
Is there a 12 step group for this?
-
I had some fun back when his approval rating was about 70% predicting that Barack Obama would not be the nominee of his own party. Names like Evan Bayh and Jim Webb came up. I would oppose these too but for the party of JFK these choices are not as anti-capitalism, anti-freedom and anti-growth as the incumbent today.
Instead those who see his political weakness think the perfect answer to their cause is his ideological clone Hillary Clinton. :-( That is not what I meant!
------
I saw my first Obama 2012 bumper sticker this weekend in the city of Liberal Lakes. The new sticker doesn't say Obama-Biden; no running mate is mentioned. It didn't say Obama either - that name isn't polling well either. It only says 2012 with the Pepsi-like logo for the Obama hope change marketing concept in the place of the zero. Very concise, but is President Zero really the marketing image he will spend a billion dollars to reinforce?
He wishes he had results at zero to run on...
(http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt114/dougmacg/Change-Image-What-We-Could-.jpg)
-
I too still like Newt. "NA" stands for Newt anonymous. Last night saw Mitt. While the substance of what he says is correct he just doesn't take it to the opposition like Newt. Like he still has the need to soften his tone when speaking about Brock, with phrase like "he means well". Get rid of that. He doesn't mean well. He is out to get rid of America as we know it. And he is not honest about it. Why keep calling him a nice guy who is just misinformed. Brock is well aware of what he is doing and he is fully aware he is not telling us the truth.
I agree with Crafty here. Newt don't back down. I want to see him and Mitt "duke it out" and lets see who can make the case better for stark choice between Brock's one world government socialism and America as we know it.
Mitt just doesn't inspire me. Yet it ain't about me. It is about the independents. So who can get their attention better, Mitt or Newt? As always they decide the election. So I am a pragmatist in the end.
-
My feeling about Mitt is that there is a 50% chance he could be a great President. No one has come forward offering a 100% chance. My hope is that Mitt's flip flop period had to do with wanting to bee elected in Massachusetts. That counts against him in terms of integrity and in terms of risk of bad policies later but at his core my hope is that he more conservative and more pro-free enterprise than he is showing. I can't stand his rich guilt stand on marginal rates. No way should we let progressivity get worse in the tax code get worse as Mitt would allow, and I say that looking up from the lowest bracket.
Newt to me presents risks too, perhaps greater, both in terms of jumping around on policies and that his personal story will keep some people from voting for him. He is more controversial I think especially as you move toward the center and gives the left more to tee off on. I liked that he was the best debater. I like that Crafty stood up and took a stand for him. Now I don't like as much that Newt is saying he is the best debater; that comes across better with others saying it. Another debate tonight and he will have quite a chance to shine because he has given for more thought to all the foreign policy questions. Besides setting a clearer direction he can use that to be far harder on Pres. Obama. Obama has had a couple of successes. Those don't excuse the foreign policy nightmare that marks the rest his Presidency. VDH has covered in nicely in his 'Works and Days' column and Newt is capable of that.
If he is the nominee, I think Mitt's debate capabilities will look better against Pres. Obama than he did against the Republican challengers. It is an easier contrast to draw and he has so carefully kept from letting himself be painted as extremist.
Newt is back on private accounts for SS. A great idea with probably lousy timing. Of course those private accounts will require an individual mandate...
-
Great debate last night-- great format, great questions, great performances by most of the candidates. Perry is clearly in way over his head.
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/
-
The debate was good. The candidates are all better. The formatt seemed improved with more leeway on allowing candidates to speak longer and answer each other rather than 30 second sound bites. Less "gotcha" stuff I thought.
Mitt looked great. Strong on defense. Newt too.
MSLSD is in full Democratic machine mode every day and night attacking the Rep candidates. CNN gloriously points out about Newt and his money endeavors. Not a peep about GE, MSLSD and the WH.
-
An interesting take by a well known conservative....
"Herman Cain, Erickson wrote, has no shot, because female voters will desert him in the face of the sexual misconduct charges that are eclipsing his campaign.
“He’s down at least 10 points with women in Iowa. He’s falling even further and doesn’t even realize it,” Erickson said. “He’s largely been emboldened by a conservative media that is so used to standing by its men that too few are telling Herman that he is now at the point where he must actually sit and answer questions whether he wants to or not and whether he feels maligned or not and whether I think he should have to or not.”
Similarly, he said, Newt Gingrich’s tangled marital history (three wives) dooms him with the same voting bloc."
“Mitt Romney is going to be the Republican nominee. And his general election campaign will be an utter disaster for conservatives as he takes the GOP down with him and burns up what it means to be a conservative in the process,” Erickson wrote.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-erickson-romney-20111108,0,2321512.story?obref=obnetwork
-
I think a lot of people, including women, see through the politics of personal destruction at work against Cain. IMHO his problem is he just does not seem fully ready for prime time on a number of issues, particularly foreign affairs.
His initial support was as the anti-Romney in the wake of Perry's collapse, which came in the wake of Bachman's collapse triggered by the contrast with Perry's executive experience and her own not-ready-for-prime-time comments.
Now he is being measured by the standard being set by Newt, , , and an improving Romney.
Anyway, here's the profile on Cain from today's WSJ:
By DOUGLAS A. BLACKMON And NEIL KING JR.
When Herman Cain entered Atlanta's Morehouse College in the fall of 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. had just delivered his "I Have a Dream" speech. During his first semester, four black girls were killed in a Birmingham, Ala., church bombing. Young African-Americans flocked to Dr. King's call for nonviolent action or its more radical offshoots.
ZumaPress
Herman Cain at Morehouse in 1966.
.Mr. Cain steered clear of the strife boiling around him. The son of a chauffeur to the former chairman of Coca-Cola Co., Mr. Cain pursued his own self-advancement with steady focus.
"I wasn't determined to make social change," Mr. Cain said in an interview. "I wanted to earn some change…I wanted to make some money."
Mr. Cain's plain-spoken charm has shaken up the Republican presidential nomination contest and pushed him high in the polls, a surprise success diminished only slightly by allegations of sexual harassment relating to his lobbying work in the 1990s. Yet for many, he remains an enigmatic figure defined by his time as a businessman and talk-radio host. Left unclear is how the events of his life shaped his political beliefs.
The answer, based on interviews with Mr. Cain and his classmates at the historically black Morehouse, can be found in a value system common among an older generation of African-Americans: work hard, seize every educational opportunity, always go to church, never get arrested and rely on no one but yourself.
Mr. Cain's closest brush with the turmoil of that era, based on his own recollection, was when he and a group of high-school friends almost refused an order to go the back of a bus, but ultimately complied.
ZumaPress
Mr. Cain with fellow high-school senior Martha Jones in 1963.
.For many who suffered some of the worst of the South's racial abuses, blocked economically by Jim Crow laws and excluded from the state Democratic parties in the region, that single-minded preoccupation with self-improvement was a defining characteristic.
Until the middle decades of the 20th century, African-Americans in the South who found ways to vote were generally aligned with the Republican Party—the party of Abraham Lincoln.
By the end of the 1960s, the vast majority of African-Americans had become committed Democrats in response to the national party's embrace of civil-rights legislation. But vestiges of the GOP tradition remained, especially in urban areas such as Atlanta.
"A lot of us in the South at the time were Republicans," said Ed Rutland, a classmate of Mr. Cain's. "My father was a Republican. In fact, I was a Republican."
ZumaPress
Mr. Cain at age 5 in Atlanta, where his family moved in the late 1940s.
.Mr. Cain's credo of self-determination is the core message of his campaign—a promise to solve the country's most complex problems with what he sees as uncomplicated common sense, such as his 9-9-9 tax plan. He believes that, with hard work, every person can become a "CEO of self" and achieve great personal wealth.
On the campaign trail, he has defied what he perceives as political correctness, sparring with critics who questioned his lack of involvement in civil rights and battling reports that he sexually harassed several women in the late 1990s, some of whom were employees. Giving no quarter, he has castigated his accusers and the journalists who dug into the claims.
"The media's rules say you have to act in a certain way," Mr. Cain wrote in a blog posting earlier this month, referring to how he had responded to the accusations. "I am well aware of these rules. And I refuse to play by them."
When asked during a lengthy interview in late October to describe his moment of political awakening, Mr. Cain turned the conversation to his economic aspirations. He was 16 years old and learned he would have to earn at least $10,000 a year to qualify for an American Express card.
Morehouse College archives
Mr. Cain in his college yearbook in 1965.
."And I remember thinking to myself, 'One day, I want to make $20,000 a year,'" he said. "So my goal materialistically was I wanted two American Express cards."
By his own account, Mr. Cain didn't formulate his political views until he was in his late 50s, after two decades working his way up the career ladder at Coca-Cola, Pillsbury Co. and Godfather's Pizza. From there he became a restaurant-industry lobbyist, a motivational speaker and a talk-radio host.
Mr. Cain said he can't recall being in discussions about civil-rights activities while at Morehouse, or attending sit-ins and demonstrations in Atlanta during his high-school and college years. The presidential contender said he can't remember whom he voted for in some presidential elections from the 1970s, and that he didn't register as a Republican for another three decades.
"I didn't even know what a conservative or liberal was," he said of his college years.
"Herman was a good student," said one of his classmates, William Howard, now a Baptist pastor in Newark, N.J. "But he was not particularly outspoken on any of the great issues that were confronting us at the time."
Enlarge Image
CloseZumaPress
Mr. Cain at Disney World in 1971.
.Both of Mr. Cain's parents left poor farms in the Tennessee and Georgia countryside at 18 years of age. His father, Luther Cain Jr., moved the family from Memphis to archly segregated Atlanta in the late 1940s, when Herman Cain was two years old.
His mother worked as a maid. His father got jobs as a janitor, a barber and finally as the driver and personal assistant to Robert W. Woodruff, the legendary Coca-Cola executive and one of the most powerful business figures in the South until his death in 1985.
That job changed the family's fortunes. It also had a formative impact on the young Herman Cain.
Mr. Woodruff periodically made gifts of cash and Coca-Cola stock to Luther Cain, who worked for the Coke magnate from the late 1950s until around the time of his own death in the 1970s. Breaking into a bass imitation of the CEO, Mr. Cain describes how the family got help paying for his college education: "Luther, I hear your son is over at Morehouse. Here's a little something to help you out with that tuition." Some close relatives of Mr. Woodruff said in interviews they are supporting Mr. Cain's presidential campaign.
Enlarge Image
Close.Mr. Cain said Mr. Woodruff's wealth impressed on him how powerfully the free market rewards success. His dad's work as a well-paid servant also left its mark. "I wanted to be comfortable differently," he said. "That's what inspired me to make good grades. That's what inspired me to go to college."
During Mr. Cain's high-school years, Atlanta was ablaze with civil-rights demonstrations, the most dramatic of which were student marches and sit-ins aimed at desegregating lunch counters and department stores. Large numbers of young people were arrested, but Mr. Cain said his parents told him to stay away—guidance many young African-Americans got from their parents and teachers at the time.
In the city-bus incident, Mr. Cain recalls, he and some high-school friends were told by the driver to move to the back as white passengers piled aboard.
"We were just old enough to be belligerent enough to refuse," Mr. Cain said. "But we decided we didn't want to go to jail. One day we wanted to get a good job. We didn't want to give the cops an opportunity to shoot one of us saying we were being disorderly…So reluctantly we moved to the back of the bus."
By the time he was at Morehouse, Mr. Cain worried he might disappoint his father's boss. "Mr. Woodruff wouldn't have been too pleased if Luther's son was in jail because he was throwing bottles and demonstrating," he said.
Mr. Cain realized he had arrived less well equipped for college than many other students, despite having graduated second in his high-school class. He took remedial reading and worked weekends at an auto-repair shop and stocking shelves at a grocery store his dad opened as an investment. He earned a reputation as a striver who was sensitive about his economic status but largely indifferent to the civil-rights drama around him.
"Herman's thoughts were always about making himself better than he was," said Walter Burns, a classmate who is now a pastor at a Baptist church outside Atlanta. "He abhorred his economic station."
Roswell Jackson, a retired book salesman in Teaneck, N.J., and Mr. Cain's closest friend at Morehouse, recalls a man who was gregarious, friendly and a moderate drinker. "Herman would be among the first on the dance floor, whether he happened to be a good dancer or not," he said.
Some Morehouse graduates have criticized Mr. Cain for being disengaged from the civil-rights movement. Horace Bohannon Jr., who sometimes shared lecture notes with Mr. Cain as an underclassman and later became a follower of Stokely Carmichael and his "black power" movement, said he perceived in Mr. Cain a disdain for students who became more deeply involved in the turmoil of those days. "We were hellbent on changing this society and the structure of the South," he said. "There was sort of a resentment toward us by Herman."
But others from that era say that many students at the school focused on preparing for careers, and that some faculty members discouraged open participation in marches and similar activity.
"Most of the Morehouse fellows did not participate," said Wesley D. Clement, a classmate of Mr. Cain who is now an eye surgeon in Charlotte, N.C. "Your main target and goal was to prepare yourself for business and life. Not that we were ignorant of what was going on or didn't favor what was going on. But we were not involved in the things that some people would have called more radical at that time."
Mr. Cain said he was far from oblivious to the country's racial inequities and that without the civil-rights movement his career options would have been limited.
Mr. Cain avoided some of the most heated moments of the 1960s, and he said his recollections of that era are hazy. He said he doesn't recall being aware of Dr. King, a 1948 graduate of Morehouse, ever visiting the campus, including a convocation during Mr. Cain's senior year at which Dr. King was the featured speaker and the glee club performed. Mr. Cain sang baritone for the glee club all four years at Morehouse.
In his 2011 book, "This is Herman Cain!", the candidate appears to mix up facts relating to the desegregation of the universities of Georgia and Alabama. Mr. Cain also mistakenly said in the October interview that a high-profile protest against a restaurant owned by Lester Maddox, a white supremacist and later Georgia governor, occurred before he arrived on campus, rather than while he was there.
"All of that preceded me being in college," Mr. Cain said. "I never participated in anything like that."
A spokesman for Mr. Cain said later that Mr. Cain stands by his recollections.
After Morehouse, Mr. Cain took a job as a civilian ballistics analyst with the Navy. While working there, the federal government paid for him to pursue a graduate degree at Purdue University, where he earned a master's in computer science.
Five years after graduating, he returned to Atlanta and entered corporate life with a lower-management job his dad helped secure for him at Coca-Cola. Fearing he would forever be known there as the son of Mr. Woodruff's chauffeur, Mr. Cain followed his boss to a job at Pillsbury in 1978.
He was soon running a division of Burger King, then was put in charge of reviving Pillsbury's wobbly subsidiary, Godfather's Pizza, which he eventually went on to buy with a number of partners.
Mr. Cain was such a rarity as a black man in the upper echelons of the restaurant business that a 1989 article in Restaurant News called him "the Jackie Robinson of the food-service chain industry."
He said he drew few political interpretations from his career, except that his success demonstrated to him that racial barriers for African-Americans had largely fallen away. He regarded his achievements simply as proof of what personal focus and hard work could accomplish. "I was totally apolitical," he said.
That began to change when he was living in Omaha, Neb., where Godfather's is based. In 1988, Mr. Cain believed a push in Congress to raise the minimum wage imperiled his efforts to rescue the company. "I'm going, 'Wait a minute. I fixed all the stuff inside the company that I can fix, and now I'm going to get hit upside the head by the government?'" he said.
Then came 1994, the year after Democrats passed an income-tax surcharge to reduce the deficit. He says he was stunned when his personal tax bill increased. "It was just a sneak-a-tax,'" he said. "It only affected people of a certain category…That's why I became a conservative."
Mr. Cain said he remained a registered independent until three years later, when the late Republican leader Jack Kemp of New York invited him one afternoon to a political event at Sylvia's, the famed soul-food restaurant in Harlem.
When the group arrived, Mr. Cain said, "this big muscular black guy yelled, 'Black Republicans? You guys must be Uncle Toms.'"
"That statement haunted me for days," he said. As soon as he got back to Omaha, he registered as a Republican for the first time.
Write to Neil King Jr. at neil.king@wsj.com
-
Erick Erickson isn't exactly a highly regarded analyst, but I heard him make that same case as a guest host on someone else's radio show recently. The interest uber-Lib James Oliphant' has in it is to find the most defeatist right-wing view and spread it around.
Of course Cain has an issue with the women's vote while these charges fester and doubts against electability cast to everyone else. That doesn't mean we won't learn more about the veracity of those charges before votes are cast - and as Crafty already pointed out - other considerations.
Of course Gingrich has a 3 wives with overlap problem. Isn't that part of the problem Rudy the previous election cycle frontrunner ran into. We are not breaking any new ground here.
"Mitt Romney is going to be the Republican nominee." - Again back to conventional wisdom. I have written this multiple times as well.
"And his general election campaign will be an utter disaster for conservatives as he takes the GOP down with him and burns up what it means to be a conservative in the process"
This was the point of significance that Erickson is making and it is severely flawed. Erickson is saying that Romney is so centrist that no contrast can be made in the general election with Pres. Obama. That is wrong on 59 points in economics. It is wrong on the focus and direction of foreign policy. And it is wrong on ObamaCare. Obama will never take a step back on Obamacare and Romney will repeal it the first day after the swearing in ceremony. Every voter will have to deal with that contrast and current polling I've seen is 47% top 41% in favor of repeal. Romney will follow that with every Republican concession out there like verbal support for state solutions and federal laws protecting pre-existing conditions, opening markets across state lines etc. to attract moderates and centrists while the tea party types would be cast wanting to kill off the poorest among us.
Conservatives are wishing for a conglomerate candidate that doesn't exist. Maybe a Michele Bachmann with no foot in mouth problem and Rick Perry's executive branch governing experience, a Hermann Cain who also had 8 years as Secretary of State or Chair of the Joint Chiefs and no accusations, a Rick Perry governing record in someone who could articulate a thought in front of a camera, a Newt who lived the family life of Romney or a Romney who got elected in a blue state with the domestic economic views of Ron Paul. Folks, that person doesn't exist. I noticed early on that Redstate.com, where Erickson is editor/blogger, was in the tank for Rick Perry. I also had high hopes for Rick Perry. Then I had medium hopes for Rick Perry, now little hope for Rick Perry. I also held out medium hope for Tim Pawlenty. How we all deal with our own disappointments along the way is our own problem, but to say that Mitt Romney is not position to mount a serious general election challenge and stake out ground to the right of this opponent is pure nonsense.
-
MSM is in full swing doing everything they can to delegitamize the Rep field.
CNN is every day I turn it on spending inordinate amounts of time trying to debunk everything the candidates say.
You know the "keeping em honest" pitch. As though they are the final arbitars of truth and justice.
If that were the case they would be debunking Brock every single day - but they don't.
We NEVER hear from the MSM any criticism of the Dem party unless they include the Republicans in the criticism. It is never the party they go after. When that is the case it becomes all the politicians.
Cain has fallen in the polls more for his poor handling of allegations and indeed more because he is obviously not prepared to be a President - I doubt it is because of the allegations themselves.
-
"MSM is in full swing doing everything they can to delegitamize the Rep field."
-------------
http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/24/showbiz/nbc-bachmann-apology/?hpt=hp_bn7
NBC has apologized to Rep. Michele Bachmann after the house band for "Late Night with Jimmy Fallon" played an inappropriate song during her appearance on the show Monday... apologized for what happened and called the incident "not only unfortunate but also unacceptable,"...the show's band played the song "Lyin' Ass Bitch" by Fishbone as Bachmann first appeared on stage...
-------------
Just a misunderstanding, I'm sure the unfortunate choice of songs is no sign of institutional bias.
-
I think Limbaugh wondered what the reaction would be if "Ilike big butts" had been played when Moochelle Obozo waddled onstage.
-
Speaking of big butts , , ,
By PETE DU PONT
The coming political year, with presidential, House and Senate elections, will be one of the most interesting (and important) ones we have seen in a long while. The main challenge President Obama faces is persuading voters to re-elect him in spite of the disastrous results of his economic policies.
The declining economy has hit people on both ends of the economic spectrum, with the number of taxpayers with more than $1 million of income declining from from 400,000 back in 2007 to just 235,000 in 2009, and the number of people 16 older who have been unemployed over a year going from an average of 1.3 million in the last three recessions to 4.3 million in 2010. The Obama economy is the worst America has seen in four decades, with payroll employment today 5% lower than it was 41 months ago. Over the past three years, federal spending as a percentage of gross domestic product has been higher than at any time since World War II, adding $4 trillion to our national debt.
So what to do if running for re-election in these terrible times? Many people have asked if I think President Obama will be re-elected. No, as long as the Republicans pick a viable candidate, he stands likely to be defeated. But it seems possible that the Democrat Party will pre-emptively decide that the time has come for some fresh thinking about its ticket.
Democratic pollsters Patrick Caddell and Douglas Schoen have urged the president to forgo re-election for the good of his party and the nation. But those don't seem like factors that would necessarily influence this president. Instead we might see him decide to switch to a vice presidential candidate who will be stronger, better, and change the thinking of a majority of the Democrats--namely, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Last December a USA Today/Gallup poll found Mrs. Clinton to be the most admired woman in politics. A poll in March found that 66% viewed Mrs. Clinton favorably and just 31% unfavorably. Mr. Obama's numbers, which have since declined, were 54% and 43%; Vice President Joe Biden's, 46% to 41%. An October Time poll of last October pitted Mrs. Clinton against Republican candidates. She led Mitt Romney by 17%, Rick Perry by 26% and Herman Cain by 22%. Mr. Obama's leads in the same poll were 3%, 12% and 12%, respectively.
Paul Starr, co-editor of The American Prospect, a liberal-left magazine, has observed that 45 percent of the people who disapprove of Mr. Obama's performance view Mrs. Clinton favorably. It is fair to say that Mrs. Clinton's addition to the ticket would be a substantial gain for President Obama that he badly needs next November, since she is, as Mr. Starr notes, a member of the part of his administration that has the highest approval rating, and more important she has not at all been a part of the disastrous economic policies that have caused the Obama drop in popularity. Even better for Election Day, she would gain support among older white voters, who did not support Mr. Obama very much in 2008. Mr. Starr also cites a Suffolk University Florida poll that shows that Mrs. Clinton on the Obama ticket would win Florida for the two of them, even if Sen. Marco Rubio is the Republican's vice presidential candidate.
One more advantage: With Mrs. Clinton comes her husband, who would very much want to get his wife elected, and also might be interested in a position in the Obama-Clinton administration.
Add in that the Washington Democrats already see a political disaster coming: the Senate as well as the House is likely to have a Republican majority. Only two Republican Senate incumbents are vulnerable: the appointed Dean Heller in Nevada and elected Scott Brown of Massachusetts. By contrast, of the 23 Democrat-held seats up for re-election, political forecaster Larry Sabato sees six as safe for the Democrats, and two as likely GOP pickups. That will mean that Republicans need only to win one to four of the remaining 15 to take control of the Senate along with its House majority.
So will President Obama make the vice presidential switch? While it is not unprecedented, it is certainly unusual, and it would likely be seen in some quarters as a desperate act of a weakened president. But politicians in general, and this president especially, show a willingness to do such things if absolutely necessary to save an election. If it is just plain essential to Obama's winning re-election next November, it will soon come to pass.
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y76AjbMvo3E[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y76AjbMvo3E
Sir Rush a Lot
-
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/11/pakistan-tells-us-to-vacate-air-base-as.html
November 26, 2011
"Pakistan Tells U.S. to 'Vacate' Air Base as Border Strike Inflames Tensions."
"... Islamabad had already ordered the country's border crossings into Afghanistan closed, blocking off NATO supply lines, after the strike."
MEANWHILE: "Obama and family take in basketball game, chat with Bill Murray." He did comment on current events, noting that the tentative deal to end the NBA lockout seems to be "a good deal."
-
THE SHAPE OF THE PRES RACE
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on November 27, 2011
To understand the Republican Presidential race, grasp first that the party is one of
ideas. One is born into the Democratic Party. If you are black or Latino or poor
or gay or become a single mother, your partisan identity is often spoken for. But
you become a member of the Republican Party by agreeing with certain ideas. So
there are several distinct groupings within the Republican Party merged together by
shared ideals but with sharply different priorities and perspectives. Imagine that
each sector of the party is like a division in the NFL or in Major League Baseball,
with its own separate playoffs or pennant race and its own separate champion. Then,
the winners of the divisions meet in the primaries. We are still in the pre-runoff
phase.
Start with the Economic Conservative Division. These folks are deeply committed to
free market economics. Often from big companies and corporations, they tend to be
well off and to believe in capitalism and oppose redistribution of wealth. In their
division, the candidates were Mitt Romney, Donald Trump, Tim Pawlenty, Chris
Christie, and Mitch Daniels. Mitt is the only one left. He is the champ of that
division which guarantees him a berth in the runoffs.
Closely allied to them is the Establishment Republican Division. This was the group
that rallied to Bush-43 and impelled him to the nomination. They have to choose
between Romney, Perry, and Gingrich. They can't back Cain or Bachmann because both
are too much outsiders. Perry has disappointed them so they are going largely for
Mitt. But some will probably end up for Newt.
Then go to the Evangelical Division. They are motivated by religious and social
issues like abortion, gay marriage and such. The candidates were Mike Huckabee,
Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, and Rick Perry. Huck didn't run.
First Bachmann surged, then Perry and then Cain. But Cain fell back because of the
sex harassment charges. This block can't support Romney (although they will if he
is nominated) because he is Mormon and flip flopped on abortion. They are reluctant
to back Gingrich because of his personal issues. So they must choose among Perry,
Cain, Bachmann, and Santorum. They haven't chosen yet. But they will. One of
these candidates has to be in the runoffs because this group has to have a
candidate.
Then we go to the national security people. They are focused on defense, support
the war in Afghanistan and back tough protections against terrorism. Their possible
candidates are Gingrich, Bachmann, Perry, Romney, or Santorum. They won't back Cain
because of his inexperience and they disagree with Paul and Huntsman. Gingrich's
strong debate performance turned them on, but Romney is making a strong play for
their votes. Santorum could gain traction, but likely not. Perry wants their
votes, but he hurt himself by his lack of familiarity with the issues. They will
probably split between Newt and Mitt. Between their votes and those of the party
establishment Newt can pick up, it virtually assures Gingrich of a runoff birth.
Then there are the Tea Party folks. They focus on the federal deficit, the national
debt, reining in spending, holding down taxes, opposing Obamacare, and reducing
government regulation. They had, initially, to choose among Daniels, Christie,
Gingrich, Santorum, Perry, Cain, and Bachmann. They won't support Romney because of
Romneycare in Massachusetts (although they would if he is the nominee). With
Christie and Daniels out, they first went Bachmann because of her battle in Congress
to cut spending. Then they were seduced by Perry but his immigration position
turned them off so they went for Cain. Now they are worried about Cain and are
looking at Gingrich or Bachmann or maybe still Cain.
So that's the state of play. Romney has an assured runoff berth but nobody else
does. If Newt doesn't stumble over his consulting practice or personal issues, he
will likely make the runoff as the National Security candidate with good support
from the Party Establishment and Tea Party Divisions.
But that would still leave the Evangelicals out there. They can't back Romney due
to his religion or Newt because of his personal issues. So they will back someone
else - Cain, Perry, Bachmann, or Santorum. And a lot of Tea Party people - who
overlap with the Evangelicals - will also be looking at these candidates. One of
these four is going to be in the final mix.
Then it will likely be a three way fight: Romney, Gingrich, and an Evangelical/Tea
Party candidate to be named later.
This is the context of the Iowa caucuses. It is first and foremost a way to sort
out the Evangelical/Tea Party conundrum and come up with their candidate. That's
what January 3rd will be all about.
-
Morris set up that framework earlier in the year. It's muddled now but I agree with his conclusion, but a 3rd player is not guaranteed. Mitt and Newt are in the final group and the others are out IMO unless Perry starts acting like a winning candidate and to go from single digits sinking to a win Iowa.
Newt and Mitt could narrow the field by going 1 and 2 in Iowa and NH; either one could wrap it up early by winning the first 3.
-
Certainly DM has a good record as a pollster (thought quite a bit more superficial grasp of the other issues upon which he now feels qualified to pontificate) but I think you make better sense than he does here.
-
"I am not saying that the media aren't biased. I am not saying that there might not be a copy cat effect going on with number three. I am saying that at some point you have to recognize that there is a possibility that there is something there. And, when you run for the POTUS as a REPUBLICAN, you should expect that stories like these will break."
I think that when it's discovered that he attended a racist church for 20 years, got his house from a shady deal with a convicted felon and had his political career started by an unrepentant terrorist, he's done, right?
:roll:
So, you misquoted me to make a point. Cool. Let's get this straight, again. I did not vote for Obama. I won't be voting for Obama. What I am asking for is the media to actually be a watchdog. They are in this case.
Sex sells, GM. It is not as if the media turned a blind eye to the Weiner wiener scandal. It isn't Dem. v. Rep on this front. It isn't. And after all the conservative talk about Clinton and Weiner and etc., I am rather frustrated that this issue is seen as a media slant. Cain MIGHT have done the things he is accused of. I would think that his supporters, or those who want the best possible conservative in office, would want the truth to come out. And, if he emerges from this then he is really battle tested, and likely a stronger candidate for it.
You guys talk about immorality in the Oval Office all the damn time. Do you REALLY want to know the truth, or does your fondness for Cain cloud your willingness to learn that he might be less moral than he appears?????
http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/11/its-been-four-weeks-since-politico-broke-the-story-of-accusations-against-herman-cain/
It’s been four weeks since Politico broke the story of accusations against Herman Cain
Posted by William A. Jacobson Sunday, November 27, 2011 at 7:54pm
On Sunday evening, October 30, Politico broke the story that two women had complained about Herman Cain while at the National Restaurant Association. In that first week, Politico ran several dozen stories about the accusations without telling us what the accusations were, while characterizing the accusations as sexual harassment.
During the subsequent three weeks, the name of one of the accusers in the Politico story, Karen Kraushaar, was released, but she has refused to release details of the accusations she made, despite initially indicating she would do so, and it turns out this was not her only employment complaint. Another accuser with a dubious background, Sharon Bialek, came forward, but she was not part of the original Politico story and her supposed corroboration also was suspect.
While the media regularly referred to 4 or 5 accusers, we only knew the names of two of them and only knew the accusations of one of them.
But back to Politico.
After hundreds of articles at Politico, what do we know about the specific accusations against Herman Cain which gave rise to Politico’s original reporting: Nothing.
After hundreds of articles at Politico, what do we know about the specific evidence against Herman Cain which gave rise to Politico’s original reporting: Nothing.
Truly incredible.
-
http://www.unionleader.com/doclib/2011endorsement.html
For President, Newt Gingrich
By JOSEPH W. McQUAID
New Hampshire Union Leader Publisher
Published Nov 27, 2011 at 1:00 am
This newspaper endorses Newt Gingrich in the New Hampshire Presidential Primary.
America is at a crucial crossroads. It is not going to be enough to merely replace Barack Obama next year. We are in critical need of the innovative, forward-looking strategy and positive leadership that Gingrich has shown he is capable of providing.
He did so with the Contract with America. He did it in bringing in the first Republican House in 40 years and by forging balanced budgets and even a surplus despite the political challenge of dealing with a Democratic President. A lot of candidates say they're going to improve Washington. Newt Gingrich has actually done that, and in this race he offers the best shot of doing it again.
We sympathize with the many people we have heard from, both here and across the country, who remain unsure of their choice this close to the primary. It is understandable. Our nation is in peril, yet much of the attention has been focused on fluff, silliness and each candidate's minor miscues.
Truth be known, many in the liberal media are belittling the Republican candidates because they don't want any of them to be taken as a serious challenger to their man, Obama.
Readers of the Union Leader and Sunday News know that we don't back candidates based on popularity polls or big-shot backers. We look for conservatives of courage and conviction who are independent-minded, grounded in their core beliefs about this nation and its people, and best equipped for the job.
We don't have to agree with them on every issue. We would rather back someone with whom we may sometimes disagree than one who tells us what he thinks we want to hear.
Newt Gingrich is by no means the perfect candidate. But Republican primary voters too often make the mistake of preferring an unattainable ideal to the best candidate who is actually running. In this incredibly important election, that candidate is Newt Gingrich. He has the experience, the leadership qualities and the vision to lead this country in these trying times. He is worthy of your support on January 10.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=H3a7FC0Jkv8
One minute ad.
-
"Mitt Romney will take a smaller, simpler, and smarter approach to government."
Excellent - a perfect comeback and in your face to the Clinton strategy of "smarter" government (see my post under the Clinton thread). Yes smarter and more honest governent but smaller not larger like the liberals.
We have got to counter the dem machine idealogy that government is the answer to solving all the ills of mankind and every other ill affecting the Earth.
-
CCP, I agree. Romney is showing conservatives he can take the fight to Obama, show contrast and not buddy up like McCain did. He is saying how he will do it with substance, specificity and clarity - all in a one minute ad. The uproar to that ad from the Obama side is that the quotes were from 2008, but that was clearly identified at the start. The point is that the things people were excited about for candidate Obama, the Greek columns / Hyde Park guy, didn't happen, at least not in a positive way. I am skeptical anyone will make government much smaller, but perhaps the one who can reform the most is the one people find the least threatening. One part of smarter is send state governing responsibilities back to the states.
To unite Republicans and conservatives of all the types defined by Morris (economic conservatives, establishment, evangelical/social, national security and defense, tea party - fiscal and constitutional), Romney or whoever wins will need to embrace good points that came from the candidates who will leave the race and sell these points of conservatism successfully to centrists in contrast with our current failed direction.
------------
GM's update on the Cain story is quite interesting. Lost in the unknown of what didn't happen behind closed doors with really only one, not very credible personal allegation is that Cain also has showed he isn't ready on a couple of other matters of importance. Too bad, it would be great to have a real outsider with a real business and analytical approach walk in and clean house. The 9-9-9 plan is too bold for a 270 electoral vote win and immediate implementation when no real thought was given to handling the transition.
The conservative question still remains, who is the most conservative who can win the nomination AND the general election. Newt leads now in the last 4 polls but his surge is so recent. I don't think he will close the deal, but we will know very soon.
Unless a person lives or has influence in one of the first 4 states, I think the best thing you can do is go influence your own candidates and races for the House and Senate on both sides of the aisle in your area with your views. Democrats in competitive districts need to move their candidates away from the current anti-capitalism, anti economic freedom movement or they will fall. Republicans need to advance their principles, win, and then for a change, stick with them. If a Pres. Newt wins but jumps around too much to new ideas before the old ones are fully implemented (didn't we already end services baseline budgeting?), a strong principled congress could help keep him on track. Same goes for a Pres. Romney. If his economic plan and his undisclosed tax cuts are too timid, congress can pass the right plan and put it on his desk.
As GM put it about 2 years ago, this is a two election fix. We are now there and have used up our Mulligans.
-
" I am skeptical anyone will make government much smaller, but perhaps the one who can reform the most is the one people find the least threatening. One part of smarter is send state governing responsibilities back to the states."
Taking a page from Alinsky - if you want to change "them" pretend you are one of them.
Mitt can play he is a liberal and establishment guy but he is really behind the scenes - a great conservative.
Well one can only wish....
-
An Atlanta businesswoman accused GOP presidential hopeful Herman Cain of having had an affair with her that lasted 13 years, an Atlanta television station reported Monday.
According to Cain's attorney,
"Rather, this appears to be an accusation of private, alleged consensual conduct between adults -- a subject matter which is not a proper subject of inquiry by the media or the public. No individual, whether a private citizen, a candidate for public office or a public official, should be questioned about his or her private sexual life. The public's right to know and the media's right to report has boundaries and most certainly those boundaries end outside of one's bedroom door."
Surely he jests. Of course it's the public's right to know; he's running for President - part of his platform is "Family Values" and "trust". People have been driven out of office for less. I have no idea if it's true or not; but it's hard to make up a 13 year affair.
I've said all along I don't think he's qualified anyway, but this could be the nail in Cain's coffin.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/28/politics/cain-accusation-affair/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
-
I don't know when these problems accumulate to the point of counting without evidence. If true I agree with one opinion I heard expressed today. The double standard the media applies to Republicans and especially conservative Republicans is a fact. Rather than scream out unfair, we should embrace the higher standard as part of our brand. We hold our candidates to a higher standard. It is what we do, not just because they do.
Elephant in the room is that front runner Gingrich has the same problem as the new Cain accusation.
I don't like where the accuser reflexively gets examined, however if you want to get at veracity that comes next. ABC News is on it: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/herman-cain-denies-affair-allegation/story?id=15042918#.TtROZHJK0QY
-
I'm not quite sure "unfair" is appropriate; given only recently Congressman Anthony Weiner (Democrat) was driven from office for cybersex. His wife didn't seem to mind, and he just
used the internet and texted, yet he is gone... A lot less than...
But moving on to that "elephant in the room". You are right, Gingrich does have the same problem (repeatedly) as the new Cain accusation. And for Gingrich it's a fact; not an accusation.
He's a serial adulterer.
Following the logic of "we hold our candidates to a higher standard" and "embrace the higher standard as part of our brand" I presume in your opinion Gingrich is simply
not qualified since obviously he doesn't meet a "higher standard" or even a "lower standard". I mean does he even have a standard?
-
You can judge Newt. I was writing about the voters' dilemma. Weiner is disgusting. In general, Republicans purge their most disgusting as they are discovered. Democrats often don't. Weiner almost wouldn't leave. Marion Barry, the guy with the 100k in the freezer, Ted Kennedy, Dodd, Frank... Just my observation. Did one of those guys really drown the girl, not call for help, then win reelection with 62% of the vote the next year and go on to serve 8 more 6-year terms and to become the 3rd longest serving senator in U.S History?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/54/Mary_Jo_Kopechne.jpg/115px-Mary_Jo_Kopechne.jpg)
Mary Jo Kopechne, dead at 28
As for adulterers in the White House: Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton - more than half of recent Dems. Judge whomever you want. I already predicted Newt isn't the nominee. Same guy on the other side - no problem.
Obama and Huntsman are one allegation away from being the subject here.
-
Obozo seems not to have any bimbo eruptions. Just Gunwalker and Chicago green-graft corruption. No biggie, right, JDN?
-
Obama and Huntsman are one allegation away from being the subject here.
I wish Huntsman would be the "subject" of "anything", but unfortunately Huntsman is a nonentity in this race.
Yet he's qualified and clean; I kind of like that. I would have voted for him.
-
Since we are talking presidential in this thread, it should be noted that:
A. The JFK and LBJ daliances occured in a day when the media, generally, were much more "hands off" than they are now.
B. Ted Kennedy was denied the presidency, or at least a presidential nomination, by Democratic voters. And, most historians, pollsters, political science types think that was based in large part on his personal history.
C. Gary Hart was caught read handed, and withdrew from the presidential race.
You can judge Newt. I was writing about the voters' dilemma. Weiner is disgusting. In general, Republicans purge their most disgusting as they are discovered. Democrats often don't. Weiner almost wouldn't leave. Marion Barry, the guy with the 100k in the freezer, Ted Kennedy, Dodd, Frank... Just my observation. Did one of those guys really drown the girl, not call for help, then win reelection with 62% of the vote the next year and go on to serve 8 more 6-year terms and to become the 3rd longest serving senator in U.S History?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/54/Mary_Jo_Kopechne.jpg/115px-Mary_Jo_Kopechne.jpg)
Mary Jo Kopechne, dead at 28
As for adulterers in the White House: Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton - more than half of recent Dems. Judge whomever you want. I already predicted Newt isn't the nominee. Same guy on the other side - no problem.
Obama and Huntsman are one allegation away from being the subject here.
-
A. The JFK and LBJ daliances occured in a day when the media, generally, were much more "hands off" than they are now.
Bwahahahahaha!
Hands off? Like they tried to bury the Lewisnsky scandal until Drudge forced their hand? Like how they covered up "Silky Pony's" love child story until the Nat'l Enquirer broke the story?
-
No. Like there wasn't a 24 hour news cycle. Like when people didn't check news, etc. from their phones, but waited until the morning paper. Like when there were three networks, and you waited until the 6:00 news to get the day's news. Before blogs. There weren't constant feeds from FaceBook, Twitter (Weiner's demise) and other social media. Like JFK could ask the nation's leading newspaper not to run a story on the building Cuban Missile Crisis and it didn't (see Day 5: http://homepage.mac.com/oldtownman/filmnotes/thirteendays4.html). Before presidential campaigns were three years in the making. Before the media followed starlets around incessently. There were allegations that JFK slept with Marilyn Monroe. Can you imagine Kim Kardashian or whoever is the biggest, hottest name in Hollywood these days, going to the WH in secret???
-
John Edwards and Rielle Hunter; the affair US media won’t touch
LAST UPDATED AT 13:26 ON Tue 29 Jul 2008
American journalists are at sixes and sevens about how to cover the revelations about the two-times presidential candidate – and, until recently at least, a frontrunner for the position of Barack Obama’s running-mate - John Edwards. As reported yesterday on The First Post, the American scandal sheet the National Enquirer ran an apparently well-sourced story last week about catching Edwards (above left) staying in the same Los Angeles hotel as his alleged mistress, Rielle Hunter (above right), with whom he is also rumoured to have had a lovechild.
With the exception of Fox News, who have independently verified many of the Enquirer’s claims (that Edwards was in the Beverly Hilton room and that when the reporters jumped him as he was leaving he took refuge in a men's lavatory), none of the major news organisations has touched the story. What is more surprising is that even the political blogosphere, which would normally be all over such a tale, has shied away.
This has astonished journalist and satirical film-maker Lee Stranahan, who today has posted a blog on the Huffington Post, attempting to explain why there is still an apparent embargo in the US media. He asks first why Edwards hasn't denied the reports. "Let's go with the assumption that Edwards is innocent for a moment; he didn't have the affair so the baby isn't his. If he didn't do anything wrong then it seems like he'd have good reasons to stop the rumors. A DNA test months ago would have ended all speculation about the paternity of the baby. And if there are rumours and you're innocent, WHY go visit the subject of those rumours at a hotel and leave at 2:45 in the morning? Why hide in the bathroom when reporters catch you leaving?"
Stranahan believes there will soon be "a tsunami-sized scandal for the Democratic Party" and a "typhoon of press coverage is close to breaking", but he is most surprised by the absence of comment on the matter by "the progressive blogosphere", citing TalkingPointMemo.com, DailyKos and FireDogLake. He goes on: "Despite what some people are going to say, this is news. A former Senator and Vice Presidential candidate who was running for President less than six months ago and is now on the shortlist for Vice President has a long affair during the campaign and fathers a child, covers it up, and then is caught at a hotel with the mother of the child. News! Oh - and his wife made regular appearances on the campaign trail and has been diagnosed with cancer."
Stranahan finishes by suggesting that if the story had been about Mitt Romney, the former Republican presidential candidate who is being talked up as John McCain's potential running-mate, we would be hearing "peals of laughter" from the Democrats. "Would it have made the progressive blogs? C'mon, of course it would."
Will Stranahan's call to "progressive" bloggers be heeded? Watch this space. ·
.
Read more: http://www.theweek.co.uk/people/38901/john-edwards-and-rielle-hunter-affair-us-media-won%E2%80%99t-touch
-
Speaking of dalliances, how about our revered Jefferson, or Harding, or Eisenhower?
It seems Democrats can do it AND Republicans can do it.
And many Democrats AND Republicans have had their political career ruined for their dalliances.
-
But if you have a protective -D next to your name, the media will spike the story, if they can.
-
Former Newsweek editor Mark Whitaker said Sunday he chose not to run the story that former President Bill Clinton had an affair with Monica Lewinsky because he and his staff didn't feel they were on firm enough ground.
"If we had gotten that wrong," Whitaker told CNN's Howard Kurtz on Reliable Sources, it "could have been a mortal blow to Newsweek's reputation" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
HOWARD KURTZ: More now of my conversation with CNN executive, Mark Whitaker.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(on camera) I want to come back to your career. One of the most famous or infamous decisions you made - you were filling in as editor at the time - was in the Monica Lewinsky story. Mike Isikoff basically had the goods or at least it looked that way later. The thing I never understood about the decision to hold the story, then of course Drudge got hold of it and the "Washington Post" broke it, is that you had confirmed that Ken Starr, independent prosecutor, was investigating this.
MARK WHITAKER, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT CNN, FORMER EDITOR OF NEWSWEEK: Right. Right.
KURTZ: Why wasn't that enough to go on? Well, I'm sure you've asked yourself this a hundred times.
WHITAKER: Right, right, right, right. Well, a couple things is that Mike really knew a lot. It wasn't like Woodward and Bernstein writing a little piece where they only knew about Starr. He knew a lot about it, but he had never met Lewinsky herself. All of his sources were sort of around her. So we didn't know, you know, just how credible she was. And by the time, once when Starr had her, you know, basically under protective custody to sort of, you know, question her, we couldn't get to her.
The other thing which we didn't talk about at the time but I talk about in the book is that I had stepped in for Maynard Parker, who was undergoing treatment for cancer at the time. Maynard had been aware for almost a year that Mike was working on this story, but he had never told me, and he hadn't told Rick Smith, who was the publisher. He hadn't told Don Graham. So -
(CROSS TALK)
KURTZ: You were parachuting into this...
WHITAKER: So we only found out about any of this two days before we had to make a decision whether to publish or not. So there was a lot of, during those two days, a lot of discussions and examination going back to the sources, trying to get extra information from them. But frankly, we didn't feel by, from Thursday to that Saturday that we were on firm enough ground to report a story that wouldn't just be a story about Ken Starr, that ultimately would be about accusing the president of having sex in the Oval Office with an intern, which was, if we had gotten that wrong could have been, you know, could have been a mortal blow to "Newsweek's" reputation.
(CROSS TALK)
KURTZ: The potential down side must have loomed very large.
In the end, Whitaker's decision was Matt Drudge's gain.
In the wake of the past week's media firestorm concerning the alleged sexual harassment by Herman Cain, Whitaker's decision seems even more curious.
After all, his investigative reporter had been working on the story for almost a year.
How long were Politico's people working on their hit piece that ran without the name of one of the accusers or any specifics about the alleged offenses?
Also of note was how this interview with Whitaker was pre-taped meaning that Kurtz knew he had discussed the Clinton-Lewinsky affair with him.
Yet in the previous more lengthy segments concerning the Cain allegations which totaled 22 minutes, Kurtz never once brought up how the press covered the various Clinton sex scandals by comparison.
Some fine media analysis, wouldn't you say?
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/11/06/former-newsweek-editor-why-he-didnt-run-lewinsky-story-we-didnt-feel
-
First of all, at the time this story came forward, Edwards was no longer for president. Given that the thread is related to presidential politics, this perhaps is a media thread discussion.
Second, the fact that the National Enquirer broke the story is supportive of my overall point, which was the shift in media coverage since the 1960's.
Third, in about week's time from the story posted below, Edwards had admitted the affair. On ABC news. So maybe the MSM media didn't ignore the claim as much as you claim.
Fourth, I'll bite and say you are right, and that the media did ignore the claims. Many on this forum have decried the MSM media's treatment of Cain in the wake of unsubstantiated claims of sexual harrassment and infidelity. Would you rather that the media leave Cain alone, or are you just pissed that they left Edwards and Clinton alone?
John Edwards and Rielle Hunter; the affair US media won’t touch
LAST UPDATED AT 13:26 ON Tue 29 Jul 2008
American journalists are at sixes and sevens about how to cover the revelations about the two-times presidential candidate – and, until recently at least, a frontrunner for the position of Barack Obama’s running-mate - John Edwards. As reported yesterday on The First Post, the American scandal sheet the National Enquirer ran an apparently well-sourced story last week about catching Edwards (above left) staying in the same Los Angeles hotel as his alleged mistress, Rielle Hunter (above right), with whom he is also rumoured to have had a lovechild.
With the exception of Fox News, who have independently verified many of the Enquirer’s claims (that Edwards was in the Beverly Hilton room and that when the reporters jumped him as he was leaving he took refuge in a men's lavatory), none of the major news organisations has touched the story. What is more surprising is that even the political blogosphere, which would normally be all over such a tale, has shied away.
This has astonished journalist and satirical film-maker Lee Stranahan, who today has posted a blog on the Huffington Post, attempting to explain why there is still an apparent embargo in the US media. He asks first why Edwards hasn't denied the reports. "Let's go with the assumption that Edwards is innocent for a moment; he didn't have the affair so the baby isn't his. If he didn't do anything wrong then it seems like he'd have good reasons to stop the rumors. A DNA test months ago would have ended all speculation about the paternity of the baby. And if there are rumours and you're innocent, WHY go visit the subject of those rumours at a hotel and leave at 2:45 in the morning? Why hide in the bathroom when reporters catch you leaving?"
Stranahan believes there will soon be "a tsunami-sized scandal for the Democratic Party" and a "typhoon of press coverage is close to breaking", but he is most surprised by the absence of comment on the matter by "the progressive blogosphere", citing TalkingPointMemo.com, DailyKos and FireDogLake. He goes on: "Despite what some people are going to say, this is news. A former Senator and Vice Presidential candidate who was running for President less than six months ago and is now on the shortlist for Vice President has a long affair during the campaign and fathers a child, covers it up, and then is caught at a hotel with the mother of the child. News! Oh - and his wife made regular appearances on the campaign trail and has been diagnosed with cancer."
Stranahan finishes by suggesting that if the story had been about Mitt Romney, the former Republican presidential candidate who is being talked up as John McCain's potential running-mate, we would be hearing "peals of laughter" from the Democrats. "Would it have made the progressive blogs? C'mon, of course it would."
Will Stranahan's call to "progressive" bloggers be heeded? Watch this space. ·
.
Read more: http://www.theweek.co.uk/people/38901/john-edwards-and-rielle-hunter-affair-us-media-won%E2%80%99t-touch
-
First of all, at the time this story came forward, Edwards was no longer for president. Given that the thread is related to presidential politics, this perhaps is a media thread discussion.
**Just pointing out the MSM's obvious agenda and double standard.
Second, the fact that the National Enquirer broke the story is supportive of my overall point, which was the shift in media coverage since the 1960's.
**The fact that the Edwards issue was known, but only the Enquirer ran it says something when the Enquirer leads the MSM on journalistic ethics.
Third, in about week's time from the story posted below, Edwards had admitted the affair. On ABC news. So maybe the MSM media didn't ignore the claim as much as you claim.
**Much like Drudge forced the MSM hand on Lewisnky, the Enquirer forced the MSM to cover the Edwards story. If they had not, the MSM would have buried those stories, just like they have tried to avoid covering "Gunwalker".
Fourth, I'll bite and say you are right, and that the media did ignore the claims. Many on this forum have decried the MSM media's treatment of Cain in the wake of unsubstantiated claims of sexual harrassment and infidelity. Would you rather that the media leave Cain alone, or are you just pissed that they left Edwards and Clinton alone?
**I'd rather the MSM use one standard for everyone, rather than acting as an arm of the DNC.
-
Your response was helpful, GM. Thank you.
-
Now, the bit I saw last night on the newest Cain accuser actually had some appearant substance, with cell phone bills that would seeming corroborate the claims made. Which is a big improvement over the previous claims.
-
Good memory about Gary Hart, that episode ran counter to my rule. In his case it was current rather than dragged from the past and it may have been stupidity over infidelity. He also had a more solid and qualified competitor ready to be nominee if he showed any sign of stumble so there wasn't much question about dumping him. The Gennifer Flowers revelation might have derailed anyone but Clinton. Maybe it would have brought him down if it came out earlier but that field at that time didn't have much else. The real point might be deeper - powerful men (like Tiger Woods) aren't very faithful - another rule with exceptions...
Media coverage of the allegations against Cain makes sense because it is newsworthy - we are trying to vet these guys and we don't want to be blindsided later. In the case of Politico, the obsession is bizarre considering how little they had. That was a business decision. They wanted to keep their ownership of the story above any fair and balanced consideration.
GM is right IMO on John Edwards, the 'real' press wouldn't touch it until after he was out. (already discussed while I was writing)
Ted Kennedy was a pretty serious challenger for the Presidency in 1980 even with all his baggage. He almost upended a sitting President in his own party. I agree with the BD assessment that Americans wouldn't let him be President for his personal past, but Democrats almost chose him. His crime was far more serious (2 month suspended sentence :oops:). From the left, his problem had to do with his electability with the center. To Democrats, he was a hero. They kept him to represent their own state and they accepted him as a national figure; they just didn't trust the rest of us to vote this despicable man up or down. (As a hit and run victim, I can call him despicable, contemptible, vile.) Which Senate term was he in when the waitress sandwich allegation landed or when the drunken skirt chasing while married evening ended with his companion nephew charged with rape. Neither of those resulted in the Mass. media or Dem electorate insisting he step down. A sad reflection on all who admired him IMHO.
With JFK and LBJ, yes times were different in that voters didn't really know of the affairs. My point is that knowledge later does not stain their honor with those who honor their service, but an allegation against a conservative... that is over the line!
It is the politicians who bring their pretty wives and charming children to the podiums at the rallies and into the photos in the brochures to show us what a man they are because of their dedication to marriage and family. Certainly Bill Clinton did that, and JFK. There was hardly a Newt sentence from the 1990s that didn't start with Marianne and I. His dedication to her is part of who he is. Or not. Now without explanation it is Callista and I. At least Cain mostly kept his wife out of it.
Reagan was the first divorced President with 2 kids from each marriage, a potential character flaw. One side focused on his right wing extremism and the other side liked where he was headed, so nothing came of that.
Cain is out for other reasons I think, but this seals it. Newt is Newt - a unique case. We will see, but I predicted Romney. Nobody is perfect but Republicans in general don't like running against the character question.
-
JDN: I would have voted for him. [Huntsman]
Someday maybe you can explain your support for concepts further to the left economically with your support for Huntsman that continued after his rather bold and conservative economic plan came out. Centrists puzzle me more than leftists.
Regarding Huntsman, I never heard him tout what I thought was his biggest accomplishment in Utah, advancement of relatively cleaner and more locally sourced natural gas use in transportation. Gas station sign in Utah 2008:
(http://www.cngutah.com/images/price.jpg)
-
As Crafty said, Newt could shadow and taunt the President into extended debates with him. Here is the taunt:
I will challenge him to 7 Lincoln Douglas style debates, no moderator, 2 adults, talking about the nation...
"If he wants to use a teleprompter that will be fine with us."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/11/27/newt_to_obama_lets_debate_you_can_use_a_teleprompter.html
-
JDN: I would have voted for him. [Huntsman]
Someday maybe you can explain your support for concepts further to the left economically with your support for Huntsman that continued after his rather bold and conservative economic plan came out. Centrists puzzle me more than leftists.
It's a good question. I think I'm not alone among the American public in this dilemma.
I like the middle. Too far to the right, too far to the left, they are both bad IMHO.
But to answer your question, I think Huntsman, among all those running is most qualified.
Much much more important, somehow, among those running I trust him the most. Trust to do the right thing is important.
While I don't agree with him on all issues, I TRUST him. He's fiscally conservative, he proved that in Utah, he was a superb governor, but also, he has a heart and good morals.
Yet he has his own opinion. He doesn't genuflect to the Tea Party. He's Mormon; so what? While I'm Lutheran, I happen to like and respect Mormons.
Further, no offense, he knows more than Panda Express; frankly he is the most qualified out there on foreign policy especially
in Asia - my real concern. The middle east is a nuisance in the big picture, but Asia is our future. The next election is about the economy, not the middle east.
Who cares about the middle east except their oil?
I trust him, he's experienced, he has common sense, he's bright, and he has morals; no offense that's more than I can say for the other candidates Republican or Democrat.
He doesn't have a chance, but you asked...
-
I noticed the exchange between Romney and him on China in the foreign policy debate (a debate which I thought to be quite good btw). Romney staked out a rather hard line on China. After speaking plainly and clearly in favor of trade and the lack of desirability of a trade war, he challenged the way it has gotten away with beggar-thy-neighbor exchange rates, intellectual property theft, and IP theft and industrial espionage via hacking.
These points seem to me quite sound.
Huntsman's response spoke of the danger's of trade war. He seemed to me the essence of a good man who had been "captured" by the country in which he was posted. It is a common dynamic no doubt, but nonetheless he seemed weak to me on this issue-- an issue in whose competence he has claimed particular competence due to his ambassadorship there and his speaking of the language.
-
Paraphrasing good humor from James Tarranto WSJ 'Obama's path to 270', keep in mind Obama is trying to get to 270 starting with 2008 count of 365. I hope he makes it to 270 and further, at least to 268!
-------
I agree with Crafty on Romney and China. I'm not fully on board with the exchange rate argument but intellectual property theft isn't funny anymore and there are other areas of contention. We can voice and push our concerns and win some ground without starting a trade war by doing that, not by only buddying up and accepting the status quo.
-------
Regarding Huntsman, being a fiscal conservative with the Utah budget is different than being a fiscal conservative in Washington today. We are 40% out of balance! None of them, not even Bachmann, will cut spending now by 40% or anything close to that, so they are all pragmatists and none of them conservative. Oops did I forget about Ron Paul...
But my question to JDN was really about Huntsman's economic plan versus Obama's, not Huntsman compared to other Republicans. Huntsman is to the right of me in his economic plan, he would ELIMINATE the federal tax on capital gains, and I would not. His top marginal tax rate cut makes the 1980 candidate Reagan look timid. Reagan proposed to cut all rates across the board by 30%. Huntsman's top rate cut on the wealthy is 42% from where the are scheduled to go right now in current law.
I understand that you like and trust Huntsman for these other areas, that he is sounding centrist themes, and that none of us get all we want in a candidate, but my question is narrower. With Huntsman coming in to the right of me, isn't the Obama's economic plan closer to the economic views you have argued for on the board than Huntsman's?
-
There is an irony that if Cain drops for adultery reasons Gingrich will benefit.
More irony, it could be Romney soon challenging Gingrich to a series of two-way Lincoln Douglas style debates.
-------
On paper Perry is still the most conservative challenger with perhaps the best resume. On the radio yesterday he sounded sharp. Then in person in NH he made more gaffes. None worse than Obama, but more gaffes right when he needs to be at the top of his game. The gaffes like Bachmann are on peripheral points. If the Republic is near collapse, why are you BSing about anything other than your top 3 or top 5 points?
Other favorites of mine did not hold up to the bright lights of pressure. Besides Fred Thompson, I remember watching Jack Kemp freeze up in a VP debate on questions he would normally hit out of the park.
I don't care about their ability to debate but I do care about electability and ability to govern.
-
ROOM AT THE TOP IN GOP FIELD
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on November 29, 2011
The conventional wisdom is that the GOP nomination race has boiled down to Mitt
Romney versus Newt Gingrich. Not so fast! A contest limited to these two men would
leave two key Republican constituencies unsatisfied. And unsatisfied voters tend to
stray. Particularly in Iowa.
While Romney is the strong favorite among the financial and political base of the
Republican Party and Gingrich is the strong favorite among national security types,
neither plays very well with evangelicals or Tea Party activists. Until these two
vital elements of the Republican coalition have been satisfied, the fat lady has not
sung and we cannot assume a two-way race.
Evangelicals don't like Romney because he is Mormon. Unfair, unjust, bigoted -- but
true. Tea Party types don't like him because of RomneyCare in Massachusetts, a more
legitimate beef. Both groups would probably prefer Gingrich to Romney, but neither
is enamored with Newt. Evangelicals choke on his personal baggage and remember that,
as Speaker, he tended to put fiscal and economic issues first. Southern Baptists --
who make up half the evangelical vote -- are not thrilled with a converted Roman
Catholic from the South. Tea Party people see Newt as part of the Republican
establishment. He's not as bad as current Speaker John Boehner, in their view, but
he's not simpatico with the Tea Party, either.
In a two-way race, the Tea Party and evangelicals probably would go with Gingrich to
stop Romney, but it's too early to have to settle for a candidate they don't really
like. So there is clearly an opening for another candidate to make it a three-way
race -- at least in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.
Who will it be? Herman Cain is the obvious alternative. But he might have blundered
badly by way of his inexplicable decision to "reassess" his candidacy. He stayed in
the race and all that, but he seemed to waver. In doing so, he lent some credence to
the new allegations of an affair just when it was being discredited by a review of
the accusing woman's checkered history. If Cain can regain his footing and do well
in the debates by returning to his 9-9-9 theme and focusing on the fundamental
reform it represents, he could be the third candidate.
If Cain falters, can Rick Perry step up? Probably not. He has performed so poorly as
a candidate that his incompetence has become its own negative. That, on top of his
positions on the vaccination issue and in-state tuition for illegal immigrants,
would seem enough to bar a comeback.
That could leave Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum. Bachmann has never really
stumbled. She looked bad saying that HPV vaccines can cause mental retardation, but
she has been strong and effective in all the debates. She is obviously very
knowledgeable on national security issues and highly articulate on the deficit and
ObamaCare. Particularly if Cain can't recover, look for Bachmann to move into the
void. After all, she's not far behind in Iowa. The Insider Advantage Poll has her at
10 percent, tied with Cain and behind Romney (12 percent), Paul (13 percent) and
Gingrich (28 percent). We Ask America has her tied with Romney for second place, at
13 percent, behind Gingrich at 29 percent. It is easy to see Bachmann finishing a
strong second in Iowa and getting back into the race.
Santorum has all the right positions, but doesn't really turn voters on. He seems
self-righteous, complaining and somewhat self-indulgent. His subtext is always, "You
are not giving me my due. I was for these issues before any of you guys, and nobody
realizes it." He seems to see himself as the victim in the Republican debates,
complaining about the placement of his lectern, his scarcity of airtime and the
general injustice of it all. Not an attractive picture.
So look for Cain or Bachmann to move up, depending on how the former does in the
next few days. Nature and politics both abhor a vacuum, and that's what we have on
the right of the Republican primary field these days.
-
Morris overstates the Momon issue. I expect the base to push hard for whomever is the nominee, given that no one paying attention wants to live through the horrors of a second term of Buraq's.
-
RCP has Newt as GOP frontrunner nationwide and leading in Iowa, SC and Florida.
Rasmussen has Newt over Obama 45% - 43%.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/2012_presidential_matchups
--------------
Meanwhile... Ron Paul releases Newt hypocrisy video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl9PHy6MMTk
--------------
NY Times, My Man Newt, By MAUREEN DOWD Tongue in cheek praise for Newt from the left
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/opinion/my-man-newt.html?_r=2&emc=eta1
--------------
And this at National Review:
Newt Gingrich Said What? by Jim Geraghty
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/284472/newt-gingrich-said-iwhati
A few of Newt Gingrich’s… Not-So-Greatest Hits:
August 30, 2004: “Now he’s back, preaching the gospel of party moderation. At an Aug. 30 forum held by the centrist Republican Main Street Partnership, Gingrich heralded the GOP’s new, bigger big tent. “Everywhere I’ve been, I’ve argued in favor of electing the moderates,” Gingrich said… He even chastised the fiscally conservative Club for Growth — a group that finances primary challengers to Republican incumbents they deem too liberal — for not getting with the program. “Their strategy is explicitly wrong,” Gingrich said. “The key is to elect more Republicans and have a bigger majority and be more inclusive.”
In June 2005, the New York Times raved about a “balanced and thoughtful” report from a bipartisan task force headed by Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, and George Mitchell, the former Senate majority leader, declaring, “Lawmakers should take the time to at least thumb through this report, especially those who have been demanding Secretary General Kofi Annan’s resignation, supporting the ill-conceived nomination of John Bolton as the United States ambassador to the United Nations and backing the latest benighted attempt to withhold America’s legally obligated dues.”
In October 2005, Gingrich called for “universal but confidential” DNA testing.
In April 2006, Gingrich appeared to suggest that too many U.S. troops were in Iraq. At the time, there were 23,000 127,000 U.S. troops serving in Iraq. (The previous figure referred to Afghanistan). With the surge, the number of troops in Iraq reached 162,000.
During speaking engagements Monday at the University of South Dakota, Mr. Gingrich faulted the White House for installing an American-run government in Iraq after Saddam Hussein was driven from power.
“It was an enormous mistake for us to try to occupy that country after June of 2003,” Mr. Gingrich told students and faculty, according to the Argus Leader of Sioux Falls, S.D. “We have to pull back, and we have to recognize it.”
In November 2006, Gingrich suggested “adopting rules of engagement” that would “break up” terrorists’ “capacity to use free speech.”
“My prediction to you is that either before we lose a city, or if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people before they get to reach out and convince young people to destroy their lives while destroying us,” Gingrich said in the transcript.
“This is a serious problem that will lead to a serious debate about the first amendment, but I think that the national security threat of losing an American city to a nuclear weapon, or losing several million Americans to a biological attack is so real that we need to proactively, now, develop the appropriate rules of engagement,” he said.
In April 2007, he raved about the leadership skills of New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg:
“Mayor Bloomberg’s potential presidential bid is getting a boost from a former speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, and a former Democratic congressman of Tennessee, Harold Ford, who during a visit to New York praised the mayor for his leadership and ability to make government run effectively.
During a lunch at the Four Seasons Hotel with some of the city’s biggest political donors yesterday, Mr. Gingrich said he takes his hat off to the mayor for proving government can be effective. He also credited Chancellor Joel Klein for his work in the city’s schools.
“The effectiveness they ‘ve shown in actually getting the city to work is an integral story of what could happen in Albany or could happen in Washington if you had leadership that understood the power of metrics and understood the power of forcing really big decisions,” Mr. Gingrich said.
Also that month, he took a surprising tone at a “debate” with Sen. John Kerry on the topic of climate change.
Before Kerry got a word in, Gingrich conceded that global warming is real, that humans have contributed to it and that “we should address it very actively.” Gingrich held up Kerry’s new book, “This Moment on Earth,” and called it “a very interesting read.” He then added a personal note about saving vulnerable species from climate change. “My name, Newt, actually comes from the Danish Knut, and there’s been a major crisis in Germany over a polar bear named Knut,” he confided.
The warm and fuzzy Gingrich surprised Kerry, who jettisoned prepared remarks that accused the former speaker of “marching in lock step with the climate-change deniers.” Instead, Kerry found himself saying: “I’ve always enjoyed every dialogue he and I have ever had.” He added that “your statement is very, very important” and gushed: “I frankly appreciate the candor.”
The debate ended. They shook hands. Kerry put an arm around Gingrich. Gingrich put an arm around Kerry. For a brief but terrifying moment, they appeared to be on the verge of a hug.
In 2007, he accused the Bush administration of fighting a “phony war” on terrorism, and declared “a more effective approach would begin with a national energy strategy aimed at weaning the country from its reliance on imported oil.”
In 2008, he hailed John McCain’s efforts in the crafting of the TARP legislation:
Gingrich put out a statement hailing McCain’s eleventh-hour intervention. “This is the greatest single act of responsibility ever taken by a presidential candidate and rivals President Eisenhower saying, ‘I will go to Korea’.” Eisenhower’s pledge was enough to reassure voters that if elected he would find a way to resolve the Korean conflict. McCain’s high-octane involvement in the bailout is meant to convey the same sense of stature and leadership, and to provide cover to reluctant Republicans to support a deal that runs counter to everything they thought they stood for.
In December 2008, he criticized the RNC for its ad attacking Obama’s connections to Rod Blagojevich, calling it “a destructive distraction.”
In January 2009, he declared that newly-elected RNC Chairman Michael Steele would be “a force for real change in America.”
In February 2009, he assessed three potential Republican nominees:
Alaska’s Governor Palin, John McCain’s running mate in 2008, could be “very formidable” as a presidential candidate in 2012, Gingrich said. But he stipulated that would be the case only if she “seeks out a group of sophisticated policy advisers” and “spends time developing a series of fairly sophisticated positions.” He noted that “Palin starts in Iowa with a substantial advantage. I think she has a very big base among the fundamentalist wing of the party.” He also mentioned two other potential Republican presidential candidates. “If the economy is still a mess a year from now, then [former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt] Romney’s economic credentials start to come back in an important way,” Gingrich said. He cautioned that “Romney has got to figure out how to close the sale.”
And if Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison becomes governor of Texas, the second largest state, “she is an instantly formidable candidate,” Gingrich said.
The former Speaker has also found time to review 156 books on Amazon.com, including a rave review of Sen. Chuck Schumer’s “Positively American.”
-
I am on the sidelines at this point between Mitt and Newt.
I think people overestimate Newt's baggage.
The past is the past and much of the American public will not care about the baggage if Newt continues to sould like the best one with the best ideas for the job.
I am not happy with the illegal position but I understand it. The cat is way out of the box with regards to that. If we need to be reasonable with the illegals who are here with their clans in order to capture some of the Latino vote in order to stem the "progressive movement cancer from the liberals than so be it. OTOH at least Newt points out that those who came here illegally must never be given citizenship.
Let the left overestimate what short memories the public has or the concern they will have for Newt's past "indescretions" if they find his ideas too compelling to resist.
Look at Clinton. No matter who sleazy no matter how dishonest no matter what lies and disgusting BS he or Hillary would come out with it made no difference. The economy was good (of course due to the tech bubble) and he is now remembered as a great her.
-
"I am on the sidelines at this point between Mitt and Newt." - Me too. I will vote for someone on Super Tuesday but it is likely over by then. They both involve political risk at least from a conservative point of view, and the potential for greatness. Momentum will be a huge factor in the primaries. The one who shows he can bring in votes in different early states will look electable and electability will be the number one criteria.
"I think people overestimate Newt's baggage." - I disagreed with D. Morris when he wrote that Newt's past would be vetted in the primaries, but I agree with that now. As GM wrote about Mormonism, Newt past is becoming older news everyday. It will keep you from voting for him or it won't, but there will be much bigger issues. If he wins with evangelists in Iowa he should be fine with the more socially liberal moderates in the general election. More likely he will annoy them some other way. The contrast between Obama and any of them in terms of direction of the country will be striking. That said, I do not like conceding the moral high ground on anything to this administration.
"I am not happy with the illegal position but I understand it." - The Romney camp put that out as a big deal after the last debate. Since then Newt is up and Mitt is down. No one knows what to do about otherwise law abiding illegals living long term here. The boldness of it makes Newt look like he is thinking his the way through to the general election. Mitt's hands aren't clean on it and no one has a better answer.
Newt was asked by Hannity how he would show that he could stay disciplined politically and he said by being disciplined. We'll see. If so, will he be a focused and disciplined President. The past indicates no, but he has never been President. Maybe yes.
-
1) Doug, your are a buzz kill :lol:
2) I thought Newt's one hour on Hannity last night was an outstanding performance-- very presidential. Makes me want to forget/ignore all the excellent points the Doug just brought up :lol:
-
"Newt was asked by Hannity how he would show that he could stay disciplined politically and he said by being disciplined. We'll see. If so, will he be a focused and disciplined President. The past indicates no, but he has never been President. Maybe yes."
I'm sure he'll play less golf and basketball than the current occupant
(http://s.michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/nose-plugs2.jpg)
No matter if it's Beltway Newt or Mittens, I'll clamp this on and vote.
-
"Doug, your are a buzz kill" - I think you refer mostly to the Geraghty piece in National Review. We can all use the sad face on that as long as you don't shoot the messenger.
(I get no joy in bringing more bad news or negative opinions to people, so for sure don't read this: http://www.businessweek.com/politics-policy/joshua-green-on-politics/archives/2011/12/if_newt_gingrich_is_the_answer_tea_party_has_failed.html or this cutting paragraph attributed to Mark Steyn: http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/284569/if-newt-criticism-makes-one-rino-i-guess-steyn-too)
-
Doug, the buzz kill comment was in self-deprecation. :-) There is accuracy in a considerable number of the charges. Frankly, at the moment, my mood is to want to ignore it or rationalize it.
-
MSLSD "hate all republicans" crowd has been bashing Newt for being condescending and conceited. Bashing him for his "I make 60K a speech" comment and some of his other declarations. I think they are quite terrified of him.
I can't think of anyone more arrogant and condescending and self serving patronizing than the one and only Brock-man. The Clintons are a close second.
So this charge from them is desperation. They will every night yell and hoot and scream everything they can.
They are wrong in the estimation of Newt's "baggage". The risk to him is less his baggage but more going forward with his tendency to make errant statements. I hope he will listen to handlers for once and be careful by staying on a well rehearsed and vested script before he opens his occasionally big mouth.
The country is clearly willing to look away from personal stuff if the right leader comes forward - IMHO.
The left has no one to blame for this. They lowered the bar themselves with the CLontons and previously with the Kennedys.
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWKTOCP45zY&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWKTOCP45zY&feature=player_embedded
As much as I don't like Ron Paul, I love this ad.
-
Shame on Ron Paul!
a) Newt has disavowed the bit with Nancy Pelosi as "Stupid. I don't know what I was thinking."
b) Using the bit about "right wing social engineering" by Paul is a serious lack of integrity on his part. As Paul no doubt knows, Newt's point was that Baraq should have not gone against the majority of the American people in imposing Obamacare, and were the Republicans to ram something through in a similar manner, it too would be social engineering. His point is correct, and utterly sound.
c) If I have it correct the support on individual mandates was in the early 90s when HillaryCare was on the table. As the implications became clearer, Newt moved away from it. Thus, if my memory is correct, then Paul is deceiving by leaving the dates out
d) Concerning "lobbying" for the FMs-- I am not clear yet on this, but I gather that Newt handled things so that technically he was not a lobbyist. Not pretty, but if I am correct in my memory neither is Paul blurring the distinction pretty. I have heard that there is something showing Newt supporting, not just advising, the FMs in 2007. If true, this would be bad.
3) Concerning working with the health care industry, I heard Newt explain this on Hannity as supporting electronic medical records, something in which he believes.
-
And another one bites the dust.....
http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/03/election/2012/cain-campaign/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
As for the ad, I AGREE with GM, "I LOVE THIS AD".
And as the pool get's smaller and smaller the focus and heat on Gingrich will only increase.
This guy is the best the Republican's can do?
-
Very impressive defense of Newt. There is more negative comment out there, I didn't want to pile on until I knew we had people up to the task of answering. ) Vetting him now only makes him stronger. Some follow up:
On the Pelosi park bench scene, yes he said it was stupid - the single most stupid thing he has done in recent memory. Forgiveness is fine but a smart man calling a calculated move stupid now is (IMO) a brush off of the question - what he was thinking when he did it.
Freddie Mac, mortgage historian for millions of dollars? Not totally candid. Lobbyists don't call it lobbying. He was taking money to help a very anti-conservative program be more palatable to conservatives. Mortgages are now going from 90% federal to 100%, without reform.
On the positive side of mandate support, unlike Pelosi-Obama, Newt included the option of posting a bond instead of being forced to buy an insurance product one may not want. Holding people personally responsibility for their own expenses is conservative. Bringing the federal government further into healthcare is not. (MHO)
Good point on the electronic medical records.
-----------------
George Will yesterday called Gingrich the least conservative candidate of the bunch. Ripped Romney perhaps worse. (His wife works for Perry.) A few specifics with mostly broad brush swipes, Newt has somehow rubbed G. Will the wrong way over the years.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/romney-and-gingrich-from-bad-to-worse/2011/12/02/gIQArsM3LO_story.html
Romney and Gingrich, from bad to worse (I think the editors write the titles)
By George F. Will, Published: December 2
Republicans are more conservative than at any time since their 1980 dismay about another floundering president. They are more ideologically homogenous than ever in 156 years of competing for the presidency. They anticipated choosing between Mitt Romney, a conservative of convenience, and a conviction politician to his right. The choice, however, could be between Romney and the least conservative candidate, Newt Gingrich.
Romney’s main objection to contemporary Washington seems to be that he is not administering it. God has 10 commandments, Woodrow Wilson had 14 points, Heinz had 57 varieties, but Romney’s economic platform has 59 planks — 56 more than necessary if you have low taxes, free trade and fewer regulatory burdens. Still, his conservatism-as-managerialism would be a marked improvement upon today’s bewildered liberalism.
Gingrich, however, embodies the vanity and rapacity that make modern Washington repulsive. And there is his anti-conservative confidence that he has a comprehensive explanation of, and plan to perfect, everything.
Granted, his grandiose rhetoric celebrating his “transformative” self is entertaining: Recently he compared his revival of his campaign to Sam Walton’s and Ray Kroc’s creations of Wal-Mart and McDonald’s, two of America’s largest private-sector employers. There is almost artistic vulgarity in Gingrich’s unrepented role as a hired larynx for interests profiting from such government follies as ethanol and cheap mortgages. His Olympian sense of exemption from standards and logic allowed him, fresh from pocketing $1.6 million from Freddie Mac (for services as a “historian”), to say, “If you want to put people in jail,” look at “the politicians who profited from” Washington’s environment.
His temperament — intellectual hubris distilled — makes him blown about by gusts of enthusiasm for intellectual fads, from 1990s futurism to “Lean Six Sigma” today. On Election Eve 1994, he said a disturbed South Carolina mother drowning her children “vividly reminds” Americans “how sick the society is getting, and how much we need to change things. . . . The only way you get change is to vote Republican.” Compare this grotesque opportunism — tarted up as sociology — with his devious recasting of it in a letter to the Nov. 18, 1994, Wall Street Journal (http://bit.ly/vFbjAk). And remember his recent swoon over the theory that “Kenyan, anti-colonial” thinking explains Barack Obama.
Gingrich, who would have made a marvelous Marxist, believes everything is related to everything else and only he understands how. Conservatism, in contrast, is both cause and effect of modesty about understanding society’s complexities, controlling its trajectory and improving upon its spontaneous order. Conservatism inoculates against the hubristic volatility that Gingrich exemplifies and Genesis deplores: “Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel.”
Obama is running as Harry Truman did in 1948, against Congress, but Republicans need not supply the real key to Truman’s success — Tom Dewey. Confident that Truman was unelectable, Republicans nominated New York’s chilly governor, whose virtues of experience and steadiness were vitiated by one fact: Voters disliked him. Before settling for Romney, conservatives should reconsider two candidates who stumbled early on.
Rick Perry (disclosure: my wife, Mari Will, advises him) has been disappointing in debates. They test nothing pertinent to presidential duties but have become absurdly important. Perry’s political assets remain his Texas record and Southwestern zest for disliking Washington and Wall Street simultaneously and equally.
Jon Huntsman inexplicably chose to debut as the Republican for people who rather dislike Republicans, but his program is the most conservative. He endorses Paul Ryan’s budget and entitlement reforms. (Gingrich denounced Ryan’s Medicare reform as “right-wing social engineering.”) Huntsman would privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (Gingrich’s benefactor). Huntsman would end double taxation on investment by eliminating taxes on capital gains and dividends. (Romney would eliminate them only for people earning less than $200,000, who currently pay just 9.3 percent of them.) Huntsman’s thorough opposition to corporate welfare includes farm subsidies. (Romney has justified them as national security measures — food security, somehow threatened. Gingrich says opponents of ethanol subsidies are “big-city” people hostile to farmers.) Huntsman considers No Child Left Behind, the semi-nationalization of primary and secondary education, “an unmitigated disaster.” (Romney and Gingrich support it. Gingrich has endorsed a national curriculum.) Between Ron Paul’s isolationism and the faintly variant bellicosities of the other six candidates stands Huntsman’s conservative foreign policy, skeptically nuanced about America’s need or ability to control many distant developments.
Romney might not be a Dewey. Gingrich might stop being (as Churchill said of John Foster Dulles) a bull who carries his own china shop around with him. But both are too risky to anoint today.
-
"Stupid. I don't know what I was thinking."
I think we've found a slogan for Newt's campaign!
-
"I think we've found a slogan for Newt's campaign!"
Be nice now, you will be using those nose plugs soon. :wink:
-
Well, there are a lot of people who voted for Obozo in 2008 that are saying that as well. It could be a point of unity.
-
"(Gingrich denounced Ryan’s Medicare reform as “right-wing social engineering.”)"
As I previously stated THIS SIMPLY IS NOT TRUE and shame on anyone of triple digit IQ who repeats this false meme.
-
"(Gingrich denounced Ryan’s Medicare reform as “right-wing social engineering.”)"
As I previously stated THIS SIMPLY IS NOT TRUE and shame on anyone of triple digit IQ who repeats this false meme.
Unfortunately, Beltway Newt's many other skeletons are not so easily dispelled.
-
Maybe, but all the more reason to stick to accusations that have some sort of basis in fact.
Maybe, but then again for years he took the hit about divorcing his dying wife while she lay in the hospital, but only now with the daughter and the mother's permission we discover that the mother, over 20 years later is still alive, and it was she who wanted the divorce. So why didn't Newt speak up? Because he did not want to subject his family to the political firestorm.
I'm not saying there isn't quite a bit there that is not concerning (e.g. if it turns out he was advocating for the FMs) but there be alert for plenty of slander and libel too.
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2011/12/03/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+daybydaycartoon%2FkUnt+%28Day+by+Day+Cartoon+by+Chris+Muir%29#006340
-
Woof,
Santorum, is starting to look a lot better to me here lately.
P.C.
-
Woof,
Santorum, is starting to look a lot better to me here lately.
P.C.
I like Santorum, but odds are it'll be either Mittens or Newt.
-
As I previously mentioned, I first noted Santorum in his farewell speech in the Senate, after he lost PA. Very, very good on the dangers of the Islamic Fascism. There are many, many points on which we agree. Still, when he announced for the nomination I rolled my eyes. Since then I have come to respect how he has handled himself in the debates; he has shown substance.
That said, IMHO he simply does not resonate and inspire in the way that will be necessary to win the presidency. I think he would do very poorly in debate with Baraq. I think his chances of winning the Rep nomination to be next to none, and against Baraq even less.
The simple fact is that Newt impresses- A LOT. He can kick Baraq's ass in debate. The many impure, imperfect statements he has made over the years can also be seen by independents as signs of a man who can reach across the aisle to a President Clinton and reform welfare as we knew it, get capital tax gains to boot, and get a budget surplus.
He is outstanding in his grasp of the deep challenges that face the US in the world today. I have commented here that Republicans have been weak to non-existant on Baraq's disastrous handling of foreign affairs-- to the point will be able to strut and posture how he ended Iraq, Afg, killed Awlaki and OBL, overthrew Kaddaffy without using US troops on the ground, is supporting the Arab spring, and more. Foregin Affairs has been a traditional area of Rep respect with voters, yet which of the current candidates will not lose to Baraq on this point? Romeny has been taking a hard line recently, but do you think he can handle Baraq on this? I don't. Newt won't. He will kick Baraq's ass.
-
Second post:
I have only seen some news reports on it, but last night's "debates"/seriatim interviews by three state attorney generals with the candidates on the Mike Huckabee show seemed like a very good thing.
I like the idea of an uninterrupted flow with each candidate, with each candidate getting an equal amount of time, with questions by intelligent, educated questioners.
Anyone have any comments and what was said?
Anyone have the URL of the whole thing?
-
I am a day behind here but I dug back through the right wing social engineering question yesterday. I know this happened back in 2011 so maybe it is no longer relevant. :wink:
Here is the passage, full context, on Meet the Press Sunday 5/15/2011:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43022759/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/t/meet-press-transcript-may/#.TtrtZ3JK0QY
MR. GREGORY: What about entitlements? The Medicare trust fund, in stories that have come out over the weekend, is now going to be depleted by 2024, five years earlier than predicted. Do you think that Republicans ought to buck the public opposition and really move forward to completely change Medicare, turn it into a voucher program where you give seniors...
REP. GINGRICH: Right.
MR. GREGORY: ...some premium support and--so that they can go out and buy private insurance?
REP. GINGRICH: I don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering. I don't think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate. I think we need a national conversation to get to a better Medicare system with more choices for seniors. But there are specific things you can do. At the Center for Health Transformation, which I helped found, we published a book called "Stop Paying the Crooks." We thought that was a clear enough, simple enough idea, even for Washington. We--between Medicare and Medicaid, we pay between $70 billion and $120 billion a year to crooks. And IBM has agreed to help solve it, American Express has agreed to help solve it, Visa's agreed to help solve it. You can't get anybody in this town to look at it. That's, that's almost $1 trillion over a decade. So there are things you can do to improve Medicare.
MR. GREGORY: But not what Paul Ryan is suggesting, which is completely changing Medicare.
REP. GINGRICH: I, I think that, I think, I think that that is too big a jump. I think what you want to have is a system where people voluntarily migrate to better outcomes, better solutions, better options, not one where you suddenly impose upon the--I don't want to--I'm against Obamacare, which is imposing radical change, and I would be against a conservative imposing radical change.
-------------------------
Summarizing the Ryan Plan: (http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2011/April/05/ryan-plan-for-medicare-vouchers-vs-premium-support.aspx)
... convert Medicare into a premium support program for which the government will spend a specific amount for beneficiaries' care, a fundamental shift from the current fee-for-service program....limiting the amount of money the federal government spends...the government would pay a percentage toward the insurance premium for each individual; there would likely be more help for low-income and sicker people. And enrollees could kick in more money to get better coverage. (It is the plan described in Gregory's question.)
------------------
(Doug:) Gingrich did not say Ryan’s Medicare reform is right-wing social engineering. He was asked what he thought of Ryan's plan and said he didn't like right wing social engineering.
A distinction lost in ALL reporting:
Washington Post: Gingrich: Ryan budget plan ‘right-wing social engineering’
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/44/post/gingrich-ryan-budget-plan-right-wing-social-engineering-sunday-talk-shows/2011/05/15/AF4OtE4G_blog.html 11:57 AM ET, 05/15/2011
PBS News Hour: Gingrich Calls GOP Budget 'Right Wing Social Engineering'
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/05/gingrich-keeps-ryan-budget-at-arms-length.html
CBS: Gingrich slams GOP Medicare plan despite the fact he once said he'd vote for ithttp://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20063202-503544.html
Slate: Gingrich on Ryan Plan: "Radical" and "Right-Wing Social Engineering"
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/05/16/gingrich_on_ryan_plan_radical_and_right_wing_social_engineering.html
Fox: Gingrich Calls GOP Medicare Plan 'Right-Wing Social Engineering'
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/16/gingrich-calls-gop-medicare-plan-right-wing-social-engineering/
Wall Street Journal: Gingrich Blasts House GOP's Medicare Plan
Presidential Candidate Calls It 'Right-Wing Social Engineering,'
Agrees With Obama About Need for Insurance Mandate
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576325350084379360.html?KEYWORDS=Gingrich+Calls+GOP+Medicare+Plan
-----------------------
Then in the aftermath:
Ryan argued Monday that his proposal is not “radical,” as Gingrich alleged in the interview over the weekend. And he questioned why Gingrich was choosing to align himself with Democratic critics of the GOP budget proposal. "With allies like that, who needs the left?" Ryan quipped
Gingrich went "On the Record" with Greta van Susteren Tuesday night to respond to criticism over his comments. He told van Susteren. "I made a mistake and I called Paul Ryan today, who's a very close personal friend, and I said that." (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/17/gingrich-apologizes-paul-ryan-right-wing-social-engineering-criticism/)
In a conference call Tuesday with conservative bloggers, Gingrich said that he was unprepared for a series of “gotcha” questions on individual mandates and the Ryan budget, both of which had been major stories for days before the interview. “I didn’t go in there quite hostile enough, because it didn’t occur to me going in that you’d have a series of setups,” Gingrich said, according to the Washington Examiner. “This wasn’t me randomly saying things. These were very deliberate efforts to pick fights. (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/newt-plays-the-palin-card-i-wasnt-ready-for-those-gotcha-questions.php)
In a live interview with Rush Limbaugh Thursday afternoon, Gingrich said he hadn’t actually criticized Ryan’s plan in his Sunday appearance on “Meet the Press,” and that he wasn’t referring to the Wisconsin congressman when he said those words.
Hotair later Thursday: It’s true that Gregory didn’t mention Ryan’s name in his first question, but he did reference Republican plans to change Medicare and cited “premium support” — a hallmark of Ryan’s plan, which Gingrich surely would have known. Even if you cut Newt some slack there, Gregory did explicitly mention Ryan’s plan in his follow-up, which Gingrich proceeded to describe as a “too big a jump” and an example of “radical change.” But we needn’t quibble with the semantics. Plain and simple: If this was all a big misunderstanding about who he was talking about, why didn’t he say that three days ago? (http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/19/gingrich-to-rush-limbaugh-my-right-wing-social-engineering-comment-wasnt-directed-at-paul-ryan/)
------
(Doug:) There is no reference in the top 100 Google results to 'Right Wing Social Engineering' that is not attributable to Newt. It's not in the lexicon. Social engineering is what the other side does. He made it up the term, it's inflammatory IMO, and he was dying to use it - to boldly be a different kind of Republican - on who can jump right over the fence like the person who sat on the bench with Nancy. This is a guy who at the top of his career had his lunch stolen by a triangulator, and he was trying something.
He made a mistake, I get it, but what was he trying to do? Forget about Ryan. What in the top 100 threats our republic faces right now is the problem of right wing social engineering, that a focused and disciplined candidate kicking off his campaign needed to draw to my attention? My moderate friends would say right wing social engineering is the insistence on gender roles for bride and groom or the stubborn belief that a small life with a heartbeat is a life. But no. This was about spending restraint that could come out of Washington if Republicans exert too much power. He landed a hard punch on the only Republican in the country at the time who was getting any traction. Good grief. Then he apologized, said he didn't mean it, then he said it didn't happen. He meant something else.
Triangulators do not have coattails. Another way, with a dozen years in the solutions business, would have been to work with his friend Paul Ryan so the plan would NOT be too radical.
I wonder if this is something that Jon Stewart could try to run with...
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/jon-stewart-lets-gingrich-be-his-own-punchline-video.php
-
http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2011/12/video-watch-the-entire-huckabee-gop-presidential-forum/
-
"electronic medical records, something in which he believes."
There are hundreds of EMR vendors. It is like the tech craze before the tech crash of the late 90's. It is predicted in a few years that the number will fall to a few dozen through consokidation and bankruptcy.
Realistically they are not ready for prime time yet CMS is pushing and bribing us all to jump on board.
And no doubt there are thousands out there vying to cash in on it all.
-
"electronic medical records, something in which he believes."
There are hundreds of EMR vendors. It is like the tech craze before the tech crash of the late 90's. It is predicted in a few years that the number will fall to a few dozen through consokidation and bankruptcy.
Realistically they are not ready for prime time yet CMS is pushing and bribing us all to jump on board.
And no doubt there are thousands out there vying to cash in on it all.
I'm glad we'll have all our medical records in electronic form, so when the Chinese Ministry of State Security wants to read up on our cholesterol counts, it's just a few clicks away....
-
Doug:
Thank you for that on Newt and Ryan's plan. It was not as I thought.
-
Crafty, thank you. He made a mistake that day and has been remarkably consistent and disciplined since then.
-
"Chinese Ministry of State Security wants to read up on our cholesterol counts, it's just a few clicks away...."
I read that hardware has components made overseas so we should not kid ourselves into thinking there are things put into these components that can be used in ways not intended. I don't think for one second US manufactureres of software and hardware do not have ways to get in our electronic devices.
Eventually the Chinese will probably be able to shut our entire country down with a few clicks.
That might very well the start to the next world war.
-
http://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2011/12/05/wargaming-the-electoral-college-31/
Not looking good for Team Buraq.
-
Moving this over from Newt thread.
"What "national election" did Newt win?
He nationalized the 1994 congressional elections for the first time in 40 years, got all the candidates to run across the country on the same platform with him as leader, and he won - for the first time in 40 years. Did you really need that explained? If you don't agree it's a fact, then you must agree it is a well-supported opinion. No? Much better documented than any Huntsman foreign policy experience, what foreign policy decision did he make, lol.
"He was governor of Utah for two term." Which two terms as a Governor did Huntsman serve? Good grief. Then he wasn't Ambassador? "He did balance the budget." Was it previously out of balance. Did he fight off those entrenched, liberal, Utah special interests everyday to get that done, lol. None of them have promised to come in and balance this budget. Whether he will be a fiscal conservative or not in Washington is another blank canvas.
-
:?
Let me repeat, the ONLY popular (voter) election Newt ever won was Georgia's 6th congressional district as a Republican from 1979 until his resignation in 1999. Period.
The fact that he orchestrated and "got candidates to run across the country on the same platform with him as leader" is interesting, but HE did not
ever win a "national election". He didn't even win a state wide election. THAT is a fact, not a "well-supported opinion.
However, I'm not saying he's not qualified; as I said, he was House Speaker and he is brilliant; albeit he has a mercurial personality. And his morals are suspect.
As for Huntsman, he is qualified; you just don't accept it. But it's not important; he's going no place. But for the record.
Huntsman worked as a White House staff assistant for Ronald Reagan, and he was appointed by George H.W. Bush as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce and later as United States Ambassador to Singapore from 1992–1993. Huntsman served as Deputy United States Trade Representative under George W. Bush, launching global trade negotiations in Doha, Qatar in 2001 and guiding the accession of China and Taiwan into the World Trade Organization.
Huntsman has also served as CEO of his family's Huntsman Corporation and was elected Governor of Utah in April, 2004 and won re-election in 2008 with nearly 78% of the vote. While governor, he also served as chairman of the Western Governors Association and as a member of the Executive Committee of the National Governors Association. On August 11, 2009, he resigned as governor to accept an appointment as the United States Ambassador to the People's Republic of China.
He left office with his approval ratings over 80%. Utah was named the best managed state by the Pew Center. Following his term as governor, Utah was also named a top 3 state to do business in.
Maybe he's not right of Attila the Hun as some here prefer, but he's not bad. He's clean, he's experienced, he has good morals, and I think he's electable. But given his ratings, that is all moot.
-
"was elected Governor of Utah in April, 2004 and won re-election in 2008 with nearly 78% of the vote."
Sarah Palin had a 90% approval rating as Gov.
Just saying.
-
If Newt did not win a national election in 1994, only his district not the election for Speaker, because electors were involved, then no President has ever won a national election.
I asked about two term governors and you post Huntsman was Governor of Utah for two terms. A term in Utah is 4 years. His second term was from 2009-2009. He didn't serve his second term. You already know that, from your own post: "Following his term as governor..."(singular) , so you go from falsehoods to insults (right of Attila the Hun as some here prefer). Who needs it.
Everyone else I have encountered here comes in pursuit of the truth.
-
:? :? :?
Newt won a local congressional "election" in Georgia - period. Only the people in his district voted for Newt. He never ran for any "national office". Heck, as I said, Newt never even ran for State Office.
He was never a governor or a senator. In contrast, Presidents do win "national elections". The people, all across the nation vote for the President, i.e. a "national election". That is the "truth".
Then again, as I have repeatedly acknowledged, he was Speaker of the House, he has a wide range of experience, he is brilliant, therefore he is qualified to be President; no one disputes that at least I don't.
Huntsman while governor, also served as chairman of the Western Governors Association. Like Newt, according to you, does that mean he won a "national election"? Of course not.
However, Huntsman was a "two term Governor". He war RE-ELECTED in a landslide. He choose not not to finish his term, but rather to serve his country as
Ambassador to China. I never said he finished his term or served a full two terms (again note, he was very popular in Utah, but he voluntarily agreed to serve
his country and become Ambassador). Once you are elected, you begin your term, i.e. that means two terms - everyone knows that. I mean if you died in the third year for example
of your second term, would you be referred to as a one term governor? Of course not. It's common sense. Two terms. Repeat after me... Again, truth...
As for Attila, sometimes I do get the impression that Republicans are trying to outdo themselves to be more conservative. Signing ridiculous "pledges"? You
must be kidding. Who needs it. Poor Newt, whose conservative credentials are pretty good, tried to be reasonable on immigration and he gets skewered by the right wing.
This hard core right wing philosophy may sell in the primaries, it seems like a beauty contest who can be more right wing, but let's see if it sells in the final election.
-
a) Huntsman most certainly has a resume worthy of a man seeking the nomination of the Republican Party. Many of his positions are excellent and well-thought out. That said, he announced himself for the nomination by explicitly saying that the other candidates were too radical to appeal to the center. This certainly sounds the RINO alarm bells going around here :lol:
b) In that I sometimes have described myself as "to the right of Attila the Hun" on various issues, I take JDN's use of the phrase to be meant in a good-natured tone.
c) I think JDN, while technically correct, quite understates what Newt led and accomplished with the Contract with America-- which thoroughly undermines the point he apparently is trying to make by saying that Newt has only won a Congressional district election. We see the difference here and now once again. In the debates it is Newt who has led the way in pointing out that it will not be enough to win the Presidency, we need to win the Senate too i.e. there needs to be another contract with America as to what a Gingrich-Republican Congress would mean. The man understands there needs to be a mandate FOR something whereas Romney (or Huntsman for that matter) seem to get this quite a bit less.
-
What Does Adultery Tell Us About Character?
Tuesday, December 06, 2011
ShareThis
With Herman Cain's announcement that he was suspending his presidential campaign because of the charges of sexual harassment and of a 13-year affair, issues are raised that the country would do well to think through. The two most obvious are whether we should care about a politician's sexual life and how much the press should report about these matters.
But there is a larger issue that needs to be addressed first: What does adultery tell us about a person? For many Americans, the answer is: "Pretty much all we need to know." This certainly seems to be the case with regard to presidential candidates. The view is expressed this way: "If he can't keep his vows to his wife, how can we trust him to keep his vows to his country?"
I am a religious conservative, but I know this statement has no basis in fact. It sounds persuasive, but it is a non sequitur. We have no reason to believe that men who have committed adultery are less likely to be great leaders or that men who have always been faithful are more likely to be great leaders. To religious readers, I point to God Himself, who apparently thought that King David deserved to remain king -- and even have the Messiah descend from him -- despite a particularly ugly form of adultery (sending Bathsheba's husband into battle where he would assuredly be killed).
And while on the subject of leadership, another question for religious and/or conservative readers who believe that a man who sexually betrays his wife will likely betray his country: Who would you prefer for president? A pro-life conservative who had had an affair, or a pro-choice man of the left who had always been faithful to his wife?
Jimmy Carter, to the best of our knowledge, has been faithful to his wife throughout their long marriage. That is certainly commendable. Did it make him in any way a better president? Has it given moral acuity to the man who wrote a book equating democratic Israel with apartheid South Africa?
And the American who, perhaps singlehandedly, may have prevented inter-racial war in America, Martin Luther King Jr., committed adultery on a number of occasions.
Would John F. Kennedy, a serial adulterer while in the White House, have been any different a president were he faithful?
Just knowing that a man or a woman had extramarital sex may tell us nothing about the person. I have always wanted to know: Why is sexual sin in general and adultery in particular the one sin that many religious people regard as defining a person as well as almost unforgiveable?
Nothing here is in any way meant to be a defense of adultery. As a religious Jew, I believe it violates one of the Ten Commandments. As a married person, I know how much it would hurt my wife and how much it would hurt me if the other had an affair. But marriage is too complex an arena to draw any immediate conclusions about a person. Are we to label a man who takes loving care of his chronically ill wife and who has a discreet affair no more than an adulterer who merits disdain and mistrust? Is a woman who stays in an emotionally abusive marriage for the sake of her children someone with little integrity because she sought to be held in another man's loving arms? The questions and nuances are innumerable.
And what is adultery? Women have called my show to tell me that a man who gets a lap dance has committed adultery. Others go further -- merely attending a strip show, or looking at Playboy, is adultery. To my mind, this is emotion -- not reason, morality or religion -- talking. Yes, many Christians cite Jesus as saying that a man who lusts after a woman other than his wife has committed adultery with his heart. But he made it clear that this is adultery (SET ITAL) with his heart (END ITAL). Jesus, the practicing and knowledgeable Jewish rabbi, would never equate actual adultery with adultery with one's heart. And if someone believes the two are morally identical, why not start asking candidates if they have ever lusted for any woman other than their wife?
In choosing a president of the United States, adultery would greatly matter to me is if it were engaged in indiscreetly. I don't trust the integrity or conscience of a man or woman who publicly humiliates his or her spouse.
Beyond that, I do not want to know anything about the sexual life of any candidate. Media reporting or questioning about candidates' sexual lives constitutes a form of hypocrisy so deep that the English language does not have a word for it. Media people report on the sexual lives of candidates -- for virtually any public office -- on the grounds that since these politicians have great power, the public needs to know all about them. Yet, they offer no insight into their own sexual lives, even though some in the news media are far more powerful than almost any politician except the president of the United States. If we cannot trust a candidate who committed adultery, then why can we trust a news reporter or editor who has committed adultery?
The only thing this preoccupation with candidates' sexual lives has achieved is to ensure that some of the best, brightest, finest and most honest men in America never run for office.
-
This is more "presidential" than necessarily limited to 2012, but here is a report on Mitch McConnell's view of the "dissolution" of the Electoral College.
http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/07/9280257-mcconnell-warns-of-popular-vote-catastrophic-outcome
-
What Does Adultery Tell Us About Character?
In choosing a president of the United States, adultery would greatly matter to me is if it were engaged in indiscreetly. I don't trust the integrity or conscience of a man or woman who publicly humiliates his or her spouse.
-
BD, that seems worthy of a thread where posts are less evanescent than this one. How about the Constitutional law thread?
-
Besides the character issue, adultery and other sins kept secret have the potential to expose a President (or anyone else) to blackmail in any of its many forms, like support for certain causes for reasons we won't understand.
Just in the hypothetical, the list of Clinton pardons comes to mind: http://www.justice.gov/opa/pardonchartlst.htm
-
By DAMIAN PALETTA
Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich is solidifying his lead in key states as the final stretch before the Iowa caucuses begins, while Mitt Romney faces criticism for a $10,000 bet he offered Rick Perry during a weekend debate.
..An NBC News/Marist Poll poll released Sunday showed support for the former speaker of the House soaring in South Carolina and Florida, making Mr. Gingrich the distinct front-runner for those states' late January primaries. His performance in the Saturday night debate in Des Moines suggests Mr. Gingrich also remains on stable footing with just over three weeks left before Iowa's first-in-the-nation voting on Jan. 3.
Mr. Romney, meanwhile, was trying to tamp down a potential misstep after former Texas Gov. Rick Perry accused Mr. Romney during the Saturday debate of saying his 2006 Massachusetts health insurance expansion "should be the model for the country." Mr. Romney disputed ever making such a comment and offered to bet him $10,000 that he was right. Mr. Perry turned down the bet.
A $10,000 wager triggered a backlash among Democrats and Republicans, given Mr. Romney's wealth from his private equity days.
.Who would have won the wager isn't clear. Mr. Perry was referring to a passage from the first edition of Mr. Romney's 2010 book "No Apology." The former governor wrote that "we can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country" in reference to the Massachusetts law that requires most residents to carry insurance or pay a fee.
Those words were cut from subsequent editions of the book. Elsewhere in the book, Mr. Romney called for other states to design their own models, different from the one in Massachusetts.
Still, the $10,000 wager triggered a quick backlash among Democrats and Republicans given the former private-equity executive's wealth and the way he appeared to flaunt the money. By noon Sunday, the Democratic National Committee had sent out seven emails either mocking or slamming the five-figure offer.
Mr. Perry, speaking on Fox News Sunday, said he was "a little taken aback" by the proposed bet, and that it showed how Mr. Romney was "a little out of touch with the normal Iowa citizen." The campaign of former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman immediately set up the website 10kbet.com with the headline "Why Mitt Romney owes Rick Perry $10,000."
Mr. Romney turned the comment into a bit of a joke at a press conference after a town hall in Hudson, N.H., on Sunday evening. "After the debate was over, Ann [Mrs. Romney] came up and gave me a kiss and said I was great and she said there are a lot of things you do well, betting isn't one of them," Mr. Romney said. He didn't elaborate. Asked a follow-up question, he said, "that's all I got."
Mr. Romney's stumble came amid new evidence he is losing ground in key states. The new NBC News/Marist Poll showed Mr. Gingrich leading Mr. Romney 42% to 23% among likely Republican primary voters in South Carolina and 41% to 28% in Florida. Adding in likely Republican voters in Florida who were undecided but said they are leaning towards one of the candidates, Mr. Gingrich's lead widened to 44% to 29% for Mr. Romney.
Mr. Gingrich seemed to fare better during Saturday's debate, despite efforts by his opponents to challenge positions he has taken. Over the weekend, Mr. Gingrich drew fire for his recent suggestion that Palestinians were an "invented" people.
Rep. Steve King (R., Iowa) said on CBS's "Face the Nation" that the comment was "probably unnecessary in the scope of this campaign" and makes you "wonder what kind of discipline he might have." Mr. King, who has not yet endorsed a Republican in the presidential race, has an influential voice with Iowa Republican voters.
Mr. Gingrich defended his Palestinian comments Saturday night, saying Palestinians encouraged terrorism and should not be put on an equal playing field with the Israelis.
Mohammed Sobeih, the Arab League official who handles Palestinian affairs, told the Associated Press on Sunday that Mr. Gingrich's comments were "irresponsible and dangerous."
Reps. Ron Paul (R., Texas) and Michele Bachmann (R., Minn.), who are trailing but trying to climb in the polls, said Messrs. Gingrich and Romney shared similar philosophies on governing and didn't represent the break from the past that Republicans need.
Ms. Bachmann, appearing on "Face the Nation," tried to reiterate a theme she invoked Saturday night, when she suggested the two front-runners were essentially the same person who she dubbed "Newt-Romney." "There's not a dime's worth of difference between the two of them," she said.
Mr. Paul said he would not rule out running on a third-party ticket or endorsing a third-party candidate if he didn't win the Republican nomination, but he said it wasn't something he was thinking about now. "I'm not going to rule anything out or anything in," Mr. Paul said.
President Barack Obama said in an interview aired Sunday on CBS' "60 Minutes" that whichever GOP nominee emerges will offer Americans a stark contrast with his strategy for running the country. Mr. Gingrich is "somebody who's been around a long time, and is good on TV, is good in debates," Mr. Obama said. "But Mitt Romney has shown himself to be somebody who's … good at politics, as well. He's had a lot of practice at it." He added: "I think that they will be going at it for a while."
Write to Damian Paletta at damian.paletta@wsj.com
-
A follow up to my post a moment ago concerning Mitt's $10k bet challenge to Perry:
What a kitty response to the psuedo-brouhaha! He should have pushed back and said that the chattering class was missing the point-- as it so often does-- the point being to challenge Perry to put up or shut up concerning the allegation in question. Instead of the patricianly guilt he displays, he should have no apology-- "Yes, I have money, and I earned it. Its a reason I should be president. Look at what I did for turning the Olympics around! Let me do that for America!".
We didn't see Newt kittying out to the brouhaha over his comments on the Palestinians, did we?
IMHO this sort of thing encapsulates a lot concerning the ceiling to Romney's support.
-
Crafty
well said.
what was he doing in effect apologizing for not being poor?!
if only he could take make the fight like Newt. He has to be able to do this.
It is the ONLY way to get past the liberal controlled media which is doing all they can to dampen all Republicans and promote their guy.
-
This is the Republicans race "to lose". I noted that some months back and even the Economist in the last issue echoed those exact same words. Yet this is depressing from George.
Wow:
****Stop the coronation: Both Gingrich and Romney are too risky
By George Will
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Republicans are more conservative than at any time since their 1980 dismay about another floundering president. They are more ideologically homogenous than ever in 156 years of competing for the presidency. They anticipated choosing between Mitt Romney, a conservative of convenience, and a conviction politician to his right. The choice, however, could be between Romney and the least conservative candidate, Newt Gingrich.
Romney’s main objection to contemporary Washington seems to be that he is not administering it. God has 10 commandments, Woodrow Wilson had 14 points, Heinz had 57 varieties, but Romney’s economic platform has 59 planks — 56 more than necessary if you have low taxes, free trade and fewer regulatory burdens. Still, his conservatism-as-managerialism would be a marked improvement upon today’s bewildered liberalism.
Gingrich, however, embodies the vanity and rapacity that make modern Washington repulsive. And there is his anti-conservative confidence that he has a comprehensive explanation of, and plan to perfect, everything.
Granted, his grandiose rhetoric celebrating his “transformative” self is entertaining: Recently he compared his revival of his campaign to Sam Walton’s and Ray Kroc’s creations of Wal-Mart and McDonald’s, two of America’s largest private-sector employers. There is almost artistic vulgarity in Gingrich’s unrepented role as a hired larynx for interests profiting from such government follies as ethanol and cheap mortgages. His Olympian sense of exemption from standards and logic allowed him, fresh from pocketing $1.6 million from Freddie Mac (for services as a “historian”), to say, “If you want to put people in jail,” look at “the politicians who profited from” Washington’s environment.
RECEIVE LIBERTY LOVING COLUMNISTS IN YOUR INBOX … FOR FREE!
Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.
His temperament — intellectual hubris distilled — makes him blown about by gusts of enthusiasm for intellectual fads, from 1990s futurism to “Lean Six Sigma” today. On Election Eve 1994, he said a disturbed South Carolina mother drowning her children “vividly reminds” Americans “how sick the society is getting, and how much we need to change things. . . . The only way you get change is to vote Republican.” Compare this grotesque opportunism — tarted up as sociology — with his devious recasting of it in a letter to the Nov. 18, 1994, Wall Street Journal (http://bit.ly/vFbjAk). And remember his recent swoon over the theory that “Kenyan, anti-colonial” thinking explains Barack Obama.
Gingrich, who would have made a marvelous Marxist, believes everything is related to everything else and only he understands how. Conservatism, in contrast, is both cause and effect of modesty about understanding society’s complexities, controlling its trajectory and improving upon its spontaneous order. Conservatism inoculates against the hubristic volatility that Gingrich exemplifies and Genesis deplores: “Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel.”
Obama is running as Harry Truman did in 1948, against Congress, but Republicans need not supply the real key to Truman’s success — Tom Dewey. Confident that Truman was unelectable, Republicans nominated New York’s chilly governor, whose virtues of experience and steadiness were vitiated by one fact: Voters disliked him. Before settling for Romney, conservatives should reconsider two candidates who stumbled early on.
Rick Perry (disclosure: my wife, Mari Will, advises him) has been disappointing in debates. They test nothing pertinent to presidential duties but have become absurdly important. Perry’s political assets remain his Texas record and Southwestern zest for disliking Washington and Wall Street simultaneously and equally.
Jon Huntsman inexplicably chose to debut as the Republican for people who rather dislike Republicans, but his program is the most conservative. He endorses Paul Ryan’s budget and entitlement reforms. (Gingrich denounced Ryan’s Medicare reform as “right-wing social engineering.”) Huntsman would privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (Gingrich’s benefactor). Huntsman would end double taxation on investment by eliminating taxes on capital gains and dividends. (Romney would eliminate them only for people earning less than $200,000, who currently pay just 9.3 percent of them.) Huntsman’s thorough opposition to corporate welfare includes farm subsidies. (Romney has justified them as national security measures — food security, somehow threatened. Gingrich says opponents of ethanol subsidies are “big-city” people hostile to farmers.) Huntsman considers No Child Left Behind, the semi-nationalization of primary and secondary education, “an unmitigated disaster.” (Romney and Gingrich support it. Gingrich has endorsed a national curriculum.) Between Ron Paul’s isolationism and the faintly variant bellicosities of the other six candidates stands Huntsman’s conservative foreign policy, skeptically nuanced about America’s need or ability to control many distant developments.
Romney might not be a Dewey. Gingrich might stop being (as Churchill said of John Foster Dulles) a bull who carries his own china shop around with him. But both are too risky to anoint today.
-
Crafty wrote: "What a kitty response to the psuedo-brouhaha! He should have pushed back and said that the chattering class was missing the point-- as it so often does-- the point being to challenge Perry to put up or shut up concerning the allegation in question. Instead of the patricianly guilt he displays, he should have no apology-- "Yes, I have money, and I earned it. Its a reason I should be president. Look at what I did for turning the Olympics around! Let me do that for America!".
We didn't see Newt kittying out to the brouhaha over his comments on the Palestinians, did we?"
----------------------
I agree on both points. The Romney bet attempt was stupid on many counts. On the other, they were asked what your family ever had to cut back on or do without and Romney said he didn't grow up poor. There are a bunch of other directions he could have ran with that to show he learned those lessons anyway. Or he could have graciously shown admiration for the family of one of his competitors. Perry didn't have running water in his earliest years, neither did Clarence Thomas. Isn't it amazing what can happen in when people grow in freedom...
----------------------
Newt leads in Iowa, leads in South Carolina, leads in Florida and these are double digit leads. Ggaining in NH now single digits and will get a bump up there if the momentum is clearly his, and he just won another debate by all accounts.
He said he would prove he could be a disciplined candidate by being one. So what does he do next, Monday morning with all this momentum...
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/12/gingrich-challenges-romney-to-a-bet/
Londonderry, New Hampshire (CNN) – Newt Gingrich responded to a call Monday by GOP rival Mitt Romney to return the money he received from mortgage giant Freddie Mac by issuing his own challenge.
"If Gov. Romney would like to give back all the money he's earned from bankrupting companies and laying off employees over his years at Bain that I would be glad to then listen to him," Gingrich told reporters...
---------------------
Here we go again. This is wrong on so many levels. (Please correct me if I am wrong) He is throwing the 'capitalism is exploitation' message of the occupy movement back at Romney for participating in risk based ventures. Meanwhile he is dodging his own problem. The Freddie Mac money involved a mind blowing amounts of money for... trading off influence gained as speaker to put lipstick on a pig? Not an ordinary pig but one that played a key part in bringing down the economy. Those payments deserves real explanations; a legitimate attack on a vulnerability of the frontrunner. So he humors it away with a bet joke while taking a shot at the creative destruction aspect of free enterprise, giving fodder to the salivating leftists who couldn't believe the 'right wing social engineering' gift they received earlier in the year.
Who would get mileage out of this?
Think Progress: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/12/12/387503/gingrich-romney-bain-money/
CNN: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/12/gingrich-challenges-romney-to-a-bet/
Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/12/mitt-romney-freddie-mac-newt-gingrich_n_1144548.html
A few conservatives comment:
Charles Krauthammer: Newt's Attack On Romney Is "What You'd Expect From A Socialist" http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/12/12/krauthammer_newts_attack_on_romney_is_what_you_expect_from_a_socialist.html
Brit Hume: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y36HeSMNZuQ
Hugh Hewitt: http://www.hughhewitt.com/blog/g/33529b9b-4546-4a0f-a91f-a7d8d606eef0
-
I know I'm beating a dead horse, but if the Republicans want to win the election, versus just posturing and preening, Huntsman should be considered.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/12/opinion/avlon-huntsman/index.html?hpt=hp_bn9
-
I know I'm beating a dead horse, but if the Republicans want to win the election, versus just posturing and preening, Huntsman should be considered.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/12/opinion/avlon-huntsman/index.html?hpt=hp_bn9
A guy that struggles to hit 3% will be a general election dynamo?
-
Krauthammer's criticism of Newt is correct.
-
GM said, "A guy that struggles to hit 3% will be a general election dynamo?"
I do understand your point, however.... I assume, as you have already pointed out, in the general election that you would vote for him "anybody but Obama"
so he has the vote of the right. More important, HE can sway the middle. The tea party loves Gingrich, but in the general election the polls, even
given the terrible economy, project Obama to win versus Gingrich. Frankly, Gingrich carries too much baggage in a general election. And when the gloves
come off, it will only get worse for him. And Mitts is really boring. Huntsman, in contrast, could win.
But you are right, he will never be the Republican nominee unless he makes a move; and soon.
-
I'd even vote for Loon Paul vs. Obozo, though he has even less chance than Huntsman.
-
"Krauthammer's criticism of Newt is correct."
Those were strong words. Newt should get out front correcting this.
-
I'd even vote for Loon Paul vs. Obozo, though he has even less chance than Huntsman.
hahaha GM you would even vote for Bozo the Clown before Obama. :-) I KNOW the Republicans
have your vote; and that is my point.
-
Week 3,334 of Mitt Romney's quest for the presidency hasn't been a good one. Newt Gingrich has seized the lead in the polls. The voluble front-runner has even lined up with Ted Kennedy, Paul Krugman, Obama's campaign brain trust and the Pulitzer department of every major newspaper in assaulting Mr. Romney as a job killer for his role in private equity.
Oddly, though, these are now the discordant media notes. For the first time, and perhaps here we can blame the Gingrich phenomenon, the press has suddenly found Mr. Romney a fascinating, nuanced figure.
The New York Times discovers him frugal in his personal habits, generous with his family, personally U-Hauling the clan's gear between vacation homes. The Washington Post says that in debates Mr. Romney's "body language speaks of physical modesty, discipline." Another Post profile finds him "supremely rational," a "problem solver," "devoted to data," keenly appreciative of the role of "incentives."
Stereotypes are fun: The greedy businessman. The sneering, tenured professor. The clapped-out pundit who hides his creative destitution behind crude appeals to prejudice. But Mr. Romney never really fit his assigned part as Gordon Gekko or Milburn Drysdale. His Bain Capital period has already been in the rearview mirror for 12 years. When other private equity pioneers were turning their millions into billions, he left to rescue the Winter Olympics.
Before Bain, he spent two years proselytizing for Mormon converts in the unpromising vineyards of France. After Bain, once his financial independence was secured, he turned with suspicious enthusiasm to politics and policy.
Of his Bain period, a former colleague (not a supporter) said it best: The goal wasn't to maximize job creation but to maximize returns for the private equity fund's investors.
Enlarge Image
CloseGetty Images
Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich
.At that, he succeeded. At rescuing the Olympics, he succeeded. At winning the Massachusetts governorship, he succeeded. At crafting a bipartisan Massachusetts health-care plan, he succeeded. At subsidizing demand for health care without breaking the bank, he didn't succeed.
RomneyCare has been his biggest albatross, yet it merely makes him the soulmate of our two most recent presidents, ideological opposites though they are considered to be. Both Presidents Bush and Obama also expanded access to health care without figuring out how to pay for it.
Mr. Romney should probably just tell the truth: He faced a political imperative to act but no political consensus to act effectively, so he acted ineffectively. Oh well. His lack of a consistent ideological lodestar might be a handicap when a lodestar is needed. But—and we know this contravenes everything you've been taught—America is not headed in 2012 for a landmark decision on the size and role of government. America is headed only for a moment of recognition.
Like Greece. Like the troubled businesses Bain overhauled. Like the failing Salt Lake City Olympics. There's no money to pay for bigger and bigger government. There's no money to pay for the government we've already promised ourselves. Yes, around the edges, there may be room for adjustment, if we can get the economy growing again. But that means tax reform to make the fiscal engine more efficient, not tax hikes on some imaginary motherlode of billionaires to get us off the horns of our dilemma.
On the particular problem that made a fool out of Mr. Romney (and Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama), don't worry, bankrupting the nation to pay for health care is not an option. If we do nothing, if entitlements remain unreformed, the money simply will be withheld to pay for them. You'll still be entitled to that knee operation at taxpayer expense. Good luck finding a doctor to perform it. The waiting list will be long.
Our world that's coming is a world of narrowing, not widening, choices. It's a world that suits Mr. Romney's skills and history, his knack for operating within constraints and making choices based on data, data, data. Mr. Obama lives in the same world, of course, but is unequipped to deal with it given his dubious gifts for execution, execution, execution. Also, given his inclination to seek refuge in a clueless reverie of big new programs at a time when the resources simply don't exist.
Nor is there a Big Idea that can transform our unhappy prospects. Lunar mining will not rescue Medicare. People like Mr. Gingrich play a useful role in politics: It's good to be able to talk thrillingly about history, civilization. But they make bad—perhaps we should say, unnecessary—presidents. When ideas are new and unfamiliar, they're not executable. When they're executable we need people who can execute.
The consensus for painful reform comes when the status quo hits the wall. It's a myth that we don't know what our choices are. That's the Romney moment. His strong suit has always been to do what everyone else has put off.
-
That is quite a mixed and roundabout endorsement of Romney: "When ideas are new and unfamiliar, they're not executable. When they're executable we need people who can execute." I love the intro: "Week 3,334 of Mitt Romney's quest for the presidency hasn't been a good one." Also, he is 'frugal' in that he 'personally U-Haul's family gear between vacation homes'. Perhaps Gingrich is exactly what Romney needed - if he survives the challenge.
On the Massachusetts health care, Romney just can't say it out loud, but it is a very liberal state and that is what THEY wanted, and he delivered. Romney hasn't ever personally had a problem with the cost of coverage, the cost of health care, the cost of gas or the cost of a loaf of bread. Romneycare is a state plan. Other state's can look at it, learn from it and judge it against their own state constitutions and their own polling data if they want to. On the federal level he has committed to repealing PelosiObamaCare on the first day possible and a second term Pres. Obama will not. That is enough contrast to bring into the general election on that issue.
Too early to say this with Newt still leading by double digits, but don't rule Newt out for the VP spot. That still puts him on the stage and in the debates as the most articulate attacker of the opponent.
-
The best sparring partner is a madman who goes all out.
—Bruce Lee
Every presidential election is a heavyweight fight. It is big, bloody and long.
An incumbent president is always favored to win. No matter what the numbers say, running against a sitting president, you generally are overmatched from day one. See the Kerry and Dole campaigns.
Now comes Mitt Romney. Is he a contender? That eternal 25% ceiling on him says no, not yet.
For months, Mitt has been The Front-Runner, whatever the polls said. It's hard to say that after last Saturday's GOP debate.
About a third of the way in, Newt Gingrich said to Mr. Romney: "The only reason you didn't become a career politician is you lost to Teddy Kennedy in 1994."
The Front-Runner looked stunned, as if he'd just been hit with a left hook out of nowhere. No one—not Undercards Bachmann, Cain or Perry—had been able to land one like this. Literally, you could see Mitt trying to clear his head. His words came in clumps: "Now, now wait a second, that—I mean you'll—OK, go ahead."
What we saw Saturday is that Mitt Romney is reachable personally. Somewhere under that cool front is a wafer of thin skin. If we have learned anything about Barack Obama the past three years it's that he enjoys hitting. He will be merciless with Mitt. Ask Hillary. Ask the respectful Republicans that Obama pistol-whipped in that George Washington University speech. Ask Wall Street's Democrats.
To compete against a do-what-you've-gotta-do opponent, Mitt Romney needs more of what Newt Gingrich gave him Saturday night: pressure. Forget the pleasures of a no-sweat primary season. He needs a sparring partner, someone who will toughen him to handle what he's going to get next fall. That would be Newt Gingrich, the best sparring partner in American politics.
Barack Obama, a novice in February 2007 when he announced for the presidency, survived an arduous set of primary battles and debates with Hillary Clinton, who was plenty tough herself. John McCain had to contend with . . . Mitt Romney. (And a tough guy named Rudy Giuliani, who failed to answer the bell.)
The Republican establishment is writing at great length that no matter how smart Newt is, he can't be part of this because he is an unhinged and unreliable creature of the Beltway cesspool. But if he were gone or discredited, the Romney candidacy will go into a virtual coma.
The Romney campaign may think their man is ready to compete against the president. They should watch the tape of the Saturday night "$10,000 bet" meltdown. In that brief, disastrous exchange over the Massachusetts health-insurance "mandate," a smirking, taunting Rick Perry showed why he won three governor's races. And Mitt buckled, as he had 10 days earlier when Fox's Bret Baier leaned on him about the mandate.
Newt Gingrich will make Mitt Romney a fit candidate.
If Mitt Romney still can't handle needling attacks on the Massachusetts mandate, there's not much chance he'll stand up under the withering mockery of Barack Obama over Bain Capital. Newt's own Bain Capital attack on Mr. Romney this week is taken as proof Newt is no conservative. What difference does that make so long as someone forces Mr. Romney to find a persuasive defense of Bain and free-market capitalism before September?
Newt Gingrich will either get Mitt Romney into shape for 2012, or he will take Mitt down in next year's primary contests before the former Massachusetts governor gets himself, and his party, in over his head.
And what if the man who was House speaker 13 years ago does defeat Mr. Romney? If somehow he steals the party's nomination, the Republican establishment—its leadership and its donor base—can blame themselves for failing to find one strong Republican willing to run against a vulnerable president.
For all the guff he is getting now from that same establishment, Mr. Gingrich is the one who was willing to stand in and—altogether predictably—take it in the neck over everything from spending at Tiffany to his often antic speakership. The top-tier candidates stayed home. They wouldn't do it. He did.
So let's push past the sparring- partner metaphor. If this improbable figure wins those primaries, Newt Gingrich will become the Rocky Balboa of American politics—a flawed, scarred figure who, against the odds, resurrects himself. If he self-destructs in the primaries, he's gone. If not, he's got a shot in the general. (As for Newt's egregious Freddie Mac lucre, let the record show that Rocky was working as a loan shark's collector.)
It has come to this—a Republican nomination out of Hollywood, which too often is where this process has been the past seven months. But it isn't going to have a Hollywood ending. Tinker Bell isn't going to conjure Chris Christie or anyone else out of fairy dust before the primaries begin. These two are it.
Newt Gingrich's flaws have been posited. Mitt Romney's inadequacies are known. It's time to put these two in a cage together so that one can emerge a fighter, ready to compete for the presidency.
-
Ron Paul is, in many ways, the ideal candidate for a conservative electorate hungry for a principled GOP nominee. Ron Paul will never be the GOP nominee. For this, Mr. Paul has himself to blame.
In his third run for president, and only a few weeks out from the 2012 Iowa caucuses, the Texas congressman has become the sleeper news of this nomination fight. Polls show him with real strength in Iowa, and stories are brimming with speculation about how the ardent libertarian might pull off a victory there, or how he might command crucial support in Western states, or how all this might upend the Romney-Gingrich narrative.
It's fun as far as it goes, but it misses the world. Or, rather, it misses Mr. Paul's unpopular foreign-policy views, which make him the ultimate self-limiting candidate. And what makes those views more notable is the candidate's stubborn refusal to modulate them—an obstinacy at odds with the rest of his 2012 campaign.
Mr. Paul was largely written off in the past as an ideological crank, a man who ran primarily to have his views heard, and many political watchers have made the same mistake this time. But if there has been an overlooked theme in this race, it has been Mr. Paul's new seriousness about winning the nomination. The Ron Paul of 2012 is a different candidate from the Ron Paul of the past. Aware that his absolutist positions worry voters, the libertarian has been conducting a far more mainstream campaign.
Not that he's flipped on any major positions. The Paul campaign knows that its greatest opportunity is attracting voters who are dissatisfied with the other front-runners' policy timidity or lack of consistency. Mr. Paul is neither timid nor inconsistent, and it ought to make him a star.
Nicknamed the "intellectual godfather" of the tea party movement, he's held the same views about limited government since before his first election in 1976. Those views are behind his platform today to slash $1 trillion from the federal government, to eliminate five federal cabinet agencies, to cut the corporate tax rate and get rid of taxes on capital gains and dividends, and to repeal everything from ObamaCare to Sarbanes-Oxley.
Enlarge Image
CloseAssociated Press
Texas Congressman Ron Paul
.The difference in the 2012 Paul campaign is instead one of a maturing tone and emphasis. Consider: The Ron Paul who in 1988 ran for president as a Libertarian spoke pugnaciously of abolishing "unconstitutional" entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare. The Ron Paul of 2008 acknowledged these entitlements could not go away overnight and argued for an opt-out. The Ron Paul of today still holds those positions but is now at great pains to stress that his budget plan is in fact the only one that would "save" entitlements like Social Security and Medicare for current retirees.
He's toned down his calls to legalize drugs. He wrote an October USA Today op-ed reassuring parents they'd retain (in the near term) student loans. Whereas Mr. Paul still despises income taxes and wants to kill off the IRS, he now concedes this might require reform of the existing system, and he promises to extend the Bush tax cuts.
Organizationally, the 2012 Paul campaign has also sloughed off its 2008 disdain of the establishment, and in Iowa at least Mr. Paul is engaging in retail politics, sitting down with party elders and activists. These are the efforts of a candidate newly willing to work within a certain framework, if it means a shot at the White House.
Except on foreign policy, where Mr. Paul does himself in. In discrete areas, Mr. Paul's "noninterventionist" approach resonates with those weary of war, or with the populist sentiment that we spend too much on foreign aid. And note that Mr. Paul has made small stabs at reassuring voters of his patriotism, as with a big national TV ad that highlighted his own military service and commitment to veterans.
But none of this has addressed voters' big concern over a Paul philosophy that fundamentally denies American exceptionalism and refuses to allow for decisive action to protect the U.S. homeland. Perhaps nothing hurt the candidate more in 2008 than his declaration that one reason terrorists attacked us on 9/11 is because "we've been in the Middle East."
Far from toning down such views, Mr. Paul has amped up the wattage, claiming this year that 9/11 prompted "glee" in a Bush administration looking for a pretext to "invade Iraq." He's condemned the Obama administration's killings of terrorists Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki, and he insists the U.S. is "provoking" Iran.
For foreign-policy hawks, this is a disqualifier. It explains why a Washington Post-ABC poll in late September showed that Mr. Paul drew some of his weakest numbers from his own base. Of the 25% of voters who viewed him favorably, nearly two-thirds did not identify themselves as Republicans. Among self-identified "conservative Republicans," only 8% gave him a "strongly favorable" rating. You don't win a GOP nomination with figures like this. Even mainstream Democrats and independents have no time for Mr. Paul's brand of isolationism, which is why his national numbers remain stuck around 10%.
Mr. Paul's new strategy has been to assail opponents like Mr. Gingrich, hoping to remind voters of his rivals' flaws. But the bar to Mr. Paul's campaign is not his opponents, or their money, or (a frequent Paul complaint) media bias. Because he can't, or won't, accommodate his own foreign policy views to those of the nation, there is only one bar to a Ron Paul victory: Mr. Paul
-
Comments on last night's debate?
Here's the WSJ's take on it:
===========
SIOUX CITY, Iowa—Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich used a televised debate Thursday to try to keep momentum going in his front-running presidential campaign. But he found himself on the defensive over his consulting work for Freddie Mac, his positions on Medicare and the question of electability.
Mr. Gingrich parried the attacks and insisted he could beat President Barack Obama next year. ""Barack Obama will not have a leg to stand on in trying to defend a record that is terrible and an ideology that is radical," he said.
The debate, the 13th of the Republican campaign, was the final televised showdown before GOP voters begin choosing nominating convention delegates, starting Jan. 3 with Iowa's caucuses. The issue of electability in the general election emerged immediately as a centerpiece.
Some Republicans have framed the 2012 election as theirs to lose against a president with weak poll numbers. But national surveys show Mr. Obama is in a virtual dead heat with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and ahead of Mr. Gingrich. Mr. Gingrich asserted in the debate that at this time in 1979, Ronald Reagan was 30 percentage points behind Jimmy Carter, an incumbent he would trounce 10 months later.
"Probably anybody up here could probably beat Obama," said Texas Rep. Ron Paul, whose surging campaign is threatening to upend expectations in Iowa. "He is beating himself."
After attacking Mr. Gingrich for the past few days, Mr. Romney toned it down. "The American people care very deeply about having a president who will get America right again," he said. "I'll have credibility on the economy when [President Obama] doesn't."
Seven candidates—Mr. Romney, Mr. Gingrich, Mr. Paul, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, Rep. Michele Bachmann, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.—began making a final pitch to Iowa voters before the holidays.
For the moment, the race in Iowa appears to be a three-man contest, with Messrs. Gingrich, Romney and Paul battling for the lead. The Thursday debate may end up blunting Mr. Paul's charge due to an extended exchange over Iran's nuclear ambitions. Mr. Paul, an ardent libertarian, warned the drum beat for military action against Iran threatened to push the United States into a quagmire. "That's how we got into that useless war in Iraq and lost so much," he said.
That triggered sharp responses from his rivals, who echoed conservative public opinion. Ms. Bachmann said she has "never heard a more dangerous answer on foreign policy."
Mr. Gingrich was forced to defend his role as a well-paid adviser to the mortgage giant Freddie Mac. In 2007, he had praised the role of a government-sponsored enterprise like Freddie only to castigate congressional Democrats for their support of the same firm.
Those Democrats, he said, were elected officials in power. "I was a private citizen engaged in a business like any other business," Mr. Gingrich said. He also said he wouldn't "step back from the idea that in fact we should have as a goal helping as many Americans as possible be capable of buying homes."
Ms. Bachmann pronounced herself shocked at Mr. Gingrich's stance. "We cannot have as our nominee someone who continues to stand with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae," she said.
Mr. Gingrich accused her of hurling "wild allegations."
The leading candidates, who have done relatively little retail campaigning, now have less than three weeks to meet Iowans and build the organizations they will need to help supporters navigate the caucus process.
The campaigns are now saturating Iowa's airwaves with advertisements. On Thursday, Messrs. Gingrich, Romney and Perry unveiled new ads, all with different tacks. After drubbing Mr. Gingrich for days as an "unreliable" conservative, Mr. Romney turned positive with an ad proclaiming, "It is a moral responsibility to believe in fiscal responsibility."
Mr. Perry stayed on the attack, labeling both Messrs. Gingrich and Romney "political insiders" responsible for "reckless spending and high taxes."
And Mr. Gingrich tried to keep his candidacy above the fray. "We want and deserve solutions," he said in his new ad. "Others seems to be more focused on attacks, rather than moving the country forward."
A Rasmussen Research poll of Iowa GOP voters released Thursday gave fresh evidence that the contest is up for grabs. Mr. Gingrich, who has had double-digit leads in recent polls, came in second in the survey at 20%, behind Mr. Romney's 23% and ahead of Mr. Paul's 18%. The poll might be an outlier, but it indicates the contest remains fluid.
After steering clear of South Carolina, where Mr. Gingrich holds a commanding lead in recent polls, Mr. Romney will begin a campaign swing through the state beginning Friday. The winner of South Carolina has gone on to win the Republican nomination since its inception in 1980.
-
"Comments on last night's debate?"
After hearing the takes of plenty of others, I finally watched and listened to the entirety last night.
All stepped up their game. Even the two weakest players, Santorum and Huntsman were pretty good. Huntsman made mostly good policy points, but doesn't look ready or Presidential. Rush L said that it is now a 4 person race: Newt, Mitt, Perry and Bachmann. Hannity said that Newt was answering difficult policy questions like Derick Jeter taking care of routine infield ground balls. Mitt was great answering for capitalism under attack and was correct - that criticism is exactly what he will face from the left if nominated. Newt was great except for not answering the unanswerable, regarding >1.6 million received from Freddie Mac. He just can't say that he needed the money and did almost nothing for it. Instead he answered a question not asked - I have never changed my vote for money...
Ron Paul showed the flexibility to compromise on everything except his area of weakness, foreign policy, where he doubled down on doing nothing no matter what. Michele Bachmann scored good points on attack and contrast against Paul. I think her direct attacks on Newt were lame and opportunistic; she was gushing over Newt not long ago, how is that for consistency, and could make similar claims of inconsistency against Ronald Reagan's record if he were standing next to her. The effort to make Newt or Mitt look too moderate or just compromise candidates will only strengthen them in the general election if they advance.
Gingrich was suburb on his defense of abolishing an appeals court, except that those kinds of unnecessary charges are repeated without his great explanation and live on as examples of recklessness and extremism later. They all seemed to understand the importance of appointing the right kinds of Justices (from my point of view), There is no way to know who would actually do that best.
Crafty wrote elsewhere today: "I repeat my accusation of vaginitis in the Commander in Chief's failure to destroy or retrieve the drone." Perry made that exact point (without the gender reference) with rehearsed precision, unlike some of his previous appearances. He said forcefully, either you destroy it or you go in and retrieve it. This President chose the worst of all choices, to do nothing!
I believe Newt, Mitt and Perry will come out of Iowa. Paul will score in there with them but is going nowhere. Bachmann, Santorum, (and Paul) have no executive experience and debating well doesn't change that. Newt has the double digit lead - just slightly too early ), Mitt perhaps has the momentum. My guess for the 3rd player is Perry. With all his mis-steps, he is still the most consistently unapologetic conservative on the issues of the 3 people with the strongest backgrounds to be President. I could visualize him, with all his inarticulateness and ridicule on the late shows, actually making Washington DC less important in our lives, but he is not as well positioned for the fight for the center in the general election as Mitt and Newt.
-
"This President chose the worst of all choices, to do nothing!"
One cited reason was it might look like an "act of war".
But, but, but, isn't a drone flying over Iran airspace already an act of war?
-
A war Iran has been waging against us since 1979.
-
"Newt was great except for not answering the unanswerable, regarding >1.6 million received from Freddie Mac. He just can't say that he needed the money and did almost nothing for it. Instead he answered a question not asked - I have never changed my vote for money..."
In my opinion, it is much, much worse than that.
What I understood Newt to say was that he IN FAVOR of the FMs economic fascist/GSE/public-private partnership mission to "encourage home ownership" in particular and in general in favor of economic fascism/GSEs/public-private partnerships. Add in his serial praise of FDR, and his praise of Woodrow Wilson and even SEIU's Andy Stern and Glenn Beck seems to have a pretty decent prima facie case , , ,
-
Crafty: "In my opinion, it is much, much worse than that.
What I understood Newt to say was that he IN FAVOR of the FMs economic fascist/GSE/public-private partnership mission to "encourage home ownership" in particular and in general in favor of economic fascism/GSEs/public-private partnerships. Add in his serial praise of FDR, and his praise of Woodrow Wilson and even SEIU's Andy Stern and Glenn Beck seems to have a pretty decent prima facie case , , ,"
----------
Yes you are right on this. He went quite a ways into praising GSE's - the mixture of public and private in do-good ventures. That is the status quo - the world we live in. Perry was doing it with state money in Texas, and it turns my stomach. That means payments and opportunities for corruption forever, if people accept that. It is the opposite of level playing field governing. I think it was our Freki who questioned, when did the power to regulate commerce become the power to participate in it? Or in the case of mortgages, the power to go from controlling 90% of a market to an all-Federal government system. And health care comes next.
I don't want my government to help people one by one buy a home, choosing which ones in which order. I want a society where people can all go out and do that on their own if they choose - by getting educated, trained and valuable, by working hard and saving and investing, by building their own good credit and putting their own money down - on homes at real market price, not subsidized, inflated prices.
We still need a President. Who then?
-
We still need a President. Who then?
A Crafty/DougMacG ticket. With GM as SecDef. :evil: 8-)
-
We still need a President. Who then?
A Crafty/DougMacG ticket. With GM as SecDef. :evil: 8-)
8-)
Sadly, there are many people who should be running for higher office that never will. The founders never intended for there to be a "political caste" in American society. George Washington shot down any attempt to make him king, or the trappings of monarchy. Too bad that ethos is in decline.
-
You honor me gentlemen. If elected, I accept-- and I'd be delighted and honored to have Doug & GM with me :-D
-
"A Crafty/DougMacG ticket. With GM as SecDef."
I'm in. Let's roll. :-D
-
"A Crafty/DougMacG ticket. With GM as SecDef."
I'm in. Let's roll. :-D
First thing, I'd have a meeting with the Pakistani generals and ISI that hid Bin Laden.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYa1IsxGVuc&feature=fvsr[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYa1IsxGVuc&feature=fvsr
Unfortunately, a variety of mishaps and domestic terror attacks would prevent the meeting from ever taking place. I think I'd work out a clear understanding with their replacements, however.
-
We've just signed up our BigDog as Chief of Staff! :-D 8-)
-
We've just signed up our BigDog as Chief of Staff! :-D 8-)
I was thinking Chief Justice, but I suppose you will have to wait for an opening.
Meanwhile our opponents keep taking each other down. Mitt refrained from going after Newt directly in the Sioux City debate. Instead we find out: "Last week alone, anti-Gingrich ads from a Romney ally outspent Gingrich by an 8-to-1 margin on television." http://apnews.myway.com/article/20111217/D9RMH5F00.html
-
The Past and the Present
By Thomas Sowell
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | If Newt Gingrich were being nominated for sainthood, many of us would vote very differently from the way we would vote if he were being nominated for a political office.
What the media call Gingrich's "baggage" concerns largely his personal life and the fact that he made a lot of money running a consulting firm after he left Congress. This kind of stuff makes lots of talking points that we will no doubt hear, again and again, over the next weeks and months.
But how much weight should we give to this stuff when we are talking about the future of a nation?
This is not just another election and Barack Obama is not just another president whose policies we may not like. With all of President Obama's broken promises, glib demagoguery and cynical political moves, one promise he has kept all too well. That was his boast on the eve of the 2008 election: "We are going to change the United States of America."
Many Americans are already saying that they can hardly recognize the country they grew up in. We have already started down the path that has led Western European nations to the brink of financial disaster.
Internationally, it is worse. A president who has pulled the rug out from under our allies, whether in Eastern Europe or the Middle East, tried to cozy up to our enemies, and has bowed low from the waist to foreign leaders certainly has not represented either the values or the interests of America. If he continues to do nothing that is likely to stop terrorist-sponsoring Iran from getting nuclear weapons, the consequences can be beyond our worst imagining.
Against this background, how much does Newt Gingrich's personal life matter, whether we accept his claim that he has now matured or his critics' claim that he has not? Nor should we sell the public short by saying that they are going to vote on the basis of tabloid stuff or media talking points, when the fate of this nation hangs in the balance.
Even back in the 19th century, when the scandal came out that Grover Cleveland had fathered a child out of wedlock — and he publicly admitted it — the voters nevertheless sent him to the White House, where he became one of the better presidents.
Do we wish we had another Ronald Reagan? We could certainly use one. But we have to play the hand we were dealt. And the Reagan card is not in the deck.
While the televised debates are what gave Newt Gingrich's candidacy a big boost, concrete accomplishments when in office are the real test. Gingrich engineered the first Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in 40 years — followed by the first balanced budget in 40 years. The media called it "the Clinton surplus" but all spending bills start in the House of Representatives, and Gingrich was Speaker of the House.
Speaker Gingrich also produced some long overdue welfare reforms, despite howls from liberals that the poor would be devastated. But nobody makes that claim any more.
Did Gingrich ruffle some feathers when he was Speaker of the House? Yes, enough for it to cost him that position. But he also showed that he could produce results.
In a world where we can make our choices only among the alternatives actually available, the question is whether Newt Gingrich is better than Barack Obama — and better than Mitt Romney.
Romney is a smooth talker, but what did he actually accomplish as governor of Massachusetts, compared to what Gingrich accomplished as Speaker of the House? When you don't accomplish much, you don't ruffle many feathers. But is that what we want?
Can you name one important positive thing that Romney accomplished as governor of Massachusetts? Can anyone? Does a candidate who represents the bland leading the bland increase the chances of victory in November 2012? A lot of candidates like that have lost, from Thomas E. Dewey to John McCain.
Those who want to concentrate on the baggage in Newt Gingrich's past, rather than on the nation's future, should remember what Winston Churchill said: "If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." If that means a second term for Barack Obama, then it means lost big time.
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell122011.php3
-
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ron-paul-storms-off-set-after-cnn-keeps-asking-newsletter-questions/
-
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ron-paul-storms-off-set-after-cnn-keeps-asking-newsletter-questions/
Fringe candidate. Always will be.
-
He may never win, but he matters:
a) He may well win Iowa;
b) he's got a big bank account and is aiming a goodly percentage of it at Newt;
c) as I have written here, the Rep party has been rather incoherent on the subject of foreign affairs and has allowed Baraq, a notably damaging CiC, to establish himself in much of the public mind as both a badass and the man who ended Iraq and is in the process of ending Afpakia. A goodly % of Americans, including those otherwise likely to vote Rep, sense us as having been badly led in our foreign adventures of the last ten years and are receptive to Paul's isolationism. With Paul hammering at Newt and Ritt's harder lines from within the party this may well facilitate a Baraq victory.
d) He may run as an independent, thus guaranteeing Baraq victory as Ross Perot did for Clinton in 1992.
-
He may never win, but he matters:
a) He may well win Iowa;
It's possible, but I think not. Even if he did win, it won't mean much. He'll never be the nominee.
b) he's got a big bank account and is aiming a goodly percentage of it at Newt;
Newt already has the DNC-MSM aimed at him, Loon Paul ain't much compared to that.
c) as I have written here, the Rep party has been rather incoherent on the subject of foreign affairs and has allowed Baraq, a notably damaging CiC, to establish himself in much of the public mind as both a badass and the man who ended Iraq and is in the process of ending Afpakia. A goodly % of Americans, including those otherwise likely to vote Rep, sense us as having been badly led in our foreign adventures of the last ten years and are receptive to Paul's isolationism. With Paul hammering at Newt and Ritt's harder lines from within the party this may well facilitate a Baraq victory.
Paul manages to have a foreign policy to the left of Obozo, which takes some doing. :roll: Even "low info voters" have to worry about his assurances that a nuclear Iran isn't a problem.
d) He may run as an independent, thus guaranteeing Baraq victory as Ross Perot did for Clinton in 1992.
He might, which shows exactly who he really is.
-
(already covered in posts while I typed...)
The points Crafty makes are reason for people like Hannity to attack him as he did this week. Ron Paul has big money, is weakening other candidates and could do big damage as a third party candidate. That makes things harder but does not guarantee Obama victory IMHO.
CNN should be building him up for that but just can't resist the temptation of the only thing racist ever found to be even remotely tied to tea party or Republicans.
The confusion of the candidates and the public over foreign policy right now is true. I doubt that the tinder boxes around the world in Nov 2012 will look so safe and stable that the let 'em all have nukes and do what they want approach will win. That is not the polling or intelligence that the current commander of drones is receiving.
Ron Paul in a 3 way debate would add uncertainty to both sides. It is one more person to attack and answer the record and statements of the incumbent, not just the Republican. H.W. Bush was taking the criticisms from two directions, not counting his loss of support from conservatives.
I don't see why you get to run for both the endorsement and lose and then run again against the endorsed candidate with no shame. Ron Paul would be the first to admit he is Republican in name only.
-
Bringing comments from CCP yesterday over here for comment:
"Some great posts with good insight into Gingrich on this board. Thanks to all...
This comment, "More damaging to his Presidential candidacy is that Mr. Gingrich doesn't seem to understand why anyone is offended." couple this with his statement the other day saying something about America is fed up with "the Washington establishment" is enough for me. I heard him say that and all I could think of is what a hypocrite - reminds me too much of Clinton hypocrisy and deceit."
- Yes, the Freddie Mac money can't be shaken off. It ties into all that is wrong.
(CCP continued:) "It really is astounding to hear so many Republicans come out in full force against him. Even people who are playing it safe and not speaking negatively publicly, are trashing him by their silence and their patent refusal to endorse him. I am not clear that any big names on the Repub side are for him. Has anyone heard a single prominent Repub leader come out and forcefully speak up for him - other than maybe John Bolton (who might be his secretary of state)?
- The Thomas Sowell piece and the Manchester NH endorsements were exceptions in Newt's favor with limited effects. People have kept their distance.
"I am shocked at how disliked he appears to be by anyone and everyone who knows him well. I for one cannot ignore this. As long as Romney can keep coming out swinging and show me he is in for the fight of this country's life - he is my man. I am almost there. Thoughts anyone?"
- The facts in the Mark Steyn piece and other National Review thrashings on Newt are all true as are the facts in the Sowell piece and Manchester Union Leader in his support. Newt gives us a mixed bag. He wants us to count his achievements from the same period where he wants us to discount his misdeeds. That is fine but every voter needs to sort that out.
GM summed it up with this!: "Oh look, a shiny orbital mirror!" It took me a while to get it, Newt gets bored or distracted and moves on. That isn't the right personality for the job at hand.
Romney poses the risk to conservatives of not being conservative enough on several fronts. His 59 point plan is missing a couple of things besides marketability, but it is non-threatening and gives him many specifics to work with when the heat for specifics really starts coming his way. Where his plan does not go far enough, those points can be put into the bills by a congress before they hit his desk -if we get the right congress. Winning the Presidency, House and Senate which are all possible this coming year and that will require the look of extremely steady and competent hands at the top of the ticket. Romney had small letdowns along the way but was the steadiest of the bunch. An unsteady or untrusted candidate at the top will have repercussions in the other races.
A moment ago Newt had all the early states. Rasmussen now has Romney up in Iowa and New Hampshire. Not in South Carolina but he landed a prime endorsement there. From the earliest states it will be a race based on momentum - the perception of the ability to win.
Newt rose one month too early. From that rise he needed to perform only at his best with no unforced errors while he tried to run out the clock. Instead he walked right into another big blooper, right on top of Romney's own error - the bet. Newt's rip on capitalism was a far bigger error than Perry forgetting to close the department of energy which shouldn't be a department anyway. Besides getting a crucial point dead wrong, Newt violated his own rule against those kinds of attacks. It clearly exacerbated the effects of all the negative attention that was coming anyway.
I find the WSJ (Paul Gigot?) conclusion compelling. http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=2112.msg57780#msg57780
"Our world that's coming is a world of narrowing, not widening, choices. It's a world that suits Mr. Romney's skills and history, his knack for operating within constraints and making choices based on data, data, data... When ideas are new and unfamiliar, they're not executable. When they're executable we need people who can execute."
Secretly I'm still pulling for Rick Perry ("I will try to make Washington DC as inconsequential in your life as I can."), and if it goes to the convention we all get behind Crafty.
-
GM summed it up with this!: "Oh look, a shiny orbital mirror!" It took me a while to get it, Newt gets bored or distracted and moves on.
I'm glad at least one person catches these. :-D
-
PATRICK O'CONNOR and DANNY YADRON
Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich lashed out at rival Ron Paul Thursday, despite a promise to focus his campaign on "positive ideas,'' saying that Mr. Paul wasn't taking foreign threats to the U.S. and Israel seriously.
The former House Speaker's criticism highlighted how Mr. Paul, a Texas congressman, has become a potent force in the Republican contest, overtaking Mr. Gingrich recently in public-opinion surveys of Iowa as the two jockey to become the leading alternative to Mitt Romney.
Mr. Paul has gained ground in part through a barrage of campaign advertising—both positive and negative. In one spot, he accuses Mr. Gingrich of "serial hypocrisy" for earning an estimated $1.6 million in consulting fees from Freddie Mac and then later criticizing the company for its role in the housing sector downturn.
The former Georgia congressman fired back at Mr. Paul Thursday in a radio interview with conservative commentator John McCaslin. He described Mr. Paul as "a guy who basically says, if the United States were only nice, it wouldn't have had 9/11."
"He doesn't want to blame the bad guys," Mr. Gingrich said. "He dismisses the danger of [an] Iranian nuclear weapon and seems to be indifferent to the idea that Israel could be wiped out."
Mr. Gingrich went on to say the "key to [Mr. Paul's] volunteer base is people who want to legalize drugs."
In response, Paul spokesman Gary Howard said, "Our campaign's volunteer base is made up of concerned Americans, parents, small business owners, home schoolers, students, veterans and others who believe in Congressman Paul's principled message.
"Mr. Gingrich should spend less time insulting these good people and own up to his base of support, which includes the likes of influence peddlers and Freddie Mac executives," he said.
The exchange came as Mr. Gingrich has been attempting to frame the race for the Republican nomination as a two-man contest between himself and Mr. Romney.
On Thursday, Mr. Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, declined Mr. Gingrich's offer to participate in a one-on-one debate. Mr. Romney has been looking beyond his GOP rivals in recent days and refocusing his attention on drawing contrasts with President Barack Obama.
Mr. Romney garnered words of support, though not a formal endorsement, from former President George H.W. Bush, who told the Houston Chronicle that the former Massachusetts governor is "the best choice for us." In an interview posted to the paper's website on Thursday, Mr. Bush said, "I just think he's mature and reasonable—not a bomb thrower."
He noted some sensitivity around his words due to the presence in the nominating contest of Texas Gov. Rick Perry. "I like Perry; he's our governor," Mr. Bush told the newspaper.
Separately Thursday, Mr. Romney said that he didn't intend to release his tax returns, though he suggested that could change if he became his party's nominee.
"Down the road, we'll see what happens if I'm the nominee,'' Mr. Romney told reporters in New Hampshire. "I don't have any immediate plans to reduce—or excuse me—release tax returns, but that may change in the future."
Mr. Romney's fortune is estimated to be worth as much as $250 million. He has fulfilled a requirement applying to candidates that he disclose assets, liabilities and financial transactions, listing their value in broad dollar-amount ranges. A tax return would show other information, such as any use of tax breaks and the tax rate Mr. Romney paid on certain assets.
Democrats said that Mr. Romney would be side-stepping normal protocol if he followed through on withholding his tax records.
"Mitt Romney is defying a practice to which every party nominee, Republican and Democrat, has adhered for decades," Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said. "Even his father, George Romney, disclosed his tax returns when he ran for president in 1968."
Nominees of both parties have traditionally disclosed their tax returns, though there is no requirement to do so.
President Barack Obama and his 2008 Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, did so in the last election cycle.
Iowans will get a brief reprieve from the negative ads clogging the airwaves over the Christmas weekend, as campaigns will stick with positive spots over that period.
The Romney campaign will air its latest 30-second spot in which Ann Romney touts her husband's character, and the Paul campaign will air an ad in which U.S. Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.), the congressman's son, testifies to his father's conservative convictions.
-
NEW YORK (AP) — Billionaire businessman Donald Trump has changed his voter registration in New York state from Republican to unaffiliated.
A spokesman for Trump says the businessman and television host changed his affiliation to preserve his option to seek the presidency in 2012.
Special Counsel Michael Cohen said Friday that Trump could enter the race if Republicans fail to nominate a candidate who can defeat President Barack Obama.
He said Trump probably would use his substantial wealth to even the playing field with Obama's re-election campaign.
Cohen said Trump's commitment to hosting TV's "The Apprentice" will keep him from doing anything until May, when the show's season wraps up.
He said Trump filed his voter registration paperwork Thursday.
P.C.
-
NEW YORK (AP) — Billionaire businessman Donald Trump has changed his voter registration in New York state from Republican to unaffiliated.
A spokesman for Trump says the businessman and television host changed his affiliation to preserve his option to seek the presidency in 2012.
Special Counsel Michael Cohen said Friday that Trump could enter the race if Republicans fail to nominate a candidate who can defeat President Barack Obama.
He said Trump probably would use his substantial wealth to even the playing field with Obama's re-election campaign.
Cohen said Trump's commitment to hosting TV's "The Apprentice" will keep him from doing anything until May, when the show's season wraps up.
He said Trump filed his voter registration paperwork Thursday.
P.C.
It's my understanding that his combover's registration remains unchanged.
-
Woof,
If he runs, it will almost guarantee four more for BO. :-P
P.C.
-
Woof,
If he runs, it will almost guarantee four more for BO. :-P
P.C.
He's not running, just another cycle of endless self-promotion.
-
Although capable of some pungent incisive commentary, he a prfoundly vain and vapid man.
-
Trump: "...profoundly vain and vapid man". - He touts his book 'Art of the Deal' as the best selling business book of all time. It is a terrible book, all about him and who he knows and nothing about helping the aspiring business person IMHO. GM is right, he won't run and expose himself to all the negative scrutiny.
-------------
Romney interviewed by WSJ: I post this just as part of the get to know the candidates series. My theory on Mitt is that he was always more conservative than he admitted in Massachusetts politics. He can't ever say that and I have nothing really to support it. This interview exposes I think an efficiency interest in taxation which could lead to a pretty good policy if followed closely. (Elsewhere on the internet, George Will writes that Mitt, the safe candidate, has so far in his political career won 5 out of 22 primaries. The 1962 Mets with the most losses since 1899 had a higher winning percentage.)
On Taxes, 'Modeling,' and the Vision Thing
The GOP front-runner says Iran is 'evil,' Newt Gingrich is wrong on judges, and he might consider a value-added tax. He also explains why his penchant for 'data' and analysis won't limit his ability to lead as president.
By JOSEPH RAGO AND PAUL A. GIGOT
Does Mitt Romney have a governing vision, a dominating set of political principles? It's the big question many voters say they have about the GOP presidential candidate. So when the former Massachusetts governor visited the Journal editorial board this week, we put it to him squarely, if perhaps tendentiously.
Voters see in him a smart man, an experienced executive, plenty of managerial expertise, great family—but they also see someone with the soul of a consultant who has 59 economic proposals because he lacks a larger vision of where he'd take the country. What does he think of that critique?
Mr. Romney has been garrulously genial for an hour, but here he shows a hint of annoyance. "I'm not running for president for 59 ideas," he says. "I'm not running for president because the country needs a management consultant or a manager. I'm not even the world's greatest manager. There are a lot better managers out there.
"People who know me from my years at Bain Capital, Bain and Company, the Olympics and Massachusetts wouldn't say he was successful because he was a great manager. They'd say I was successful because I was a leader, that I had a vision of how to change the enterprise, any one of those three enterprises, to make it greater."
And that vision is? Mr. Romney says he's running "to return America to the principles that we were founded upon." He goes on, expanding on his campaign theme, Believe in America: "We have a choice in America to be remaining a merit-based opportunity society that follows the Constitution, or to follow the path of Europe. And I'm the guy who believes in the former. I believe America got it right. I believe Europe got it wrong. I believe America must remain the leader of the world. . . . I am absolutely committed to an American century. I see this as an American century."
He concludes with even more force, "America doesn't need a manager. America needs a leader. The president is failing not just because he's a poor manager. It's because he doesn't know where to lead."
Voters will have to judge the quality of that vision, and how it compares with President Obama's. But there's no doubt it's a contrast with Mr. Romney's visit to our offices in 2007, which became legendary for its appeal to technocratic virtue.
In that meeting the candidate began by declaring "I love data" and kept on extolling data, even "wallowing in data," as a way to reform both business and government. He said he'd bring in management consultants to turn around the government, mentioning McKinsey, Bain and the Boston Consulting Group. Mr. Romney seemed to elevate the power of positive technocratic thinking to a governing philosophy.
So it is also notable that now Mr. Romney describes the core failure of Mr. Obama's economic agenda as faith in "a wise group of governmental bureaucrats" rather than political and economic freedom. "It is a refrain that we have seen throughout history where smart people are convinced that smart people ought to be able to guide an economy better than hordes of individuals pursuing their self-interest," Mr. Romney says, "the helter-skelter of free people choosing their course in life."
The Republican presidential candidate says he never intended to run for office again after 2008—"I went back and bought a home which was far too expensive and grandiose for the purposes of another campaign," he jokes. He was drawn back into public life amid Mr. Obama's bid to "fundamentally transform" the country, to use the president's own words, into "an entitlement society," to use Mr. Romney's.
"America can continue to lead the world from a values standpoint, from an economic standpoint, and from a military standpoint," Mr. Romney avers. He says the coming election represents "a very simple choice" between Mr. Obama's "European social democrat" vision and "a merit-based opportunity society—an American-style society—where people earn their rewards based upon their education, their work, their willingness to take risks and their dreams."
Yet on that score—risk-taking—Mr. Romney's campaign is sometimes timid, in particular on pro-growth tax reform. His 59-point economic plan, released this autumn, would maintain the Bush tax rates, cut the corporate rate to 25% from 35%, and eliminate the capital gains and dividend tax for those who earn less than $200,000.
But his plan doesn't say what a more efficient, competitive code would look like, only that it would be desirable. Even Mr. Obama's Simpson-Bowles deficit commission was bolder with its recommendations to lower rates across all brackets, including the top marginal rate to 23%, while broadening the tax base and cleaning out the IRS warren of deductions and subsidies.
Mr. Romney says he has "a positive inclination" toward Simpson-Bowles, with some exceptions, though the general framework "is a course that I would intend to pursue if I were to become president." But pressed for specifics, he says that "Partially, I'm burdened by my experience in the private sector. I worked for a number of years as you know in the management consulting field."
Here the technocrat re-emerges. Mr. Romney mentions pricing options for Corning Inc. fiber optics, a case study from his Bain salad days. "We spent six months with a team of people modeling and analyzing something as simple as that to make what we thought was the right decision," he recalls. "I tend to be highly analytical, driven by data, like to gather the input of a lot of people, and then model out the various outcomes that might occur under different scenarios."
When it comes to "something as extensive as the U.S. tax code," Mr. Romney continues, "I simply don't have the team . . . to be able to model out what will happen to all of the different income groups in the country, what will happen to the different sectors of our economy based on dramatic changes."
He notes that "my 59-point modest plan are immediate steps I'll take on Day One and that the steps I will take Day Two include moving toward a Simpson-Bowles-style lower tax rate, a broader base tax system. . . . People say, 'Well, let me see that plan.' It's like, 'That's going to take a lot more analysis and modeling than I have the capacity to do in the confines of a campaign.' But I will campaign for lower tax rates and a broader base of taxation."
What about his reform principles? Mr. Romney talks only in general terms. "Moving to a consumption-based system is something which is very attractive to me philosophically, but I've not been able to sufficiently model it out to jump on board a consumption-based tax. A flat tax, a true flat tax is also attractive to me. What I like—I mean, I like the simplification of a flat tax. I also like removing the distortion in our tax code for certain classes of investment. And the advantage of a flat tax is getting rid of some of those distortions."
Since Mr. Romney mentioned a consumption tax, would he rule out a value-added tax?
He says he doesn't "like the idea" of layering a VAT onto the current income tax system. But he adds that, philosophically speaking, a VAT might work as a replacement for some part of the tax code, "particularly at the corporate level," as Paul Ryan proposed several years ago. What he doesn't do is rule a VAT out.
Amid such generalities, it's hard not to conclude that the candidate is trying to avoid offering any details that might become a political target. And he all but admits as much. "I happen to also recognize," he says, "that if you go out with a tax proposal which conforms to your philosophy but it hasn't been thoroughly analyzed, vetted, put through models and calculated in detail, that you're gonna get hit by the demagogues in the general election."
That also seems to explain his refusal to propose cuts in individual tax rates, except for people who make less than $200,000, which not coincidentally is also Mr. Obama's threshold for defining "the rich."
"The president will characterize anyone running for office, and me in particular, as just in there to lower taxes for rich people, and that is not my intent," Mr. Romney says. "My intent is to simplify our tax code and create growth, and so I will also look to see whether the top one-half of 1% or one-thousandth of 1% or top 1% are still paying roughly the same share of the total tax burden that they have today. I'm not looking to lower the share paid for by the top, the top earners like myself."
But doesn't that merely concede Mr. Obama's philosophical argument? "No," Mr. Romney responds, clipping his sentences. "I'm just saying that I'm not looking to change the deal. I'm not looking to go after high-income individuals like myself. I'm not looking to differentially favor. I'm looking to provide a system which continues to recognize that people of higher income pay a larger portion of the tax burden and I'm not looking, I'm not running for office trying to find a way to lower the tax burden paid for by the very high, very highest income individuals. What I'm solving for is growth."
The growth point is crucial to a successful campaign, and Mr. Romney is betting that he can win by making a better case than Mr. Obama for how economies grow. But Mr. Romney also seems to think that by not calling for lower tax rates he can avoid a debate over taxes and equality. Mr. Obama won't let that happen. The danger for Mr. Romney—and other Republicans if he is the nominee—is that in trying to dodge the argument Mr. Romney will cede the point to Democrats and end up losing the growth argument too.
Mr. Romney is less equivocal on two other campaign issues—the judiciary and Iran. Asked about Newt Gingrich's proposals for constraining judges, he hits back hard. "The idea of the Congress being able to draw in the judiciary, subpoena . . . and remove courts is in my view a violation of the powers that is part of our constitutional heritage," he says. "I think Speaker Gingrich said that if he disagreed with the Supreme Court on an issue like gay marriage, he might decide not to carry it out. Well, if that's the case for President Gingrich, might not that be the case for President Obama?" He goes on to call the former House speaker's proposals "unusual in the extreme."
As for Iran's nuclear program, Mr. Romney sounds a note of moral certitude reminiscent of, well, George W. Bush and the axis of evil. "I see Iran's leadership as evil. When the president stands up and says that we have shared interests with all the people in the world, I disagree. There are people who are evil. There are people who have as their intent the subjugation and repression of other people; they are evil. America is good.
"I mean if we go back to Truman," he adds, he "was able to draw a line between Communism and freedom, and having drawn that line, America was able to define a foreign policy that has guided us well until this president. I applaud Ronald Reagan's brilliance in identifying the Soviet Union as an evil empire. I see Iran as intent on building, once again, an evil empire based upon the resources of the Middle East."
So what would he do about it? "I do not have a top secret security clearance at this stage to be able to define precisely what kinds of actions we could take." But he adds that "the range includes something of a blockade nature, to something of a surgical strike nature, to something of a decapitate the regime nature, to eliminate the military threat of Iran altogether."
Some experts have told him that "the surgical strike option" would be inadequate because Iran could retaliate against our friends in the region. "And therefore if we were to be serious about going after Iran's nuclear capacity, we would have to be prepared to go in a more aggressive way," he says. The only thing he rules out are "boots on the ground." If Mr. Romney gets the nomination, he seems prepared to make Iran and the bomb a major issue.
Which brings us back to the campaign and why he hasn't broken above 25% in the polls. The former governor seems unconcerned. He compares himself to John McCain, who he says had the same problem in 2008 but won the nomination. He says no other candidate has been able to maintain any higher support, and that his strategy is to steadily build on that "floor" of 25% caucus by primary until he's the nominee.
"Now I happen to believe that if I were to say some truly incendiary things, that there is in our party such, such anger about this president, for good reason, that if you're willing to say some really vehemently, incendiary things that you can get a lot of quick support," he says. But then "you're gonna kill yourself in the general election."
Mr. Romney rarely says incendiary things, which is why many Republicans think he is the most electable candidate. But it is also why he can be less than inspiring. His challenge—both to win the nomination and especially to beat Mr. Obama—is to persuade voters that the data-driven, economic-modeling, analytical manager can also be a leader.
-
**Actually getting things done trumps "big ideas".
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/24/gingrich-also-fails-to-qualify-for-virginia-ballot/
Gingrich also fails to qualify for Virginia ballot; Update: Gingrich promises write-in campaign; Update: Are write-ins for primaries illegal in VA?
posted at 9:15 am on December 24, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
Hey, what’s the big deal? It’s only, er, the state in which Gingrich currently lives:
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has failed to qualify for Virginia’s March 6 Republican primary, a development that complicates his bid to win the GOP presidential nomination.
“After verification, RPV has determined that Newt Gingrich did not submit required 10k signatures and has not qualified for the VA primary,” the Republican Party of Virginia announced early Saturday on its Twitter website.
This follows the failure of Rick Perry to make the primary ballot, announced earlier last night. Which is more egregious? Perry had a lot more money and resources on which to call to get his ducks in a row than Gingrich, but this is Gingrich’s home state now, and has been for the last 12 years. A basic test in the primaries is whether a candidate can win his home state, so the failure to even qualify for the ballot is an even worse failure.
The news couldn’t come at a worse time, either. Gingrich’s numbers had already been falling in Iowa, but there had been a sense that the slide had been arrested, if not started to reverse itself a little. This failure calls into question Gingrich’s managerial competence all over again, which has taken a beating throughout this campaign — first when his staff walked out on him, and later when former House colleagues began to recall the circumstances of the rebellion that took place just a couple of years into his speakership.
The Virginia GOP can’t be enjoying this, either. Right now it looks like their early-ish March 6th primary will be an embarrassing flop, offering commonwealth Republicans a choice only between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. One has to wonder whether the state party will be spending their Christmas holiday looking for loopholes to add the rest of the field to the ballot — and if they do, how they plan to defend themselves against likely court challenges from Romney, Paul, or their supporters. Right now, the suddenly impermeable ballot of Virginia is making the case for Romney on competence alone.
Drink heavily the eggnog this evening and next, my friends.
Update: Commenter Cindy Munford asks, “Mr. Morrissey, why didn’t Rep. Bachmann, Sen. Santorum, and Gov. Huntsman even bother to submit petitions? It sure makes it seem like Virginia wasn’t a priority, why is that?” Er … why are you asking my dad? Oh — “Mr. Morrissey” is me? Well, OK. Bachmann and Santorum don’t have the resources to put people on the ground in Virginia; they’re both sinking everything they have into Iowa. I don’t think anyone expected them to qualify for the Virginia ballot. Huntsman does have considerable resources, and he should have been able to compete in Virginia, so I’m not sure why he didn’t bother to try.
Dad says hello, by the way.
Update II: Team Gingrich lays this at the feet of Virginia, and promises “an aggressive write-in campaign”:
“Only a failed system excludes four out of the six major candidates seeking access to the ballot. Voters deserve the right to vote for any top contender, especially leading candidates. We will work with the Republican Party of Virginia to pursue an aggressive write-in campaign to make sure that all the voters of Virginia are able to vote for the candidate of their choice.”
Well, the same “failed system” allowed six GOP and six Democratic campaigns to qualify for the ballot in 2008 — including, as Doug Mataconis reminds us, those establishment candidates Alan Keyes [see below, no] and Dennis Kucinich. I’m pretty sure neither of those campaigns were drowning in cash this time four years ago, either. As for the potential success of a write-in campaign, it’s difficult to see how that will work when Gingrich’s team couldn’t even get enough people on the street to sign their own names to petitions, let alone write his name on a ballot.
Update III: Steve Eggleston offers a devastating comment to Team Gingrich’s attempt to accuse Virginia of blocking ballot access:
I’d like to know whether he considers Bachmann, Huntsman, or Santorum not a major candidate, or whether he realizes none of those three so much as submitted signatures.
Are they paying attention at all?
Update IV: Actually, Doug’s wrong [see next upate] — Keyes wasn’t on 2008 GOP primary ballot, but it did have six candidates: Paul, Romney, McCain, Fred Thompson, Huckabee, and Giuliani. Democrats had six as well: Obama, Kucinich, Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, Biden, and John Edwards. And as I recall, the Fred Thompson campaign wasn’t exactly known for its energy and accomplishment.
Update V: I’m the one who got Doug’s tweet wrong, not Doug; he said Keyes got on the ballot in 2000, not 2008, which is true and goes directly to the same point. But even worse, it appears that the pledge to run a write-in campaign in Virginia has one eeensy little obstacle …. it’s illegal:
At all elections except primary elections it shall be lawful for any voter to vote for any person other than the listed candidates for the office by writing or hand printing the person’s name on the official ballot…
Doug marvels at how a major campaign could get this so wrong:
That’s the first sentence of Virginia Code Section 24.2-644(C). Considering that Newt is a resident of the Commonwealth one would think his campaign would be aware of such things. Actually, one would think his campaign would have been on top of this thing months ago.
Well … yeah.
Update VI: Some are asking if the requirements for petition signatures changed between 2008 and 2010. They did in 2010, but they appear to have gotten easier to collect, not more difficult. Instead of requiring a Social Security number for each signature, the law was changed from shall to may, only for the last four digits of the SSN.
Update VII: So how long did Perry, Gingrich, and everyone else have to collect their signatures? Steve Eggleston says more than five months:
In case you were in a cave this week, Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman and Michele Bachmann failed to turn in any signatures to get on Virginia’s March 6 Presidential primary ballot, while Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich had enough of their under-12,000 signatures (11,911 and 11,050 respectively) signatures invalidated by the Republican Party of Virginia that they too missed the 10,000 (with at least 400 from each of the 11 Congressional districts). …
For those of you wondering whether the 10,000 threshhold is so strenuous, nobody but the best-funded candidates can make the grade, do note tha the candidates could start collecting signatures back on July 1, and thus had over 5 1/2 months to get to 10,000. Further, there were 6 candidates on the 2008 Republican and 6 candidates on the 2008 Democrat Virginia primary ballots, including Dennis Kucinich on the Democrat side.
-
GM,
Ironic you posted with the word "trump".
I thought you were going to post that Trump is going to run as an independent.
As that too would qualify for a "ayfkm" titled thread.
Hopefully Paul can get knocked out with this racial stuff. If he was really a party to this stuff I have no clue how in high heaven he could/should get his name on any ballot. If any of this is confirmed cannot the Rep party throw him out?
Of course he could run as a third party but the Repubs should do a
-
ccp,
Were Ron Paul not in the early stages of dementia, even he would recognize he has no chance and than only his band of cultists like him.
-
Let us remind ourselves about the good of RP too.
RP is the ONLY candidate who can easily rattle off real big cuts, right away. He does so fearlessly.
RP has excellent analysis of the Fed, interest rates, and monetary policy.
RP is both sincere and fierce in his passion for the Constitution.
Our foreign policy has been incoherent in many ways, and many of his supporters are simply coming from a place of "Minding your own business is good general policy". This is not an irrational impulse. RP applies this to the right of the American people to be left alone by their government.
All these things are substantial and he has raised the discussion by bringing them to the table.
Unfortunately a chain is no stronger than its weak links and he has links that are genuinely defective.
-
Let us remind ourselves about the good of RP too.
RP is the ONLY candidate who can easily rattle off real big cuts, right away. He does so fearlessly.
**He also does so cluelessly. I'm a fan of big cuts, but they have to be done carefully to avoid unintended consequences. RP being unelectable, pays no such attention to the details.
RP has excellent analysis of the Fed, interest rates, and monetary policy.
RP is both sincere and fierce in his passion for the Constitution.
**For HIS interpretation of the constitution, which is more than a little questionable.
Our foreign policy has been incoherent in many ways, and many of his supporters are simply coming from a place of "Minding your own business is good general policy". This is not an irrational impulse. RP applies this to the right of the American people to be left alone by their government.
**The siren song of isolationism will always be a subcurrent in American thought. On an emotional level, I find it appealing as well, but geopolitics is no place for knee-jerk emotionalism. Cold logic applied to the long term saves American lives.
All these things are substantial and he has raised the discussion by bringing them to the table.
Unfortunately a chain is no stronger than its weak links and he has links that are genuinely defective.
**More defective links than a Mr. T starter kit made by the lowest bidder in China.
-
The American Free Press, which markets books like “The Invention of the Jewish People” and “March of the Titans: A History of the White Race,” is urging its subscribers to help it send hundreds of copies of Ron Paul’s collected speeches to voters in New Hampshire. The book, it promises, will “Help Dr. Ron Paul Win the G.O.P. Nomination in 2012!”
Don Black, director of the white nationalist Web site Stormfront, said in an interview that several dozen of his members were volunteering for Mr. Paul’s presidential campaign, and a site forum titled “Why is Ron Paul such a favorite here?” has no fewer than 24 pages of comments. “I understand he wins many fans because his monetary policy would hurt Jews,” read one.
Far-right groups like the Militia of Montana say they are rooting for Mr. Paul as a stalwart against government tyranny.
Mr. Paul’s surprising surge in polls is creating excitement within a part of his political base that has been behind him for decades but overshadowed by his newer fans on college campuses and in some liberal precincts who are taken with his antiwar, anti-drug-laws messages.
The white supremacists, survivalists and anti-Zionists who have rallied behind his candidacy have not exactly been warmly welcomed. “I wouldn’t be happy with that,” Mr. Paul said in an interview Friday when asked about getting help from volunteers with anti-Jewish or antiblack views.
But he did not disavow their support. “If they want to endorse me, they’re endorsing what I do or say — it has nothing to do with endorsing what they say,” said Mr. Paul, who is now running strong in Iowa for the Republican nomination.
The libertarian movement in American politics has long had two overlapping but distinct strains. One, backed to some degree by wealthy interests, is focused largely on economic freedom and dedicated to reducing taxes and regulation through smaller government. The other is more focused on personal liberty and constraints on government built into the Constitution, which at its extreme has helped fuel militant antigovernment sentiment.
Mr. Paul has operated at the nexus of the two, often espousing positions at odds with most of the Republican Party but assembling a diverse and loyal following attracted by his adherence to libertarian principles.
Mr. Paul’s calls for the end of the Federal Reserve system, a cessation of aid to Israel and all other nations and an overall diminishment of government power have natural appeal among far-right, niche political groups. Aides say that much of the support is unsolicited and that it is unfair to overlook the larger number of mainstream voters now backing him.
But a look at the trajectory of Mr. Paul’s career shows that he and his closest political allies either wittingly or unwittingly courted disaffected white voters with extreme views as they sought to forge a movement from the nether region of American politics, where the far right and the far left sometimes converge.
In May, Mr. Paul reiterated in an interview with Chris Matthews of MSNBC that he would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawing segregation. He said that he supported its intent, but that parts of it violated his longstanding belief that government should not dictate how property owners behave. He has been featured in videos of the John Birch Society, which campaigned against the Civil Rights Act, warning, for instance, that the United Nations threatens American sovereignty.
In the mid-1990s, between his two stints as a Texas congressman, Mr. Paul produced a newsletter called The Ron Paul Survival Report, which only months before the Oklahoma City bombings encouraged militias to seek out and expel federal agents in their midst. That edition was titled “Why Militias Scare the Striped Pants Off Big Government.”
An earlier edition of another newsletter he produced, The Ron Paul Political Report, concluded that the need for citizens to arm themselves was only natural, given carjackings by “urban youth who play whites like pianos.” The report, with no byline but written in the first person, said: “I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self-defense. For the animals are coming.”
Mike Holmes, former editor of The American Libertarian, who has known Mr. Paul from libertarian circles since the 1970s, contended that the newsletters did not “rise to the level of hate speech.” He added: “It goes more to the level of social commentary. There was no use of any ‘N’-words. It amounted to the style of foul-mouthed punks trying to get inside the gang of paleoconservatives.”
Those newsletters have drawn new scrutiny through Mr. Paul’s two recent presidential campaigns. The New Republic posted several of them online in 2008 and again recently, including a lament about “The Disappearing White Majority.” The conservative Weekly Standard ran an article highlighting the newsletters last week.
Mr. Paul has long repudiated the newsletters, contending that they were written by the staff of his company, Ron Paul & Associates, while he was tending to his obstetrician’s practice and that he did not see some of them until 10 years later. “I disavow those positions,” he said in the interview. “They’re not my positions, and anybody who knows me, they’ve never heard a word of it.”
But production of the newsletters was partly overseen by Lew Rockwell, a libertarian activist who has been a close political aide and adviser to Mr. Paul over the course of decades. At the same time that he was a director for Mr. Paul’s company, Mr. Rockwell called on libertarians to reach out to “cultural and moral traditionalists,” who “reject not only affirmative action, set-asides and quotas, but the 1964 Civil Rights Act and all subsequent laws that force property owners to act against their will.”
Mr. Rockwell and Mr. Paul came to know each other as followers of the free-market Austrian economists Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich A. Hayek, who argued against socialism and centralized economic planning, a spokesman for Mr. Paul said. They joined with the libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard in the 1970s and 1980s during the early attempts to forge libertarianism into a national party.
Mr. Rockwell was listed in business filings as a director of Ron Paul & Associates from its founding in 1984 through its dissolution in 2001, and was a paid Paul campaign consultant through at least 2002, according to federal campaign records. He was Mr. Paul’s chief of staff during the congressman’s first period in Congress, which began in the 1970s, and championed his successful bid in 1988 for the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination.
During that nominating battle, a flier produced by Mr. Paul’s opponents accused him of gay-baiting by reporting in one of his newsletters that the government was “lying” about the threat of AIDS and that the virus could be transmitted through “saliva, tears, sweat.” It said that some “AIDS carriers — perhaps out of a pathological hatred — continue to give blood.”
Mr. Paul said Friday “that was never my view at all,” and again blamed his staff. Still, that same year he was quoted in The Houston Post as saying that schools should be free to bar children with AIDS and that the government should stop financing AIDS research and education.
As the Libertarian standard bearer, Mr. Paul won less than 1 percent of the vote. After the election, as libertarians searched for ways to broaden the appeal of their ideology, Mr. Rockwell and Mr. Rothbard advocated a coalition of libertarians and so-called paleoconservatives, who unlike hawkish “neocons” were socially conservative, noninterventionist and opposed to what they viewed as state-enforced multiculturalism.
In the Rothbard-Rockwell Report they started in 1990, Mr. Rothbard called for a “Right Wing Populism,” suggesting that the campaign for governor of Louisiana by David Duke, the founder of the National Association for the Advancement of White People, was a model for “paleolibertarianism.”
“It is fascinating that there was nothing in Duke’s current program or campaign that could not also be embraced by paleoconservatives or paleolibertarians,” he wrote.
Arguing that too many libertarians were embracing a misplaced egalitarianism, Mr. Rockwell wrote in Liberty magazine: “There is nothing wrong with blacks preferring the ‘black thing.’ But paleolibertarians would say the same about whites preferring the ‘white thing’ or Asians the ‘Asian thing.’ ”
Their thinking was hardly embraced by all libertarians. “It was just something that we found abhorrent, and so there was a huge divide,” said Edward H. Crane, the founder of the Cato Institute, a prominent libertarian research center.
Mr. Crane, a longtime critic of Mr. Rockwell, called Mr. Paul’s close association with him “one of the more perplexing things I’ve ever come across in my 67 years.” He added: “I wish Ron would condemn these fringe things that float around because of Rockwell. I don’t believe he believes any of that stuff.”
Mr. Paul said in the interview that he did not, but he declined to condemn Mr. Rockwell, saying he did not want to get in the middle of a fight. “I could understand that, but I could also understand the Rothbard group saying, Why don’t you quit talking to Cato?” he said.
Mr. Paul described Mr. Rockwell and Mr. Rothbard as political provocateurs. “They enjoyed antagonizing people, to tell you the truth, and trying to split people,” he said. “I thought, we’re so small, why shouldn’t we be talking to everybody and bringing people together?”
Nonetheless, Mr. Paul’s newsletters veered into language that would most likely appeal to Mr. Duke’s followers, including the suggestion in 1994 that Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, was responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
He said he did not discuss the content of the newsletters with Mr. Rockwell because readers never complained. “I was pretty careless about what was going in my own newsletter — that was my biggest fault,” he said.
Mr. Rockwell did not respond to interview requests. Carol Moore, a libertarian opponent of his at the time, said he and his allies had “all evolved” and moderated their views since.
Still, the newsletters had a lasting appeal with the audience Mr. Rockwell and Mr. Rothbard talked about reaching.
Mr. Black of Stormfront said the newsletters helped make him a Ron Paul supporter. “That was a big part of his constituency, the paleoconservatives who think there are race problems in this country,” Mr. Black said.
“We understand that Paul is not a white nationalist, but most of our people support him because of his stand on issues,” Mr. Black said. “We think our race is being threatened through a form of genocide by assimilation, meaning the allowing in of third-world immigrants into the United States.”
Mr. Black said Mr. Paul was attractive because of his “aggressive position on securing our borders,” his criticism of affirmative action and his goal of eliminating the Federal Reserve, which the Stormfront board considers to be essentially a private bank with no government oversight. “Also, our board recognizes that most of the leaders involved in the Fed and the international banking system are Jews.”
Mr. Paul is not unaware of that strain among his supporters. Mr. Crane of the Cato Institute recalled comparing notes with Mr. Paul in the early 1980s about direct mail solicitations for money. When Mr. Crane said that mailing lists of people with the most extreme views seemed to draw the best response, Mr. Paul responded that he found the same thing with a list of subscribers to the Spotlight, a now-defunct publication founded by the holocaust denier Willis A. Carto.
Mr. Paul said he did not recall that conversation, which was first reported in the libertarian publication Reason, and doubted that he would have known what lists were being used on his behalf. Yet he said he would not have a problem seeking support from such a list.
“I’ll go to anybody who I think I can convert to change their viewpoints — so that would be to me incidental,” he said. “I’m always looking at converting people to look at liberty the way I do.”
-
tatement from fmr. Ron Paul staffer on Newsletters, Anti-Semitism
Written By : Eric Dondero
Fmr. Senior Aide, US Cong. Ron Paul, 1997 – 2003
Campaign Coordinator, Ron Paul for Congress, 1995/96
National Organizer, Draft Ron Paul for President, 1991/92
Travel Aide/Personal Asst. Ron Paul, Libertarian for President
1987/88
I have been asked by various media the last few days for my comments, view of the current situation regarding my former boss Ron Paul, as he runs for the presidency on the Republican ticket.
I’ve noticed in some media that my words have been twisted and used for an agenda from both sides. And I wish to set the record straight with media that I trust and know will get the story right: conservative/libertarian-conservative bloggers.
Is Ron Paul a “racist.” In short, No. I worked for the man for 12 years, pretty consistently. I never heard a racist word expressed towards Blacks or Jews come out of his mouth. Not once. And understand, I was his close personal assistant. It’s safe to say that I was with him on the campaign trail more than any other individual, whether it be traveling to Fairbanks, Alaska or Boston, Massachusetts in the presidential race, or across the congressional district to San Antonio or Corpus Christi, Texas.
He has frequently hired blacks for his office staff, starting as early as 1988 for the Libertarian campaign. He has also hired many Hispanics, including his current District staffer Dianna Gilbert-Kile.
One caveat: He is what I would describe as “out of touch,” with both Hispanic and Black culture. Ron is far from being the hippest guy around. He is completely clueless when it comes to Hispanic and Black culture, particularly Mexican-American culture. And he is most certainly intolerant of Spanish and those who speak strictly Spanish in his presence, (as are a number of Americans, nothing out of the ordinary here.)
Is Ron Paul an Anti-Semite? Absolutely No. As a Jew, (half on my mother’s side), I can categorically say that I never heard anything out of his mouth, in hundreds of speeches I listened too over the years, or in my personal presence that could be called, “Anti-Semite.” No slurs. No derogatory remarks.
He is however, most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general. He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations. His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer. He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs.
Again, American Jews, Ron Paul has no problem with. In fact, there were a few Jews in our congressional district, and Ron befriended them with the specific intent of winning their support for our campaign. (One synagogue in Victoria, and tiny one in Wharton headed by a well-known Jewish lawyer).
On the incident that’s being talked about in some blog media about the campaign manager directing me to a press conference of our opponent Lefty Morris in Victoria to push back on Anti-Jewish charges from the Morris campaign, yes, that did happen. The Victoria Advocate described the press conference very accurately. Yes, I was asked (not forced), to attend the conference dressed in a Jewish yarlmuke, and other Jewish adornments.
There was another incident when Ron finally agreed to a meeting with Houston Jewish Young Republicans at the Freeport office. He berated them, and even shouted at one point, over their un-flinching support for Israel. So, much so, that the 6 of them walked out of the office. I was left chasing them down the hallway apologizing for my boss.
Is Ron Paul a homo-phobe? Well, yes and no. He is not all bigoted towards homosexuals. He supports their rights to do whatever they please in their private lives. He is however, personally uncomfortable around homosexuals, no different from a lot of older folks of his era.
There were two incidents that I will cite, for the record. One that involved me directly, and another that involved another congressional staffer or two.
(I am revealing this for the very first time, and I’m sure Jim Peron will be quite surprised to learn this.)
In 1988, Ron had a hardcore Libertarian supporter, Jim Peron, Owner of Laissez Faire Books in San Francisco. Jim set up a magnificent 3-day campaign swing for us in the SF Bay Area. Jim was what you would call very openly Gay. But Ron thought the world of him. For 3 days we had a great time trouncing from one campaign event to another with Jim’s Gay lover. The atmosphere was simply jovial between the four of us. (As an aside we also met former Cong. Pete McCloskey during this campaign trip.) We used Jim’s home/office as a “base.” Ron pulled me aside the first time we went there, and specifically instructed me to find an excuse to excuse him to a local fast food restaurant so that he could use the bathroom. He told me very clearly, that although he liked Jim, he did not wish to use his bathroom facilities. I chided him a bit, but he sternly reacted, as he often did to me, Eric, just do what I say. Perhaps “sternly” is an understatement. Ron looked at me directly, and with a very angry look in his eye, and shouted under his breath: “Just do what I say NOW.”
The second incident involved one or two other staffers many years later at the BBQ in Surfside Beach. I was not in direct presence of the incident. But another top staffer, and I believe one of our secretaries, was witnessed to it. This top staffer adores Ron, but was extremely insulted by his behavior, I would even say flabbergasted to the point of considering resigning from his staff over it.
“Bobby,” a well-known and rather flamboyant and well-liked gay man in Freeport came to the BBQ. Let me stress Ron likes Bobby personally, and Bobby was a hardcore campaign supporter. But after his speech, at the Surfside pavilion Bobby came up to Ron with his hand extended, and according to my fellow staffer, Ron literally swatted his hand away.
Again, let me stress. I would not categorize that as “homo-phobic,” but rather just unsettled by being around gays personally. Ron, like many folks his age, very much supports toleration, but chooses not to be around gays on a personal level. It’s a personal choice. And though, it may seem offensive to some, he has every right in my mind to feel and act that way.
Finally, let me make a couple observations. The liberal media is ferociously attacking Ron this morning, on everything from the Newsletters to his various PACs. I’m amused at how off-base they all are. If they are looking for something that went un-explained after many years, it’s the Nadia Hayes incident from the end of the presidential campaign in 1988. I personally am still a little ticked off by this, and surprised that nobody has ever followed up on it. In brief, Nadia was Ron’s longtime business/campaign manager in the 1980s. On the very last day of the presidential campaign, attorneys, accountants, and even Nassau Bay police dept. investigation officials stormed into our campaign office, sealed everything off, rushed us campaign staffers into the storeroom (literally), and for hours on end ruffled through the entire campaign records, file cabinets, and other papers.
Lew Rockwell and Burton Blumert were there too. We were greatly surprised by this. Nadia was eventually convicted of embezzlement and went to jail for 6 months, plus had to pay $140,000 in restitution to Ron.
There were rumors at the time, and long thereafter, that Lew and Burt had pinned it all on Nadia, and that they had their own reasons for the “coup.” For years afterwards, Rockwell, and Blumert had complete control of Ron’s enterprises through Jean McIver and (former JBS/Jesse Helms fundraiser) David “James” Mertz of northern Virginia.
It was easy to pin it all on Nadia. She lived extravagantly, and her husband who owned a boat repair business in Clear Lake, had recently had some serious financial problems.
Nadia never resurfaced, and was never heard from again.
I will attest, that when campaign consultant Tony Payton died of heart failure, in 2002 I believe, I specifically asked Ron if I could look Nadia up, and contact her to let her know that her longtime friend had died, and he reacted sternly to me, expressing that he did not want me to do that, and if I did, there would be serious consequences. I was shocked. And this was one of the reasons I eventually left his staff.
On one other matter, I’d like to express in the strongest terms possible, that the liberal media are focusing in on entirely the wrong aspects regarding controversies on Ron Paul.
It’s his foreign policy that’s the problem; not so much some stupid and whacky things on race and gays he may have said or written in the past.
Ron Paul is most assuredly an isolationist. He denies this charge vociferously. But I can tell you straight out, I had countless arguments/discussions with him over his personal views. For example, he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that “saving the Jews,” was absolutely none of our business. When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just “blowback,” for Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy errors, and such.
I would challenge him, like for example, what about the instances of German U-boats attacking U.S. ships, or even landing on the coast of North Carolina or Long Island, NY. He’d finally concede that that and only that was reason enough to counter-attack against the Nazis, not any humanitarian causes like preventing the Holocaust.
There is much more information I could give you on the sheer lunacy of his foreign policy views. Let me just concentrate on one in specific. And I will state this with absolute certainty:
Ron Paul was opposed to the War in Afghanistan, and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11.
He did not want to vote for the resolution. He immediately stated to us staffers, me in particular, that Bush/Cheney were going to use the attacks as a precursor for “invading” Iraq. He engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration.
On the eve of the vote, Ron Paul was still telling us staffers that he was planning to vote “No,” on the resolution, and to be prepared for a seriously negative reaction in the District. Jackie Gloor and I, along with quiet nods of agreement from the other staffers in the District, declared our intentions to Tom Lizardo, our Chief of Staff, and to each other, that if Ron voted No, we would immediately resign.
Ron was “under the spell” of left-anarchist and Lew Rockwell associate Joe Becker at the time, who was our legislative director. Norm Singleton, another Lew Rockwell fanatic agreed with Joe. All other staffers were against Ron, Joe and Norm on this, including Lizardo. At the very last minute Ron switched his stance and voted “Yay,” much to the great relief of Jackie and I. He never explained why, but I strongly suspected that he realized it would have been political suicide; that staunchly conservative Victoria would revolt, and the Republicans there would ensure that he would not receive the nomination for the seat in 2002. Also, as much as I like to think that it was my yelling and screaming at Ron, that I would publicly resign if he voted “No,” I suspect it had a lot more to do with Jackie’s threat, for she WAS Victoria. And if Jackie bolted, all of the Victoria conservatives would immediately turn on Ron, and it wouldn’t be pretty.
If you take anything from this lengthy statement, I would hope that it is this final story about the Afghanistan vote, that the liberal media chooses to completely ignore, because it doesn’t fit their template, is what you will report.
If Ron Paul should be slammed for anything, it’s not some silly remarks he’s made in the past in his Newsletters. It’s over his simply outrageously horrendous views on foreign policy, Israel, and national security for the United States. His near No vote on Afghanistan. That is the big scandal. And that is what should be given 100 times more attention from the liberal media, than this Newsletter deal.
Eric Dondero, Publisher
LibertarianRepublican.net
-
Deep Thoughts with Barbara Walters: If you could change one thing about yourself, what would it be Mr. President?
"I deeply regret not having learned a musical instrument."
Perhaps he didn't hear the last part of the question: "...Mr. President"!
Something we agree on. I wish his career had taken a different turn as well.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/12/26/obama_one_thing_id_like_to_change_about_myself_is__learn_an_instrument.html
-
I think you are being overly critical here, Doug. While I agree that the response may violate the spirit of the question, it isn't like an interviewer is going to address the sitting POTUS by his first name.
Deep Thoughts with Barbara Walters: If you could change one thing about yourself, what would it be Mr. President?
"I deeply regret not having learned a musical instrument."
Perhaps he didn't hear the last part of the question: "...Mr. President"!
Something we agree on. I wish his career had taken a different turn as well.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/12/26/obama_one_thing_id_like_to_change_about_myself_is__learn_an_instrument.html
-
BD,
Interesting you noted how Walters addressed Obama.
Is that what Doug was pointing out?
My impression from the post was to first think at how obnoxiously self loving Obama is.
Of all things the only thing he even considers changing about himself is he wishes he took up an instrument.
The narcissism this answer reflects is astounding. It suggests he thinks he is perfect except he never took up rap.
-
I took the reference to mean the question was intended as focusing on him as president. As a matter of respect, addressing the President as "Mr. President" is quite correct.
-
ccp: Doug said this: "Perhaps he didn't hear the last part of the question: "...Mr. President"!"
And, my response included this: "While I agree that the response may violate the spirit of the question...".
Is there really a problem here?
BD,
Interesting you noted how Walters addressed Obama.
Is that what Doug was pointing out?
My impression from the post was to first think at how obnoxiously self loving Obama is.
Of all things the only thing he even considers changing about himself is he wishes he took up an instrument.
The narcissism this answer reflects is astounding. It suggests he thinks he is perfect except he never took up rap.
-
BD,
Yes I see what you mean.
I don't see a problem with the way she addressed him. That is why I thought Doug was implying more along the lines of my interpretation.
-
I admit to enjoying a cheap shot here - deservedly - at someone who travels at taxpayer expense to tell the nation that anyone who opposes him wants dirtier air, dirtier water, rewards only to the rich, etc. Of course she was just using proper respect to call him Mr. President and he was perhaps correct to take it as a personal question. He was smart enough to recognize the flippancy and narcissism in his first answer as he told it and quickly added that he wished he learned to speak fluent Spanish, which besides political advantage would give him better ability to communicate with the American people.
Although he is vacationing with family in paradise, flying on separate schedules without financial consequence, this is a time distinctly marked with an under-performing economy and immense danger in the world. His first thought he says is that it would be nice to be able to play an instrument. I don't believe him. I think he would kill for a decent golf game, but that isn't something he is willing to discuss.
Not likely to be asked by Barbara Walters about his shortcomings, but had she asked me I would maybe have gone the route of wishing he had read at least one book on economics that did not oppose our economic system, wishing he had ANY executive experience at all other than running his campaigns or that he had any foreign policy experience or expertise coming into this most difficult job, none of which are regrets of his.
He was not about to give up any material to opponents on real shortcomings, and as CCP has mentioned in personality disorder observations, he may not know of any.
"Harry, I have a gift..." online.wsj.com/article/SB124105013014171063.html
-
"Mr. Pwesidwent, if you were a twee, what kind of amwazing twee would you bwee?" -Baba Wawa
-
I admit to enjoying a cheap shot here - deservedly - at someone who travels at taxpayer expense to tell the nation that anyone who opposes him wants dirtier air, dirtier water, rewards only to the rich, etc.
How do you feel about the franking privilege? Or the (until recently) common use among presidential candidates to accept public funding? Do you take the same offense when GOP candidates use taxpayer funds to get (re)elected?
-
Thanks bigdog for the followup. I have mixed feelings about the franking privilege. Some communication makes sense. It should not look like a campaign brochure.
I don't oppose the President for traveling on our dime; It's a perk of the job he won in the election. I criticized him for lying on our dime.
They are supposed to separate out campaign stops from work. He denies any of it is campaign because he is unopposed in the primaries.
This speech is partly doing his job, selling his proposal, then it crosses the line. If he wants to tell his side of the story, that is fine. When he stops acting Presidential, he can expect a little criticism. We have a thread for that. :-D Here he says of Republicans:
"And you got their plan: Let's have dirtier air, dirtier water..." And the partisan crowd boos.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH87c0h4WK8[/youtube]
I can't think of anything equally mean and false that elected Republicans would say about their opponents. What would you find to be similar? Thinking of the last 3 Republican Presidents, Reagan took little jabs at his opponents but always acknowledged their good intentions. Rush Limbaugh has said the economic destruction is intentional, but that is to compare a radio show host with the President of the United States.
"How do you feel about ... (until recently) common use among presidential candidates to accept public funding? "
I don't like publicly funding campaigns. I like full disclosure.
"Do you take the same offense when GOP candidates use taxpayer funds to get (re)elected?"
I am even more offended when my own side is guilty of being jackasses in their rhetoric and violate their own principles in their actions. Earmark scandals come to mind. I can't understand why Republicans won't try to draw a perfect distinction against their opponents on many points. (A concept we call RINOs, aka 'elected Republicans'.)
In the speech, where does the President explain the underlying economic principle that is supposed to make his plan work? Federalizing police and fire? Without attacking, he has no story, no speech. What are the odds (1/50?) that he is standing in perhaps the purplest swing state while he makes his attack / hate speech.
What he calls 'dirtier air' is what God put in your exhale. What a deceitful jerk. The only dispute on water that I know of (besides the Corps of Engineers flooding the heartland) is the recent opposition to fracking, a process that has not contaminated any water supply according to all state regulatory agencies involved. Is there a point he makes about his own plan or his opponents' plan that is true?
-
Newt needed some good news. Romney IMO penalized for not putting specifics into his plan.
Newt Gingrich Endorsed by Economist Arthur Laffer
by Joy Lin | December 27, 2011
Dyersville, IA - Renowned economist, father of The Laffer Curve and supply-side economics, and architect of the Ronald Reagan economic plan, Arthur Laffer, announced his endorsement Tuesday of Newt Gingrich for President of the United States.
"Newt has the best plan for jobs and economic growth of any candidate in the field," said Laffer.
"Like Ronald Reagan's tax cuts and pro-growth policies, Newt's low individual and corporate tax rates, deregulation and strong dollar monetary policies will create a boom of new investment and economic growth leading to the creation of tens of millions of new jobs over the next decade. Plus, Newt's record of helping Ronald Reagan pass the Kemp Roth tax cuts and enacting the largest capital gains tax cut in history as Speaker of the House shows he can get this plan passed and put it into action."Mr. Laffer will join Newt Gingrich in Storm Lake, IA Thursday for a formal press conference announcing the endorsement.
"Rebuilding the America we love requires returning to job creation and economic growth. We need big changes to fix the economy, and I am ready to stand up to Barack Obama's class warfare rhetoric to make the case that letting the American people keep more of what they earn is the best way to create jobs."
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/12/27/newt-gingrich-endorsed-architect-reagan-economic-plan-economist-arthur-laffer-0#ixzz1hnql2UR6
-
The only dispute on water that I know of (besides the Corps of Engineers flooding the heartland) is the recent opposition to fracking, a process that has not contaminated any water supply according to all state regulatory agencies involved. Is there a point he makes about his own plan or his opponents' plan that is true?
Theoretically, fracking is dangerous. Environmentalists believe its important to find potential problems and squash them before they become real problems. Personally, I think that the fact that fracking hasn't ever caused the contamination of ground water is just luck. I like my warm house though so I don't raise too much of a fuss about it.
-
The only dispute on water that I know of (besides the Corps of Engineers flooding the heartland) is the recent opposition to fracking, a process that has not contaminated any water supply according to all state regulatory agencies involved. Is there a point he makes about his own plan or his opponents' plan that is true?
Theoretically, fracking is dangerous. Environmentalists believe its important to find potential problems and squash them before they become real problems. Personally, I think that the fact that fracking hasn't ever caused the contamination of ground water is just luck. I like my warm house though so I don't raise too much of a fuss about it.
You mean create hysteria through distortion and propaganda for political power and profit. Al Gore has a pretty nice bunch of mansions, doesn't he?
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2010/05/how-green-is-al-gores-9-million-montecito-ocean-front-villa/1
How inconvenient is this news? Former vice president Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, bought a gated $8,875,000 ocean-view villa in Montecito, Calif., where Oprah Winfrey also owns a mansion, the Los Angeles Times reports.
Al Gore, a leading voice in the fight against global warming, has been criticized for having a 10,000-square-foot home in Nashville that uses a lot of power. He's since added rooftop solar panels and geothermal wells and says he buys only renewable energy.
author of the best seller An Inconvenient Truth about the dangers of global warming, received much criticism for the high electric use of his 10,000-square-foot historic home in Nashville. He says he's added 33 rooftop solar panels and seven geothermal wells and buys only renewable energy.
Does he plan to green the California villa, which reportedly has more than 6,500 square feet of living space, a swimming pool, spa and fountains?
Gore didn't respond to the Times' requests for comment, so its story is based on "real estate sources" familiar with the deal. The Times first reported the purchase last month, citing the Montecito Journal, but without further confirmation, Green House mentioned it only briefly.
The Huffington Post carries photos of the villa on 1.5 acres with wine cellar, terraces, six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine bathrooms. It picked them up from the Real Estalker website, which says the Gores actually bought the property last year through their Tennessee-based trust and did not use their own names.
Montecito, located in Santa Barbara County about 100 miles north of Los Angeles, offers stunning hilltop views of the Pacific Ocean. It's one of the wealthiest communities in the United States, and many celebrities have homes there, including actors Michael Douglas and Chritopher Lloyd.
Can Gore make his Italian-style villa there energy efficient enough to stave off criticism? Has he hurt his own cause?
Gore, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for his work on global warming, Monday told students at Cal State Monterey Bay to "learn about" the issue, reports the Santa Cruz Sentinel. The story adds:
Gore urged the young people, who greeted him with enthusiasm and attentiveness, to be "true to their values" as he spoke about his nearly decade-long commitment to fight and educate the public about climate change...
Gore was asked whether because of his work on climate change he's become a vegetarian. No, said Gore, but he has cut back on red meat.
-
Thank you for the follow-up, Doug. We agree more than I thought based on your first post related to the BW interview with President Obama.
-
**To me? NFW.
http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Ilya_Somin_10F5388A-D210-4745-8EEA-09224D78DC04.html
Do Ron Paul's newsletter explanations hold up?
Ilya Somin Professor of Law, George Mason Law School :
Ron Paul clearly deserves substantial blame for publishing racist and anti-Semitic material in his newsletters in the early 1990s. Although he almost certainly did not write those articles himself, it is difficult to believe that he was completely unaware of their contents. Moreover, there is no disputing the fact that, in the early 1990s, Paul was part of a small group of libertarians led by Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard who sought to forge an alliance with “paleoconservative” elements by adopting a political strategy of appealing to white racial resentment. Rockwell is the probable author of the racist content in Paul’s newsletters.
Paul is not a racist himself. But at least for a time, he was clearly willing to get into bed with political allies who sought to exploit racist sentiments. In some ways, Paul’s situation is similar to that of other politicians with dubious past associations. Indeed, there are parallels between Paul today and Barack Obama in 2008, when he was attacked for his past relationships with anti-American and anti-Semitic minister Jeremiah Wright and ex-terrorist and self-described communist Bill Ayers. Paul’s defense is strikingly similar to Obama’s. Just as Obama claims he didn’t know about Wright and Ayers’ despicable views and doesn’t agree with them, Paul claims he didn’t know about the newsletters and doesn’t endorse their content. When the issue became a public controversy, Obama distanced himself from Ayers and Wright, and Paul has similarly denounced the newsletters.
Despite their respective efforts at damage control, it is entirely legitimate to hold these past associations against Obama and Paul. While they were not bigots or terrorists themselves, they clearly were willing to ally themselves with people who are. Such errors of moral judgment can and should be held against a candidate. But one can agree with that while still believing that the candidate is sufficiently superior to his opponents on other grounds to outweigh this defect. I am not a Paul supporter myself – both because of the newsletter issue, and because I think he is badly misguided on some other issues. But I can understand why a reasonable person might reach the conclusion that Paul’s strong libertarian stance on a number of issues today outweighs his earlier sins.
One of my concerns about Paul’s candidacy is that it could end up tarring libertarianism by association with his past misdeeds. It is important to recognize that the Rothbard-Rockwell strategy was opposed by most libertarian intellectuals and movement organizations when they and Paul pursued it in the early 1990s. That includes the Cato Institute (the most prominent libertarian think tank), Reason (the best-known libertarian magazine), the Koch brothers, and many others.
Rockwell and his associates remain alienated from most other libertarians to this day, in large part because of their willingness to traffic in racism and homophobia. Ron Paul enjoys a better reputation in the movement – but only because he has pursued a very different approach for the last 15 years. Even so, numerous libertarian commentators have denounced Paul’s equivocations about the newsletters during the 2008 campaign and this year. We have neither excused nor ignored his very real flaws. Rothbard and Rockwell’s “paleo” strategy was widely opposed in libertarian circles long before it became a major public controversy during Paul’s most recent presidential campaigns.
Paul’s relative success this year shows that the libertarian message has considerable appeal even when the messenger is deeply flawed. It remains to be seen how much the messenger’s sins will tarnish the libertarian cause in the long run.
-
For President in 2012, Mitt Romney
December 27, 2011 by John Hinderaker - Powerlineblog.com
It is time for Republicans to get serious. After flirting with just about every candidate in a large presidential field, is is time to come home to the one candidate who has the demonstrated ability to run the largest organization in the United States, the Executive Branch of the federal government; who has never been touched by the slightest taint of scandal; whose success in the private sector makes him the outsider that Republicans say they are looking for; and who has by far the best chance of beating President Obama: Mitt Romney.
The “anybody but Romney” mentality that grips many Republicans is, in my view, illogical. It led them to embrace Rick Perry, who turned out to be unable to articulate a conservative thought; Newt Gingrich, whose record is far more checkered than Romney’s; Ron Paul, whose foreign policy views–indistinguishable from those of the far left–and forays into racial intolerance make him unfit to be president; and Michele Bachmann, whom I like very much, but who is more qualified to be a rabble-rouser than a chief executive.
The knock on Romney is that he is “not a real conservative.” Well, I am sure he is not as conservative as I am. But he has a solid record of conservative accomplishment as governor of Massachusetts, and if you check out his economic plan, you will find it to be entirely Reaganite, updated for the crisis we face today. The “Romney isn’t conservative” meme is, frankly, a little weird: in December 2007, National Review endorsed him for president. Has he somehow gotten more liberal since then?
In electing a president, we are choosing someone to run the Executive Branch. A leader, to be sure, but not a speechmaker, a bomb-thrower, a quipster, a television personality or an exemplar of ideological purity. At this point in our history, the United States desperately needs a leader who understands the economy, the world of business, and, more generally, how the world works. We have had more than enough of a leader who was good at giving speeches and was ideologically pure, but who had no clue how the economy works or how the federal government can be administered without resort to graft and corruption. It is time for a president who knows what he is doing.
Romney was not my first choice in this election cycle–Tim Pawlenty was. But Pawlenty’s campaign failed to catch fire, mostly because GOP voters saw him as an “establishment” candidate; that is, perhaps, someone who won tough elections and governed successfully. Around the time Pawlenty’s campaign ended, John Thune gave serious consideration to jumping into the race. If he had done so, I would have supported him, but he didn’t. [UPDATE: I perhaps should add that I know both Pawlenty and Thune personally, consider them friends and have enormous regard for them. I have met Romney and have spent a little time with him, but not much. My preference for Pawlenty and Thune was largely driven by personal acquaintance; I feel that I know them well enough to have confidence in where they would take the country, as president.] There was no real reason to think that other Republicans like Paul Ryan, Chris Christie and Marco Rubio would get into the race, and they didn’t. You can’t get elected president if you don’t run for the office, and of those who are running, Mitt Romney is the best, by a very wide margin.
If this sounds lukewarm, it isn’t meant to. Let’s itemize Romney’s virtues.
First, he is a tremendously smart, competent and hard-working person. Many people do not realize what it takes to achieve the extraordinary business success to which Romney devoted most of his adult life. We have, currently, a president who is not particularly bright, knows little of business, has no idea how to run an organization–never having done so before 2009–and would rather golf than work. Replacing this cipher with Mitt Romney, one of the most capable men of his generation, would be an almost unimaginable improvement.
Second, Romney has led an exemplary life. He is, by any ordinary measure, an exceptionally good man. Maybe you care about this, maybe you don’t. My own view is that character counts, usually in ways you can’t foresee. Moreover, to put a purely pragmatic spin on it, the Democrats have nothing on him. Sure, they can mount an anti-Mormon whispering campaign, and they will. But it is highly unlikely that bigotry alone can derail a presidential candidate, especially one as upright as Romney.
Third, Romney has exactly the expertise we need for the next four years. Our country faces an enormous economic and fiscal crisis, brought on by years of politically-motivated fecklessness. We desperately need a president who understands why economic growth occurs and how jobs are created. The Democrats know nothing but payoffs and cronyism; who gets to stay the longest aboard a sinking ship. If ever we needed a president with Mitt Romney’s skills and expertise, that time is now.
Fourth, Romney can and will, I think, beat Barack Obama. The purpose of a political party is to win elections. It would be terminally stupid for the Republican Party to nominate a candidate whose weaknesses more or less guarantee defeat when it has, readily at hand, a candidate who can win. Ideological movements are another animal entirely. The purpose of the conservative movement is to advance conservative ideals, not necessarily to win elections for a particular party. Some conservative ideologues may choose to argue for a purer candidate (although I am not sure who that would be) in service of the long-run interests of the movement. But that is not the role of the Republican Party. The goal of the Republican Party is to win in 2012.
So: I endorse Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee for president in 2012. I think he can win, and I think there is a real chance that he could be a great president. Perhaps the man and the hour will meet, as with Churchill in 1940 and Reagan in 1980. But at a bare minimum, Romney can beat Barack Obama, and will be an infinitely better president. The time has come for Republicans to coalesce behind their best candidate.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/12/for-president-in-2012-mitt-romney.php
-
Gingrich wins endorsement from supply-sider Art Laffer
Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich speaks during a campaign stop in Storm Lake, Iowa. (Eric Gay / Associated Press)
By Robin Abcarian
December 29, 2011, 1:55 p.m.
Reporting from Storm Lake, Iowa --— It’s an intriguing argument for a futurist like Newt Gingrich: Vote for me and bring back the past.
Gingrich, who has claimed he is the only Republican presidential candidate who can fix the economy because he has already done so twice before—once with Ronald Reagan in the 1980s and again as speaker of the House in the 1990s—trotted out one of the architects of “Reaganomics” at a campaign stop Thursday.
Economist Arthur Laffer, the 71-year-old father of supply-side economics, endorsed Gingrich here in this picturesque lakeside town in northwest Iowa, where Sarah Palin ran a half-marathon last August.
“I think if Newt is president, you are going to see economic growth beyond what you have ever seen,” said Laffer, who introduced Gingrich to a crowd of about 100 here in Storm Lake.
“Newt really delivered,” said Laffer, “When he was speaker, he was able to work with Bill Clinton closely and carefully to bring one of the most prosperous periods in American history.”
Laffer, whose theory is also called “trickle down” -- or “voodoo economics,” a derogatory term coined by George H.W. Bush when he vied with Reagan for the GOP nomination -- posits that cutting taxes and regulations stimulates the economy, adds jobs and is more effective at raising revenue than simply raising taxes.
(Those paying attention in the 1980s might recall his “Laffer curve,” an upside-down U that shows a theoretical, optimal tax rate for maximum revenue generation. A government that taxes too little won’t generate enough revenue, the Laffer curve posits, but a government that taxes too much won’t either, because there will be no incentive to earn a lot of money.)
Critics often say that those who lionize Reagan conveniently forget that while Reagan cut taxes in his first term, he later raised taxes many times to help balance the federal budget.
Gingrich has been trying to emulate another aspect of Reagan, a former actor who was meticulous about what the consultants now call the “optics” of campaigning.
On Thursday for the first time, a group of everyday Iowans sat behind him as Gingrich spoke to a crowd of about 100 in a meeting room at King’s Pointe Waterpark. Gingrich’s wife, Callista, stood onstage to his left as she always does, hands clasped, the swoosh of her perfect platinum bob visible to the audience. She looked at him attentively, evoking for those who recall it the famous Nancy Reagan gaze. (And also perhaps to ward off unwanted questions about his troubled marital past, a sticking point for some evangelical Christians here.)
Joanne Samsel, a retired teacher standing behind the couple onstage, complimented Callista Gingrich.
“She’s elegant, she’s beautiful, she’s everything that we could ever want for the United States,” said Samsel. “So Jackie Kennedy: Enjoy the time that you had, but we have ours coming up.”
Callista took her husband’s microphone: “I appreciate that very, very much,” she said.
Earlier in an impromptu conversation with reporters at his Sioux City headquarters, Gingrich said he is not worried about his plunge in some polls. Others, he noted, have him in second place, behind former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
”Let me just say I think that the strategy of focusing on jobs and economic growth and staying positive… is working,” said Gingrich, who has also been holding daily 30-minute telephone town halls with Iowa voters to counteract the deluge of negative ads by his opponents. So far, he said, he has spoken to more than 30,000 people, though the number is not verifiable.
During the calls, he invites callers to ask any question they wish, sometimes with unanticipated results. Last night, a man accused him of being a polygamist for having three consecutive marriages. Gingrich, who converted to Catholicism before marrying his wife, Callista, replied that he could not be a polygamist since his previous two marriages were annulled. He thanked the man for his “creative question.”
Town halls can be unpredictable, too. Samsel, who had complimented Callista Gingrich, asked the candidate whether it was true that Arizona would not allow President Obama’s name to appear on ballots because he is “not a citizen.”
“I thought you were going to ask whether Donald Trump is a citizen,” he joked before declaring the question “moot.” “There is every reason to believe he is a citizen of the United States. He is a terrible president, we don’t have to go beyond that.”
Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times
* * * *
-
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2011/12/29/
-
So the first third of the Republican presidential race is ending. The first third is the introduction: "This is who I am, this is what I want to do, this is why you want to choose me."
The campaign is announced, organized, and goes forward in key early states.
The second phase is the long slog through the primary states to the convention next August in Tampa, Fla. The third and final is the election proper, in the autumn of 2012.
***
The first phase was clouded by an overlay of frustration and dissatisfaction: The best weren't in the game. Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan, John Thune, Haley Barbour, none of them reporting for duty. But in the past few weeks another mood has begun to dig in: You fight with the army you have. You pick from the possible candidates. You make a choice and back him hard.
Part of this is simple realism. Time is passing, and the contenders have been at least initially inspected. Every four years the potential nominees on either side look smaller than the sitting president who, whether or not you like him, is the president. You're used to him. He's on TV. They play Hail to the Chief when he walks in. The office is big and imparts bigness.
But less so this year than past years. There's a lot of 1980 in the 2012 presidential election, which doesn't mean it will end the same way, but still. The incumbent looks smaller than previous sitting presidents, as did Jimmy Carter. His efforts in the Oval Office have not been generally understood as successful. There's a broad sense it hasn't worked. And Democrats don't like him, as they didn't Jimmy Carter.
This continues as one of the most amazing and underappreciated facts of 2012—the sitting president's own party doesn't like him. The party's constituent pieces will stick with him, having no choice, but with a feeling of dissatisfaction. It is not only the Republicans who have been unhappy this year. All this will have some bearing on the coming year.
***
Debates arrived in a new way, with a new power. Candidates rose and fell depending on how they did in nationally televised forums. The whole primary season this year has been more wholesale than retail, more national than local.
In the past, state issues were important, but now only one issue—the nation's economy—is important. An hour with the Grand Rapids Rotary Club is still nice, but not as nice as an eight-minute, prime-time cable hit. This marks the continuation of a half century-long trend. National trumps local, federal squashes state, the force of national culture washes out local culture. Primaries are fully national now.
The most memorable line of the first phase? There's "9-9-9" and "Oops," but the best came from Mitt Romney when he was asked about the Gingrich campaign's failure to qualify for the Virginia ballot. Mr. Gingrich had compared it to Pearl Harbor, a setback, but we'll recover. Mr. Romney, breezily, to a reporter: "I think it's more like Lucille Ball at the chocolate factory."
It made people laugh. It made them want to repeat it, which is the best free media of all, the line people can't resist saying in the office. And they laughed because it pinged off a truth: Gingrich is ad hoc, disorganized.
The put-down underscored Romney's polite little zinger of a week before, that Mr. Gingrich was "zany." And it was a multi-generationally effective: People who are 70-years-old remember "I Love Lucy," but so do people who are 30 and grew up with its reruns. Mr. Romney's known for being organized but not for being deft. This was deft. It's an old commonplace in politics that if you're explaining you're losing, but it's also true that if they're laughing you're losing. The campaign trail has been pretty much a wit-free zone. It's odd that people who care so much about politics rarely use one of politics' biggest tools, humor. Mr. Romney did and scored. More please, from everyone.
***
Newt Gingrich in the end will likely prove to be a gift to Mitt Romney. He was a heavyweight. This isn't Herman Cain, this is a guy everyone on the ground in every primary state knows and has seen on TV and remembers from the past. But his emergence scared a lot of people—"Not him!'—and made some of them think, 'OK, I guess I better get off the sidelines and make a decision. Compared to Newt, Romney looks pretty reasonable."
Mr. Gingrich took some of the sting out of Romney-as-flip-flopper because he is a flip flopper too. He also, for a few weeks there, made Mr. Romney look like he might be over. He made Mr. Romney fight for it, not against an unknown businessman but against a serious political figure whose face and persona said: "I mean business." In the end it will turn out he was a gift to the Romney campaign, a foe big enough that when you beat him it means something.
***
The worst trend in politics that fully emerged during phase one? People running for president not to be president but as a branding exercise, to sell books and get a cable contract and be a public figure and have people who heretofore hadn't noticed you now stopping you in the airport to get a picture and an autograph. In an endeavor like this you have nothing to lose and everything to gain. You're not held back by any sense of realism as to your positions, you don't have to worry about them being used against you down the road because there won't be a down the road. You can say anything. And because you do you seem refreshing. People start to like you—you're not like all the others, who are so careful. You rise, run your mouth for a month and fall.
Maybe this is harmless. But America is in crisis. The world is in crisis. Everywhere you look establishments and old arrangements are falling, toppling to the ground. Does it help, in this context, to lower the standing of the American political process by inserting your buffoonish, unserious self into it? Or does it make things just a little bit worse?
***
The continuing mystery of phase one? The failure of Jon Huntsman to gain traction. It's not precisely a mystery—he didn't run as a successful conservative two-term governor but as a striped pants diplomat—but it is a frustration. Democrats like him, a lot. New Hampshire has an open primary. Democrats can vote for him there. Maybe they will. But will that make him a contender or an oddity?
What seemed true at the start of phase one seems true now. A number of the Republicans on the debate stage could beat Mr. Obama. But if there is a serious third-party challenger the president will likely be reelected.
Predictions? The essential message of phase one was, "I am a credible candidate, and I can win." Phase two will be "I not only can win but my victory will have meaning." Phase three? There will be some "He made it worse." But watch for another argument. "In a second Obama administration he will be operating without any of the constraints that limited his actions in the first. He will never have to face the voters again. Obama unbound, with interest groups to reward. America, you don't want to go there."
-
First one comment that came out of Rove's predictions I think. Ron Paul will not run as third party spoiler because his son Rand Paul, perhaps an up and coming star in the party, will be screwed in the party for life.
Too early for VP speculation but they do run as a ticket. One story today notices that Michele Bachmann has ripped every anti-Romney candidate ruthlessly, but not Romney, fishing for VP consideration. She won't be the pick. Marco Rubio said he won't. They all say that but I believe him.
Where better to go for inside GOP scoop than MSNBC interviewing a Politico writer?
------------
Sen. Rob Portman (Ohio) Predicted As Romney VP Pick
By Mark Finkelstein | December 30, 2011 | 07:57
With not one Republican primary vote cast yet, we're getting way ahead of ourselves by speculating about whom Mitt Romney might pick as his vice-presidential running mate. But Willie Geist did invite Politico's Mike Allen to make his "bold predictions" for 2012. And Allen delivered, prognosticating that Romney would pick Ohio Republican Senator Rob Portman as his ticket-mate.
Mark Halperin strongly seconded Allen's assertion. View the video after the jump.
Watch Allen make the case that the Romney campaign figures it should carry Florida without Marco Rubio on the ticket, whereas Portman could be more of the key to victory by helping to carry his home state of Ohio.
MIKE ALLEN: One of the first big stories in 2012, assuming Mitt Romney becomes the Republican nominee, however long it takes, who will be his vice-presidential pick? A lot of people are looking at Marco Rubio in Florida; he's definitely on the list. But I think the most likely to be chosen, at the top of Mitt Romney's list, is Senator Rob Portman, Republican of Ohio. Brings that important state, put it with Michigan, where Mitt Romney could be strong, and you would really have President Obama sweating, there in the industrial Midwest.
WILLIE GEIST: Now, what does Portman give him, Mitt Romney, if it is Mitt Romney, what does he give him over Marco Rubio?
ALLEN: It's a two-fer. In addition to Ohio, and if Mitt Romney doesn't already have Florida he's already in trouble, so the Romney folks are hoping they're going to have Florida without Marco Rubio. Ohio would be a bit tougher call. So Rob Portman would be more helpful there. Also, it's a governing pick. He has experience on the Hill, both in the House and the Senate, in the White House as the Budget Director, and so he would bring a lot of gravitas, experience to this administration.
MARK HALPERIN: I think this is an easy one. First off, Mitt Romney is going to make a governing pick. He knows from history, the first, second and third obligation, both politically and substantively, is to pick someone ready to be president. I think Rob Portman is head and shoulders above most of the other people who Mike mentioned on that score. Both the press and the public would look at him and say, yeah, that's responsible, that's somebody who's ready to president. I think Chris Christie will also be considered. But I think on this one, somebody's going to have to make a compelling case for me, for someone besides Portman, for me to think it's not headed in that direction, or should be, assuming Romney's the nominee.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2011/12/30/morning-joe-portman-predicted-romney-vp-pick
-
By EDWARD H. CRANE
The controversy surrounding decades-old newsletters to which GOP presidential aspirant Ron Paul lent his name is regrettable. First, it is regrettable because the sometimes bigoted, intolerant content of those newsletters is inconsistent with the views of the congressman as understood by those of us who know him. Yet, while Mr. Paul disavows supporting those ideas, he refuses to repudiate his close association with their likely source, Lew Rockwell, head of the Alabama-based Mises Institute.
Second, the New York Times editorialized recently that these unsavory writings "will leave a lasting stain on . . . the libertarian movement." That is wishful thinking on the part of the Times, but it adds to the background noise surrounding Mr. Paul's candidacy, obscuring the real libertarian policy initiatives that have made his candidacy the most remarkable development of the 2012 campaign.
Ron Paul's libertarian campaign has traction because so many Americans respond to his messages:
• Tax and spending. If ever there were sound and fury signifying nothing, it has to be the recent "debate" over the budget. Covered by the media as though it was negotiations on the Treaty of Versailles, the wrestling match between Republicans and Democrats centered on the nearly trivial question of whether the $12 trillion increase in the national debt over the next decade should be reduced by 3% or 2%.
Enlarge Image
CloseGetty Images
Ron Paul of Texas
.Mr. Paul would cut the federal budget by $1 trillion immediately. He can't do it, of course, but voters sense he really wants to. As Milton Friedman once explained, the true tax on the American people is the level of spending—the resources taken from the private sector and employed in the public sector. Whether financed from direct taxation, inflation or borrowing, spending is the burden.
• Foreign policy and military spending. As the only candidate other than Jon Huntsman who says it is past time to bring the troops home from Afghanistan, Mr. Paul has tapped into a stirring recognition by limited-government Republicans and independents that an overreaching military presence around the world is inconsistent with small, constitutional government at home.
The massive cost of these interventions, in treasure and blood, highlights what a mistake they are, as sensible people on the left and right recognized from the beginning. Of course we want a strong military capable of defending the United States, but our current expenditures equal what the rest of the world spends, which makes little sense. It is futile to try to be the world's policeman—to try to create an American Empire as so many neoconservatives promote. And we can't afford it.
• Civil liberties. Libertarians often differ with conservatives over issues related to civil liberties. Mr. Paul's huge support among young people is due in large part to his fierce commitment to protecting the individual liberties guaranteed us in the Constitution. He would work to repeal significant parts of the so-called Patriot Act. Its many civil liberties transgressions include the issuance by the executive branch of National Security Letters (a form of administrative subpoena) without a court order, and the forbiddance of American citizens from mentioning that they have received one of these letters at the risk of jail.
The Bush and Obama administrations have claimed the right to incarcerate an American citizen on American soil, without charge, without access to an attorney, for an indefinite period.
President Obama even claims the right to kill American citizens on foreign soil, without due process of law, for suspected terrorist activities. Meanwhile, the Stop Online Piracy Act moving through the House is a clear effort by the federal government to censor the Internet. Mr. Paul stands up against all this, which should and does engender support from limited government advocates in the GOP.
• Austrian economics. Mr. Paul is often criticized for references to what some consider obscure economists of the so-called Austrian School. People should read them before criticizing. Nobel laureate Friedrich von Hayek and his mentor Ludwig von Mises were two of the greatest economists and social scientists ever to live.
Modern Austrian School economists such as Lawrence H. White, now at George Mason University, and Fred Foldvary at Santa Clara University predicted the housing bubble and the recession that followed the massive, multitrillion-dollar malinvestment caused by government redirection of capital into housing. Mr. Paul, like Austrian School economists, understands that we would be better off with a gold standard, competing currencies or a monetary rule than with the arbitrary and discretionary powers of our out-of-control Federal Reserve.
Mr. Paul should be given credit for his efforts to promote these ideas and other libertarian policies, all of which would make America better off. He'd be the first to admit he's not the most erudite candidate to make the case, but surely part of his appeal is his very genuine persona.
Which is not to say that Mr. Paul is always in sync with mainstream libertarians. His seeming indifference to attempts to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, his support for a constitutional amendment to deny birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens, and his opposition to the Nafta and Cafta free trade agreements in the name of doctrinal purity are at odds with most libertarians.
As for the Ron Paul newsletters, the best response was by my colleague David Boaz when the subject was raised publicly in 2008. About them he wrote in the Cato Institute's blog:
"Those words are not libertarian words. Maybe they reflect 'paleoconservative' ideas, though they're not the language of Burke or even Kirk. But libertarianism is a philosophy of individualism, tolerance, and liberty. As Ayn Rand wrote, 'Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism.' Making sweeping, bigoted claims about all blacks, all homosexuals, or any other group is indeed a crudely primitive collectivism. Libertarians should make it clear that the people who wrote those things are not our comrades, not part of our movement, not part of the tradition of John Locke, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglass, Ludwig von Mises, F. A. Hayek, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, and Robert Nozick. Shame on them."
Support for dynamic market capitalism (as opposed to crony capitalism), social tolerance, and a healthy skepticism of foreign military adventurism is a combination of views held by a plurality of Americans. It is why the 21st century is likely to be a libertarian century. It is why the focus should be on Ron Paul's philosophy and his policy proposals in 2012.
Mr. Crane is co-founder and president of the Cato Institute.
-
"Second, the New York Times editorialized recently that these unsavory writings "will leave a lasting stain on . . . the libertarian movement." That is wishful thinking on the part of the Times"
No, it's not. The public at large has never heard of Libertarianism, and the POTH/MSM will use this to damage the brand.
"Mr. Paul's huge support among young people is due in large part to his fierce commitment to protecting the individual liberties guaranteed us in the Constitution legalizing drugs, man." Fixed it.
-
http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2012/01/03/former-cia-agent-michael-scheuer-endorses-ron-paul/
-
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
Clinton, Iowa
Voters aren't convinced by Mitt Romney. They're not certain of his convictions; they wonder if he is the leader for these times; they're not sold on his policies or his personality. Yet voters may be about to make the former Massachusetts governor the Republican nominee for the presidency. Mark this down as the triumph of strategy over inspiration.
As Iowans head to their caucuses Tuesday, Mr. Romney has come from behind to lead in the polls. A victory here—where he was once written off—followed by a coup in New Hampshire could well knit up the nomination. That outcome would be the result of a lot of luck, mistakes by his rivals, and a shrewd—and ruthless—campaign by Mr. Romney himself.
If there has been one threat to the governor, it has been the gaping opening for a candidate to his right. Mr. Romney is hardly an easy fit with the GOP base—from his past flip-flops on issues like abortion, to his weak tax proposals, to his concoction and defense of RomneyCare, the Massachusetts health plan that was the model for ObamaCare. The threat of President Obama and his determination to create an entitlement state, combined with the dismal economy, have voters eager for a bold conservative leader.
The Romney luck was that no such obvious reformer got into the race. Notable Republican governors—Jeb Bush, Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie—who could have run on executive experience and pro-growth track records took a pass. A younger, ideas generation—Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio—decided it was too soon for a run. This helped clear the field.
Not that the Republicans in the race were without resources. Each had the opportunity to unite a conservative coalition but fell from self-inflicted wounds. Tim Pawlenty—as a conservative governor from Minnesota and with his long planning for a presidential run—ought to have posed the greatest challenge. But his waffling on RomneyCare and his overemphasis on the Iowa straw poll (which he lost to Michele Bachmann) sucked the air out of his campaign. His bigger mistake may have been bowing to these defeats, misjudging the opportunity for a comeback in a muddled GOP field.
Enlarge Image
CloseAFP/Getty Images
Mitt Romney at a campaign rally in Des Moines, Iowa, Dec. 30.
.Rick Perry, also with a state success story to sell, entered the race at a near-perfect time. Yet he failed to do his homework and lost voter confidence with his bumbling debate performances. Ron Paul has inspired the limited-government crowd, even as his refusal to modulate his isolationist views has capped his potential.
Rick Santorum, he of dour countenance, chose a narrowly focused campaign, and until recently it had earned him only a narrow audience. He's now experiencing a surge on the back of evangelical support and a formidable ground organization, which might propel him to a strong Iowa finish. But his slow start, and subsequent poor fund raising, will hamper him in upcoming states.
Mrs. Bachmann made herself unpresidential. Herman Cain, 9-9-9 notwithstanding, forgot the rule about vetting one's own past. Jon Huntsman has failed to lead with his strong suit, namely a strong growth record in Utah.
The man who has lately posed the greatest threat to a Romney victory is the come-from-behind Newt Gingrich, whose snappy debate performances and policy insights touched a conservative chord. His pro-growth message has been a strong final argument but may not be enough to reverse weeks of damaging TV ads. The candidate was initially powerless to rebut the attacks, given his campaign's own major mistake—neglecting its fund raising and organizing.
Which gets us to Mr. Romney's campaign savvy. The governor lost the nomination in 2008 because of his lack of focus and a reputation for conveniently shifting message. Let's just say he learned something.
Throughout this campaign, he's resisted scattershot criticism of rivals, instead carefully pinpointing his biggest threats from the right and homing in on their biggest weaknesses. With Mr. Pawlenty, that job was relatively easy. Mr. Romney stepped back to allow the Minnesotan to implode, his restraint even earning him praise as "presidential."
A greater insight into the Romney machine came with Mr. Perry, whose threat resided in his broad credentials with a conservative audience. Mr. Romney's response was to target a relatively obscure liability—Mr. Perry's modest policy of letting young illegals pay in-state college tuition—and then to elevate it and tear it apart. Romney ads were brutal, comparing Mr. Perry to Barack Obama and Mexican President Vicente Fox on immigration, suggesting that the Texas governor would open the illegal floodgates. It proved a deal killer for many conservatives.
Next up was Mr. Gingrich, whose December surge, particularly among tea party voters, posed a late-game threat. Team Romney was quick to drill into its rival's "tons of baggage," including marital infidelity, the money he accepted from Freddie Mac and, again, the accusation that he supports "amnesty for illegal aliens." Between these and other attack ads, Mr. Gingrich's support was halved in little more than a week.
This is where four years of planning come in handy. Mr. Romney built a campaign war chest and a pro-Romney super PAC. The Romney campaign and the outside organization could spend millions on ads and mailers taking down rivals, allowing the candidate to remain above the fray and concentrate on his more positive message.
That message, by contrast to 2008, has been focused, unwavering, relentless. Mr. Romney has taken positions and stuck with them, even if it has meant defending the likes of RomneyCare. In Iowa, New Hampshire and everywhere else, voters have heard—again, and again, and again—the same two messages: He has the business and management experience to competently turn around the country, and he is the most electable against Mr. Obama.
That has seeped in, especially as voters must now make a selection—voters like 54-year-old Jane Lawler, who came to hear Mr. Romney speak at Homer's Deli here. Mrs. Lawler was leaning toward Mr. Gingrich, but her husband argued that the former House speaker "couldn't gather the troops and get it done." She now agrees. "In the end, I'm looking for someone who can beat Obama," and she notes the need for someone with Mr. Romney's "business acumen."
So while Mr. Romney may not excite them, while he may not be ideal, in light of the other candidate's problems, and given the election stakes, voters are buying his argument that he is, well . . . good enough. Which is why, barring a surprise, or a late entrant, Mr. Good Enough—through good fortune, dogged determination, and the skillful elimination of his rivals—may end up grabbing the conservative ring in this all-important election year.
Then the harder job starts. Mr. Obama may be hobbled by a poor economy and unpopular policies, but he is a first-order campaigner. He will energize his base, and his Republican opponent will have to do the same. It will not be enough for Mr. Romney to argue against Mr. Obama; he will have to inspire Republicans and independents to vote for his own vision.
Mr. Romney offers decent policies, and he's proven himself a hard worker, with growing campaign skills. The question is whether a victory in the primary will give him the confidence to break out, to take some risks, and to excite a nation that wants real change. In a presidential election, good enough might not be enough to win.
Ms. Strassel writes the Journal's Potomac Watch column.
-
People say the negative ads on Gingrich in Iowa brought him down but the collapse happened in national polls at the same.
There is talk of Dems voting Ron Paul in Iowa to screw things up. Going to a caucus is time consuming and public. Most precincts in Iowa are not very anonymous; people know their neighbors and discuss issues and candidates. Going to support someone you don't really support doesn't sound plausible in large numbers.
Dropping out was Pawlenty's second biggest mistake. The strategies he took in the campaign were the biggest.
Romney wrapping this up early is fine with me. I have said I think he has a 50% chance of being a great President. He is smart enough, competent enough and conservative enough to draw a stark contrast in terms of policies, philosophy and direction with the incumbent. The details of fixing this mess will be partly written in congress anyway. Amazing skills of persuasion and a mandate will be needed to ever get the 60 votes in the Senate needed to do anything. Electing a polarizing President would only make that harder.
I would still like to see Rick Perry redeem himself as the most serious alternative, if not Newt. If both finish behind Santorum and Paul, that leaves a very muddled second string.
-
Be sure to watch the video. It's pretty funny.
http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2012/01/02/iowa-nice-made-for-laughs-busting-stereotypes/
-
Iowa State motto: No, we're not Idaho or Ohio!
-
Iowa's corner of the electorate cast the first verdict of the 2012 Presidential campaign Tuesday night, and the results look more like an opening skirmish than the coronation for Mitt Romney that much of the media had prepared.
As we went to press Wednesday morning, the polls showed a dead heat between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, with Ron Paul a close third and Newt Gingrich a distant fourth. Mr. Romney retains a huge lead in New Hampshire, which votes January 10, but his failure to win a larger share of the vote than he did in 2008 suggests that GOP voters don't view the former Massachusetts Governor as inevitable.
Many Republicans—especially party elites—have been coalescing around Mr. Romney as the most "electable" candidate, by which they seem to mean the one with the fewest obvious flaws. But electability is a slippery concept, especially 10 months from November. Democrats said the same thing about John Kerry in 2004, while the media were convinced that a right-wing former movie actor was unelectable in 1980. Voters would do better to drop the pundit game theory and choose the best potential President.
On that score, Mr. Romney deserves credit for his doggedness and discipline. However uninspiring, those are useful traits in a candidate or a President. The man who rescued the 2002 winter Olympics has proven he can assemble a team and adapt to the blows of a modern campaign. He has been ruthless in attacking the competitors who were his biggest threats, Rick Perry and Mr. Gingrich, attacking from the right or left if it worked.
Yet Iowa's flirtation with so many "non-Romney" candidates shows that a majority of Republicans still find him less than convincing. The media want to attribute this to anti-Mormon bias. But the polls show that Mr. Romney's Mormonism is a much bigger issue among Democrats than within the GOP.
Enlarge Image
CloseAssociated Press
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum
.The real issue is that Mr. Romney is a cautious, conventional politician in a year when many GOP voters want someone willing to fight for bolder change. On the economy in particular, Mr. Romney is offering the least ambitious plan for growth. Mr. Romney unveiled his 59-point jobs plan in September, and if you can remember two of them you'll win most family trivia contests. His refusal to rule out a value-added-tax is also troubling, especially if Democrats ever won the House during his Presidency.
Mr. Romney's great advantage is that he faces a divided field of conservative competitors, none of whom has been able to consolidate support. That certainly includes Mr. Paul, despite his Iowa showing. The reality is that no candidate with Mr. Paul's super-dovish views on national security can win the Republican nomination. We doubt he could have won it even during the isolationist heyday of the 1930s, but in a world of global terrorism, WMD and Iran, he will not beat Mr. Romney.
Yet Mr. Paul's support has less to do with Mr. Paul himself than with his general antipathy for the political status quo. More than the other candidates, Mr. Paul seems sincere in his desire to chop Washington down to size. He is honest in his constitutionalism even if he often sounds too cranky in expressing it. Tapping the frustration and enthusiasm of Mr. Paul's voters will be crucial to any GOP campaign in 2012, and to successful governing in 2013. The other candidates shouldn't dismiss it.
Mr. Santorum will get the biggest bump out of Iowa, coming from nowhere in the final weeks to finish strong. The former two-term Pennsylvania Senator played the tortoise by visiting all 99 counties and pressing social and moral issues. He has also been impressive in debates, especially on foreign policy.
But to be more than an Iowa flash, he'll need to broaden his message to include economic growth and a jolt of optimism. In his moral fervor Mr. Santorum can sometimes sound like a charter member of the cast-the-first-stone coalition, when most voters prefer a more tolerant traditionalism.
More important, he has rarely talked about his larger economic agenda, other than to stress his desire to "revive manufacturing." The U.S. should make and export everything it competitively can, but manufacturing now accounts for only 11% of the U.S. economy. Mr. Santorum would cut the corporate tax rate to zero for manufacturers but only to 17.5% from 35% for other companies.
The justification for this favoritism seems more political than economic, a play for blue-collar voters who often work in manufacturing. How will Mr. Santorum distinguish this from President Obama's favoritism for Solyndra or electric cars? The Pennsylvanian's overall tax outline is better than this, including a reform that would reduce individual rates to only two, of 10% and 28%, albeit with few details. To beat Mr. Romney, he'll need to broaden his message and make growth a major theme.
As for the rest of the field, Michele Bachmann's sixth place finish means she would have to continue running on willfullness alone. Mr. Perry wants to fight on to South Carolina on January 21, but his weak Iowa finish after spending so much money should give him pause. Jon Huntsman will have to break through in New Hampshire, and his tax reform plan gives him a favorable contrast with Mr. Romney. Mr. Gingrich will also try to revive his candidacy by contrasting his views with those of Mr. Romney, whom he calls a "Massachusetts moderate."
Iowa's caucuses have missed nearly as many future Presidents as they've picked, so Tuesday's vote was hardly the last word. Our sense is that the eventual GOP nominee would benefit from a good, hard slog.
-
second post of AM
By PETER ROBINSON
Although a lot of Republicans keep wishing otherwise, running the federal government is nothing at all like running a business. Presidents don't hire or fire members of Congress, and only a few thousand of the more than one million civilians that the federal government employs serve at the chief executive's pleasure. An aptitude for reviewing business plans or a talent for wooing investors—useless.
Presidents must instead govern by getting the rest of us to see things they way they see them. They need to interest, move and compel us. In a word, they need to be good speakers.
Which brings us to Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and the rest of the GOP field. As the candidates continue their scramble, a scorecard:
Test One: Does anybody really want to listen to this person?
Some politicians are simply a pleasure to hear. Franklin Roosevelt's fireside chats still hold up. His voice is sonorous. His manner is warm and engaging. Ronald Reagan's delivery proved so enjoyable that once, drafting a speech for him on education, I worked in a long passage from Tom Sawyer purely for the pleasure of listening to the president read Mark Twain.
How many candidates has this campaign produced to whom you would listen just for fun? Only one, Herman Cain, and it may be awhile before we hear from him again.
Enlarge Image
CloseChad Crowe
.Mr. Romney? Bland. Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul? Either forgettable or grating. Only Mr. Gingrich commands listeners' attention, yet his is the command of the factory whistle. You don't enjoy Mr. Gingrich, exactly. You just can't not listen to him.
Mr. Gingrich gets a C, each of the others, a D. This raises a problem: the need to grade these candidates on a curve.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush possesses a sweet, easy delivery; Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels and Rep, Paul Ryan both bring zeal and conviction to their every utterance; Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi and Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey—but you see the point. None of the GOP's most gifted speakers is running. We must therefore recalibrate. Mr. Gingrich gets an A-minus. Each of the others, a B-plus.
Test Two: Why is that candidate wagging his finger at us?
Ronald Reagan told stories, cracked jokes and limned the values all Americans share. "Vote for me," he in effect argued, "because I'm one of you." Jimmy Carter and Michael Dukakis by contrast sounded like policy wonks, talking less about broad values than about the details of government programs. "Vote for me," each in effect argued, "because I'm smarter than you."
Related
Rick Santorum's message of the traditional family as a fundamental economic unit played well at a pre-caucus campaign stop at Des Moines Christian School, where supporters included the 21-member Duggar family of TLC fame.
..For their membership in the Carter/Dukakis school of wonkishness, Messrs. Romney and Gingrich both get Cs. They don't always talk down to us. But at moments they can't help themselves.
Jon Huntsman? A grade of D. He hectors. He lectures. He waves his unusually long index finger in the air like everyone's least-favorite professor.
For their membership in the Reagan school, Mrs. Bachmann and Messrs. Santorum and Paul deserve As. They come across as regular people. Ron Paul may lose audiences when he champions isolationism or denounces the Fed, but even then he seems like somebody's excitable uncle, not an intellectual snob.
Rick Perry merits a special word. He's relaxed, appealing, a regular guy, a committed student in the Reagan school . . . and yet. Although President Reagan might intentionally fumble for a moment as he answered a question—Reagan once explained to a friend of mine that he wanted people to be able to see that he was thinking matters through, just as they would do if they were in his position—he never turned in a performance quite like Gov. Perry's debate lapse. The governor of Texas, as you will recall, lost his train of thought for 53 seconds, then blurted "Oops." Appearing normal differs from appearing addled. Mr. Perry's grade: C.
Test Three: Folks, this is serious.
Gravitas. Weight. Substance. Which of the GOP candidates demonstrates that he is equal to the moment? Who shows that in asking his fellow Republicans to place him in a line of succession that includes Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, he understands the fundamental solemnity of the undertaking?
The most important test, this is also the most subjective. After listening to speeches, debates and interviews for lo these many months, I have concluded that just two candidates pass: Messrs. Romney and Gingrich.
Mr. Romney has of course flipped and flopped. While he now refers to himself as "a conservative businessman," he claimed as recently as 2002 that he was instead a "moderate and . . . my views are progressive." Why hasn't he been laughed out of the race for this sort of thing? For one reason: When he speaks about the economy, the issue most on Americans' minds, he conveys depth of knowledge, the sense that he genuinely understands how to promote growth, and the flintiness to take the fight to President Obama.
Mr. Gingrich? Yes, I know. During the last few weeks the Republican establishment has formed a United Front Against Gingrich, insisting that the former House speaker is manic, childish, flighty and unstable. Perhaps on the evidence of Mr. Gingrich's more than three decades as a public figure the establishment has a case. On the evidence of his performance during this campaign, you couldn't prove it.
Mr. Gingrich has popped off a few times, but so have all the others. What has distinguished the former speaker has been his poise, his good humor, his intelligence and, particularly during the debates, his seriousness.
"Down one road," Mr. Gingrich said recently, describing the choice voters will face next year, "is a European . . . system in which politicians and bureaucrats define the future. Down the other road is a proud, solid reaffirmation of American exceptionalism." Vivid, memorable and true. Mr. Gingrich may yet put up a fight.
For gravitas, give Messrs. Romney and Gingrich both As.
The Most Improved Award.
When in 1953 John Kennedy and Barry Goldwater became freshman senators, Goldwater used to recall, Kennedy proved an awkward and hesitant speaker. Eight years later, Kennedy delivered an inaugural address that still rings. Speaking well is a skill. People can get better at it.
Not Messrs. Romney, Gingrich or Paul. At their ages, and with their experience, they are what they are. Mr. Perry's most recent debate performances represented a dramatic improvement over his catastrophic early appearances, however, and if Mr. Huntsman hasn't relaxed, exactly, he certainly has become less stiff.
Honorable mention here goes to Rick Santorum. Early in the race he seemed too tight, too intense and too often testy. In recent days, as he rose in the polls in Iowa, he seemed to gain the self-confidence he needed to relax, suddenly displaying poise and even, from time to time, an almost Reaganesque charm.
Keep your eye on Mr. Santorum. Before this is over, he might not even need to be graded on the curve.
Mr. Robinson, a fellow at the Hoover Institution, is a former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan and an editor of Ricochet.com.
-
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/202269-bachmann-cancels-sc-events-announces-press-conference
-
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57351053-503544/iowas-bad-track-record-for-picking-gop-winners/
-
"Iowa is not a GOP kingmaker "
Very true. For one thing it is a smaller, skewed sample of mostly activists attending a caucus, not simply voting. It tells us more about who did not resonate. A better question would be: who won the nomination after winning both Iowa and New Hampshire?
Bachmann is out. Perry wants a try at South Carolina and Huntsman wants to try New Hampshire. Iowa is a big loss for Newt. It was all his to lose, so to speak, a very short time ago. Even if Santorum had won, he is irrelevant going forward unless he can convert it into momentum elsewhere. Unlikely IMO. The more they stay in and split votes, the more states Romney that will win.
The Republican party and Ron Paul and his supporters will have to figure out to do with that love-hate relationship (mostly hate), but he is the one not likely to ever drop out.
-
I wonder what grade Mr Robinson would give to Brock?
Some were obviously mesmorized by him. Now I think only the 40% die hard crats can even stand to listen to him.
It has got to be much tougher today than in years past. With all the media we have today.
I agree Santorum does sound much better. I am thinking I could vote for him over Romney. Yet we all know we have to beat Brock and sadly (to me) Romney the detail man still gets press as being the best one to do that because of the independent swing votders. :x
-
Great video. Around here they say the best thing to come out of Iowa is Interstate 35.
The unemployment rate in Iowa is 5.7%, not exactly typical of the national economic problems.
http://www.iowaworkforce.org/news/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=81
US News says Des Moines is the richest metro, adjusted for a low cost of living: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/06/01/10-cities-with-the-highest-and-lowest-real-incomes?PageNr=1
On Iowans minds this morning isn't the caucus result, but the basketball team visiting MN with a chance for back to back road wins after beating no.11 Wisc. over the weekend.
-
Decades ago while driving across country towards Colorado and eventually to Phoenix with a friend and his parents I remember stopping at a gas station somewhere in rural Iowa off interstate 80.
My friend's father (remember we are all from NJ) trying to be pleasant with small talk said to the gas attendant,
"You have some really nice country out here!"
The attendant's response was kind of curt, to the point, and corrective,
"yeah, if you like looking at corn!".
I remember stepping out of the car and in every single direction as far as the eye could see were endless rows of corn stalks.
For some reason I never forgot that moment.
My friend's father did not say another word.
And that is my only memory of Iowa.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrZtlnsBq_Y&feature=youtu.be
-
http://thehill.com/video/campaign/202435-pro-gingrich-pac-recycles-mccain-ad-attacking-romney
-
OUCH!!! :lol:
-
Dick Morris with some very encouraging numbers:
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/democrats-are-tanking-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/
-
Crafty,
Thanks for the post. Yes I need cheering up.
After listening to the Repubs cutting themselves to pieces (with the sheer joy of the MSM), and hearing them continuely force losing issues like the "non recess/ recess appt" "scandal" which means *nothing* to independent voters I do need some reassuring talk.
When one listens to the MSM Brock is made out to be some sort of brilliant political titan. Just like Clinton he lets his hair go whiter for the second 4 year run to appear like the elder statesman. Yes, I guess we are that stupid.
Unfortunately the "trend of an economic recovery" bought and paid for by funny money is so far on his side.
I agree with Rush Limbaugh that there is NO chance the unemployment numbers will not be manipulated to reflect lower employment going into the election. There are ways they are doing this like putting as many people into disability. I am convinced the Federal employees are doing that just like immigration officials were advised to push through immigrant papers.
Shove in as much of the progrressive agenda as possible before the election just in case he does lose.
-
By FERGUS CULLEN
New Hampshire primary voters like to pretend they don't pay attention to what happens in Iowa. Nonsense. New Hampshire voters react to the Iowa caucus results, confirming or correcting them as needed. South Carolinians will do the same in turn.
And thank goodness. It's easy to disparage the way we nominate presidential candidates and the role the early states play, but it's like what Winston Churchill said of democracy as a whole: We have the worst nominating system imaginable, except for all the others.
The process works. Some of the candidates may get away with fooling some of the voters and some of the media for some of the time, but not for long. They have to come out from behind the 30-second ads and look voters in the eye. Along the trail from Des Moines to Manchester to Charleston, candidates are vetted, frauds are exposed, and the resulting nominee emerges stronger, a more accurate reflection of the voters' mood and will. Isn't that the whole point of the nominating process?
Campaigns in the early states are changing. This cycle has seen fewer town hall meetings and less retail campaigning than in the past. Candidates have found it easier, cheaper and safer to try to limit their campaigning to debates, cable-TV appearances with friendly hosts, and Facebook.
Who can blame them? Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry all shot up in the polls while almost entirely avoiding shaking hands with New Hampshire voters.
But shunning the people soon caught up with them. Legend had it that Mr. Perry was a great retail campaigner; if so, precious few New Hampshire voters witnessed that skill in person. I estimate that fewer than 2,500 Granite Staters saw Mr. Perry in person this entire campaign. Newt Gingrich has been seen by just a few more, which is part of why he's fading.
The rapid rise and fall of candidates this primary season has made it difficult to distinguish the presidential campaign from a reality TV show. But wasn't C-SPAN's "Road to the White House" series, in which a cameraman and a boom mic follow a candidate around without a script, the original reality TV show?
Enlarge Image
CloseCorbis
Presidential hopeful Rick Santorum (left) on Thursday at Tilt'n Diner in Tilton, N.H.
.The truth is that campaigns are always changing and evolving. In 1964, Henry Cabot Lodge topped Barry Goldwater and Nelson Rockefeller to win the New Hampshire primary through a write-in campaign fueled by a couple of then-unprecedented statewide mailings. In 1980, videotape of Ronald Reagan taking charge of a debate in Nashua by thundering, "I'm paying for this microphone!" went viral without the benefit of YouTube or popular cable television. Pat Buchanan didn't need his primitive website or email to win the 1996 primary.
What hasn't changed is that the early states in the nominating process serve a national purpose by reducing the presidential race to a human scale. Candidates still have to interact with the people they seek to lead, and ordinary citizens still have opportunities to take the measure of candidates in person.
To be sure, it's a tradition more honored in the breach than the observance. The mythological primary character does exist—the flinty Yankee wearing a plaid shirt who rises at a town hall meeting to ask a candidate a tough, well-informed question—but only a small minority of voters attend events with candidates, and fewer still assess multiple candidates in person. Almost all questions at town hall meetings fall into standard, predictable categories, tailor-made for prepared two-minute answers from the candidates. Most New Hampshire primary voters get most of their information the same way voters in other states do: through their televisions.
The point is that voters can meet candidates if they want to, and it's critically important that our nominating process retain that. Early state old hands advise presidential candidates to run as though they are running for governor, and the most successful candidates do. Lesser known candidates with smaller war chests find a level playing field in the early states and an equal opportunity to earn support. Rick Santorum's success in Iowa and Jon Huntsman's foothold in New Hampshire are based on having done more events in those respective states than anyone else. Not every candidate will go home happy with the outcome, but none can depart the race feeling that they didn't get their shot. In the early states, it's still true that anyone can run for president.
Those states, and New Hampshire in particular, remain the petting zoo of presidential politics where voters can see, touch and smell the animals. Everything later is the circus, with voters sitting as spectators in the stands, watching the jumbotron. It's a process that has served the nation well.
Mr. Cullen is a former chairman of the New Hampshire Republican Party and editorial page columnist for the New Hampshire Union Leader.
-
"Idealogy will not defeat Obama". This is my impression as well. I am so sure about some of what he saysbut I do agree with this point. Idealogy is not the driver - it is about the money. We have a split group on the right and left who may care more about ideology. But as always it is the middle - and ideology is obviously not a concern for them. And they decide the election:
By Bill O'Reilly
There is no question that this program will play a major role in a presidential race this year. We are by far the most watched news show in prime time, tripling our opposition and many "Factor" viewers watch us because they want straight talk.
We're not rooting for anybody. We're not in the business of promoting any candidate. And we are tough on everybody.
Now, that alienates some Americans who want their candidate to be coddled. Let's take Rick Santorum who was on the program last night. The central point of the interview with the former senator was that he will now become a target because the media will portray him as a right-wing extremist. There is no doubt that will happen.
So I asked Mr. Santorum about his positions and he did answer the questions. But some Santorum supporters didn't like those questions. Laura Luke who lives in Milford, Michigan, "Bill, I was stunned by the hit- and-run interview you did with Santorum. You finally gave him five minutes and spent the time on issues most Americans don't care about. You owe him an apology".
Well, here are the facts Laura. The interview with Senator Santorum lasted seven minutes, 45 seconds. He ran as a social conservative and did well in Iowa based on that. We framed the interview that way and it was fair.
Mary Syren in St. Louis, "Bill, I am furious with you. You interrupted Rick Santorum big time".
Mr. Santorum spoke for 60 percent... 60 percent of the nearly eight minute interview. It's my job to ask as many questions as possible and keep the conversation pithy. No campaign speeches are allowed on "The Factor." You know that.
Doris, I'm withholding her last name, Lewiston, Idaho. "Bill, why is it that you bully all the conservatives and lavish praise on all your liberal friends?"
Doris, that's just lunacy, as Dick Morris said last night, Kool-Aid drinking cuts both ways. The point here is that we have been remarkably consistent for more than 15 years about asking tough questions. But we have also sharpened our focus recently.
All Americans seeking power will be scrutinized on the program, which is why some of them are too frightened to come on. We don't care much about party politics here. We care a lot about looking out for you.
One more letter about Santorum and we'll have more mail later on. This one from Deborah Mullins, Manakin-Sabot, Virginia. "O'Reilly you were a little soft on Mr. Santorum. You let him off on questions about birth control and gay marriage. It was obvious he did not anticipate those questions."
The Senator answered my questions pretty directly, Deborah. I told you that the interview was not a debate over his social positions. It was to allow Rick Santorum to further define what he has said during the campaign in Iowa. He did that. So I did my job.
And isn't it interesting that one viewer thinks I gave Santorum a pass, while another thinks I hammered him. When analyzing this very important presidential race, you have to put emotion aside. I mean I have to put it aside. You can be as emotional as you want. Just don't go crazy like Doris in Idaho.
Let's take President Obama, for example. As you know, I gave him the benefit of the doubt when he first took office and began trying to federalize the economy. I didn't think that was going to work, but I watched the scenario play out because I'm not an economist. Over the past three years, the economy has remained pretty much stagnant, while the national debt at $15 trillion, is now near the bankruptcy level.
So it is fair to say that Mr. Obama's economic strategy has not worked. That's not a personal shot at him. That's just the fact of the matter. Alan Colmes and other devoted liberals will tell you the President needs more time and incredibly should spend even more money to stimulate the economy.
Well, recently the coaches of the St. Louis Rams and the Tampa Bay Bucks were fired because they could not produce winners after three years. Politics is like sports. You have to produce. But Democrat partisans don't care about performance. If you have a "D" after your name, they like you, period. They don't care. Of course, the same holds true for Republican partisans and I'm fine with that on both fronts.
If your political philosophy trumps performance, that's on you. But I live in an entirely different world. The mandate of "The Factor" means we have to be skeptical about all of those seeking power. We have to challenge them and I hope that's why you watch.
Much of our political analysis is based on facts, such as polling we trust from folks like Rasmussen and Gallup. Rasmussen now has Romney at 29 percent among likely Republican voters nationwide; Santorum 21; Gingrich 16, Ron Paul 12.
In the head-to-head matchup, Romney versus Obama, it's tied at 42 percent each. In New Hampshire a Suffolk University tracking poll of likely GOP voters has Romney at 41; Paul 18; Santorum, 8; Gingrich, 7; Huntsman, 7.
Now, there are two debates this weekend, but Saturday is up against an NFL playoff game, so that will be muted and then Sunday's morning is in a debate... Sunday's debate is in the morning I should say. On Monday's "Factor", we'll have the most important parts of those expositions, again, without any favoritism or spin.
Finally let's talk about what this election really means. Let's cut through it. President Obama is no hypocrite. He wants to fundamentally change the country, putting social justice as a top priority. In 2008, he told us he'd do that.
Mr. Obama has been tougher on the terrorists than I thought he'd be. He has largely kept the Bush-Cheney policies in place and the brutally effective drone attacks have angered the ACLU and other far left people. So the President is no phony. He does what he believes is right.
The problem is, the problem, though, is federal spending. Mr. Obama doesn't seem to understand the danger he is courting. He simply does not want to stop the madness despite the massive debt. I mean, these pinheads in Washington are set to approve another $1.5 trillion in debt. That's simply insane.
The truth is, America can't afford national health care right now. We can increase health insurance competition, but we can't pick up the tab for 30 million Americans. No matter what the left believes, no matter how high you raise taxes. And we can no longer afford Medicare and Social Security in the way the programs are set up. They must be modified somewhat for Americans under the age of 40.
The social and financial contract between Washington and we the people has to be changed or the United States will go the way of Greece. As a citizen, I don't understand why President Obama doesn't understand. And that dilemma will be spotlighted on "The Factor" until we do understand.
On the Republican front here is the reality, even though the economy is shaky, 42 percent of Americans would still vote for the President as it stands today. Even with the dangerous debt, even with Solyndra, cap and trade, health care mandate, even with all of that, Mr. Obama remains competitive. He's not Jimmy Carter. The GOP better understand that and the party had better put together a cogent message based upon spending limitations, along with entitlement and tax reform.
Ideology will not... I repeat... will not defeat Barack Obama. His left-wing ideologues match the right-wing folks. If Washington continues to spend more than it takes in, doesn't reform the tax code and entitlements, this nation will go into steep decline. That's what's in play this year 2012. And that's what "The Factor" will be covering in a tough, blunt, no spin way, guaranteed to tee off a lot of folks.
And that's "The Memo."
— You can catch Bill O'Reilly's "Talking Points Memo" and "Pinheads & Patriots" weeknights at 8 and 11 p.m. ET on the Fox News Channel and any time on foxnews.com/oreilly. Send your comments to: oreilly@foxnews.com.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/2012/01/06/bill-oreilly-how-
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/09/us/politics/pro-gingrich-pac-plans-tv-ads-against-romney.html?_r=1&ref=politics&pagewanted=print
PAC Ads to Attack Romney as Predatory Capitalist
By TRIP GABRIEL and NICHOLAS CONFESSORE
MANCHESTER, N.H. — Thanks to a $5 million donation from a wealthy casino owner, a group supporting Newt Gingrich plans to place advertisements in South Carolina this week attacking Mitt Romney as a predatory capitalist who destroyed jobs and communities, a full-scale Republican assault on Mr. Romney’s business background.
The advertisements, a counterpunch to a campaign waged against Mr. Gingrich by a group backing Mr. Romney, will be built on excerpts from a scathing movie about Bain Capital, the private equity firm Mr. Romney once ran. The movie, financed by a Republican operative opposed to Mr. Romney, includes emotional interviews with people who lost jobs at companies that Bain bought and later sold.
“We had to load up the U-Haul because we done lost our home,” one woman says.
Democrats have signaled that they intend to make Mr. Romney’s history at Bain a central part of their case against him if he wins the Republican nomination. But Bain has also emerged as an issue in the Republican primary, despite the party’s free market stance and business-friendly policies, reflecting the depth of public anger about the economy. At an appearance here on Sunday, Mr. Gingrich suggested that Bain’s approach was to carry out “clever legal ways to loot a company.”
But the planned advertisements appear to be intended to elevate the subject to a new level as Mr. Gingrich and the other Republican contenders begin to run out of time to slow Mr. Romney’ s progress toward the nomination. They are the latest example of how “super PACs” are carrying out attacks in sync with their preferred candidates and in the process helping to reshape the presidential race. Super PACs can raise unlimited amounts of money but are barred from coordinating with the campaigns they are supporting.
The Bain-centered campaign strikes at the heart of Mr. Romney’s argument for his qualifications as president — that as a successful executive in the private sector, he learned how to create jobs — and advances an argument that President Obama’s re-election campaign has signaled it will employ aggressively against Mr. Romney.
“His business success comes from raiding and destroying businesses — putting people out of work, stealing their health care,” said Rick Tyler, a senior adviser to the pro-Gingrich super PAC, Winning Our Future, which recently bought the film, “King of Bain: When Mitt Romney Came to Town,” after groups backing two other Republican candidates passed up opportunities to use it.
The movie scenes and the influx of money that enable the pro-Gingrich group to run the advertising campaign have “all the makings of a game-changer,” Mr. Tyler said.
Winning Our Future got the money for the campaign from Sheldon Adelson, a billionaire casino owner in Las Vegas who has long supported Mr. Gingrich.
The group said it would spend $3.4 million initially on radio and TV advertisements starting Wednesday in South Carolina, where the campaign will move after New Hampshire. Mr. Gingrich, who held the lead in the polls in South Carolina last month before falling back, attributes his fade there and earlier in Iowa, where he finished fourth in the caucuses last week, to a deluge of attack advertisements from a super PAC supporting Mr. Romney, Restore Our Future.
When Mr. Gingrich accused Mr. Romney at a debate on Saturday in New Hampshire of following a “Wall Street model” where “you can basically take out all the money, leaving behind the workers,” Mr. Romney retorted that he had helped create 100,000 jobs, citing successes like Staples.
“It’s puzzling to see Speaker Gingrich and his supporters continue their attacks on free enterprise,” said a spokeswoman for Mr. Romney, Andrea Saul. “This is the type of criticism we’ve come to expect from President Obama and his left-wing allies at Moveon.org.”
The film’s producer, Barry Bennett, a former consultant to a super PAC that supports Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, said he came up with the idea himself.
Mr. Bennett said he had bought an “opposition research book” on Mr. Romney compiled by the staff of a Republican rival during the 2008 campaign and had found its contents “stunning.”
“David Axelrod,” he said, referring to Mr. Obama’s strategist, “is going to have a heyday with this, and Republicans need to know this story before we nominate this guy.”
He said he had commissioned Jason Killian Meath, an advertising executive and freelance filmmaker, to direct the movie. Mr. Meath worked on the Romney campaign in 2008 as an associate of Stuart Stevens, who is Mr. Romney’s strategist.
Mr. Bennett said he paid the film’s entire cost, $40,000, from his own pocket; it was never an official project of the pro-Perry group, Make Us Great Again. He said had he never showed it to the pro-Perry group, which he left in October.
But people with knowledge of the film’s provenance said that officials at Make Us Great Again were shown an early portion of the film, and had told Mr. Bennett that they had no interest in using it or paying for it.
In a statement, Scott Rials, the executive director, said: “Make Us Great Again had nothing to do with this video in any way. Period. Barry Bennett worked with us during the startup phase of the super PAC, but we are now working on different projects.”
Mr. Bennett also shopped the film to a super PAC supporting another candidate, Jon M. Huntsman Jr. But officials with the group, Our Destiny, also passed on the film, according to a person with ties to the group.
“We made the decision that that was just not the kind of campaign we wanted to participate in,” said the person, who asked for anonymity to describe private negotiations.
Mr. Tyler, a former long-time aide to Mr. Gingrich who helped set up the super PAC supporting him, disagreed. “I’m a capitalist, I’m a conservative,” he said. “I’ve spent a lot of time defending free enterprise from a biblical perspective.”
But Bain Capital, he said, did not fit the model of responsible corporate citizenship. “If this is free enterprise, then conservatives should have nothing to do with it,” he said. “It is predatory paper-shuffling. Mitt Romney was engaged in the engineered destruction of free enterprise.”
The full 28-minute movie, which the group plans to post online, cuts back and forth between images of Mr. Romney’s “$12 million California beach house” and men and women describing the pain of losing jobs.
A man in a Vietnam veterans hat says: “Who am I? I’m Bob Safford. Mitt Romney and those guys, they don’t care who I am.”
In news clips in the film, Mr. Romney is jeered at for calling corporations “people” and explains that capitalism is “creative destruction.”
Mr. Adelson’s $5 million contribution instantly makes Winning Our Future a major player on the political landscape.
A supporter of conservative causes, including the Republican Jewish Coalition, Mr. Adelson is especially close to Mr. Gingrich, a kinship that stretches back to the former speaker’s days in the House and has evolved into a relationship that is as much personal as political, according to people who know both men.
Mr. Gingrich, who has vowed to run a positive campaign, has said he will tell supporters not to donate to any group that runs negative advertisements on his behalf. Mr. Tyler said the Romney campaign might find the commercials negative. “But I think voters will find them instructive and positive and help them make a decision,” he said.
-
Rick Santorum has social conservatives to thank for his strong showing in Iowa, but his ability to win the GOP nomination and defeat President Obama will hang on his economic message. So it's a good moment to sort the good from the bad in the former Pennsylvania Senator's current agenda and Congressional record.
The good news is that Mr. Santorum is focused on spurring faster economic growth, which is the prerequisite for income gains for all Americans, especially the poor. It's a political mistake to focus on income inequality, because Democrats will always outbid Republicans on wealth redistribution. The only way to trump the politics of envy is with the politics of growth.
***
On that score, Mr. Santorum joins most of the other Republicans who are proposing tax reforms that reduce rates in return for closing loopholes. He proposes a return to the Reagan-era top rate of 28%, and a second rate of 10% for middle-income Americans. He also wants a 12% capital-gains tax, down from 15% today, and half the 23.8% rate that Mr. Obama has promised in 2013.
This beats Mr. Romney, who refuses to propose a cut in individual tax rates lest he be accused of favoring the rich. Mr. Santorum doesn't dodge the class-war argument, which Mr. Obama won't let the GOP nominee dodge in any event. Mr. Santorum was especially effective in Saturday night's debate in making the case that Republicans shouldn't stoop to the Democratic rhetoric of pitting "the middle class" against other Americans.
On the other hand, Jon Huntsman's tax reform is superior because it proposes a lower top rate of 23%, which he'd make possible by stripping out nearly all current deductions. Newt Gingrich proposes a voluntary plan with a 15% top rate. Mr. Santorum wants to eliminate deductions for business and the wealthy, but he'd retain some of the costliest deductions, including those for mortgage interest, charities, health care and retirement savings. A President might have to give away these deductions to get a reform through Congress, but Mr. Santorum has conceded them before the bargaining begins.
Enlarge Image
CloseAssociated Press
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum
.Most disappointing is the Pennsylvanian's proposal to triple the tax credit for children (from $1,000 today), which is a hobby horse of the Christian right. This is social policy masquerading as economics. Unlike a cut in marginal tax rates, a larger tax credit does little for growth because it doesn't change incentives to save, work or invest. It merely rewards taxpayers who have children over those who don't.
Mr. Santorum is essentially agreeing with liberals who think the tax code should be used to pursue social and political goals. Yet a major goal of tax reform is to make the tax code less of a political free-for-all. The best tax code is one that raises the revenue the government needs with the least amount of economic harm and misallocation of resources.
A similar tax favoritism affects Mr. Santorum's proposal to cut the corporate tax rate in half (to 17.5%) for most companies but make it zero for manufacturers. Mr. Santorum recently defended this form of industrial policy by saying that Wal-Mart (his example) didn't warrant a zero rate because it didn't send jobs overseas.
So any company that threatens to move jobs overseas should get a lower rate than a company that keeps jobs in the U.S.? Watch Mr. Obama have fun with that one. A better economic strategy would be to confer the lowest possible tax rate on all U.S. corporations, including the 89% of economic activity in America that isn't manufacturing.
This rhetoric is of a piece with Mr. Santorum's votes on trade, which reveal a protectionist streak. He voted against Nafta and called Pennsylvania a "loser state" under the deal that has done much to lift and integrate the economies of the U.S., Canada and Mexico. He has supported steel tariffs and the 27.5% tariff on China for currency manipulation, which could spark a trade war. The hope is that a President Santorum would represent the economic interests of the nation, not just Pennsylvania, and his platform does call for the ratification of five new trade deals.
On spending, Mr. Santorum had a generally respectable record in his 16 years in Congress. Mr. Romney and others have been hitting him for supporting earmarks, but until the last couple of years you could count on one hand the number of Senators who didn't.
Mr. Santorum was among the architects of the historic Contract with America budget in 1995 (when Newt Gingrich was House Speaker) that helped slow government spending and achieve a balanced budget. He has been especially brave in speaking about the need to reform Social Security, even while representing a state that has the second oldest population after Florida. His vote for George W. Bush's prescription drug bill was a mistake, but then Mr. Gingrich also supported it and RomneyCare in Massachusetts is far worse.
The Santorum platform calls for reducing federal nondefense discretionary spending to 2008 levels through across the board agency cuts, eliminating agriculture and energy subsidies, as well as funding for Planned Parenthood, ObamaCare implementation, and United Nations activities "that undermine America's interests."
He would also join most of the other GOP candidates in sending food stamps, housing payments and Medicaid to the states in the form of a block grant. This is how welfare was reformed, despite wails that it would lead to a "race to the bottom" and hurt the poor. Instead it has been the most successful social-policy reform of the last 30 years.
Overall, we'd score Mr. Santorum's economic agenda as bolder than Mr. Romney's, if not as ambitious as those of Messrs. Huntsman and Gingrich. Judging by this weekend's debates, his elevation to a serious contender has improved the quality of the GOP's economic debate. If Mr. Santorum is going to trump Mr. Romney's money and organization, his best opening is to become the candidate of economic growth.
-
Yes, Santorum's plan is good and like George W Bush he also shows that he doesn't really get it. Huntsman's plan is very good but it is a piece of paper. I don't hear him selling it. Similar for Gingrich. Plenty of good plans but no focus. Romney is intentionally vague trying to cleverlymake general election attacks more difficult. Meanwhile he wonders why we don't get all excited about plans that he won't disclose. Santorum's is perhaps the most realistic tax plan of the bunch. I like the idea of top rates in the 20s and capital gains lowered from 15 to 12%. Zero tax on capital gains would be a dream to me but seems out of touch politically and leaving good government revenues on the table during times of historic deficits. All these others starting with Pawlenty, Huntsman, Gingrich saying no tax on capital gains for anyone is a campaign promise sure to go nowhere and just gives fuel to the class envy movement.
The latest round of attacks on Romney are fair but don't reflect well on Newt in particular and others IMO. Half the things Newt attacks on he is guilty of something similar himself and the rest often show either ignorance or deception. Romney's experience and success at Bain was not a bad thing for the American economy. The first of those flames thrown is what knocked Newt out of the lead in the first place. Now it's "Predatory Capitalist"? Romney should have been a more benevolent and socialist capitalist-for-the-people? He should preside over restructuring of companies but treat the outgrown, middle managers like federal employees or tenured professors? I just don't get what that line of attack is except to oppose or not understand competitive capitalism. That should be left to the occupy Marxists.
The Obama people are starting to show that Gov. Romney is not the one they want to face.
Update: I agree with the WSJ criticism of Santorum treating manufacturers differently than all other businesses. They don't need a zero tax; they need a conducive business environment. Energy policies and impending Obamacare hurt manufacturers more than a high tax rate on no profit.
-
By DAVID BRADY
AND DOUGLAS RIVERS
More Americans now call themselves independents than Democrats or Republicans, and New Hampshire, the site of Tuesday's GOP primary, is no different. About 40% of Granite State voters are not registered in either major political party, and our best estimate is that the share of independents nationally has grown to 42% from 35% over the past three years. That 7% of the electorate is big enough to have changed the outcome of any of the last five presidential elections—and this is not necessarily good news for the GOP.
Barack Obama carried independents by an eight-point margin in the 2008 exit poll—and Republicans carried them by a 19-point margin in the 2010 midterms. Thus GOP candidates may be tempted to believe the independents' disaffection with the president that cost Democrats control of the House will lead inexorably to a Republican presidential victory this year.
Paul Gigot on Rick Santorum's economic plan and what to expect out of New Hampshire on Tuesday.
.Not so fast. In the first place, Republicans benefited from a low Democratic midterm turnout. According to exit polls, there were about equal numbers of Democratic and Republican voters in the midterm, unlike 2008 when Democratic voters outnumbered Republicans by seven percentage points (39% to 32%). Republicans can't count on a low Democratic turnout in 2012 and there are still more registered Democrats than Republicans. To win in 2012, it's good enough for Democrats to split the independent vote. Republicans need to carry a clear majority. And there are significant policy disagreements between independents and the Republican base.
Take, for example, a YouGov survey conducted on Dec. 22. After the economy (which all voters said was their No. 1 concern), the next most important issues for Democrats are Social Security, Medicare and the environment. For each, their preference is for the federal government to do more. For Republicans, the next most important issues are the budget deficit, taxes and immigration and, for the first two, they want the federal government to do less.
Independents, on the other hand, say that health care and education are more important. They tend to worry about what the federal government does in each area, but unlike the Republican base they are not opposed in principle to federal action.
On ObamaCare, for example, independents oppose repeal 40%-33% while Republicans favor 62%-23% and Democrats oppose 46%-27%, according to a Nov. 12 YouGov survey. And in an Oct. 29 YouGov survey, independents opposed cutting federal education spending 56%-20% while Republicans favored reductions 39%-29%. Democrats opposed cutting spending 67%-8%.
Enlarge Image
CloseGetty Images
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, right, speaks during a campaign stop on January 9 in Hudson, New Hampshire.
.Independents are usually closer to Republicans than Democrats on the general issue of the size of government and government spending. In a Nov. 22 YouGov poll, 76% of independents favored decreasing federal spending and almost half would include entitlements within these cuts.
On the other hand, they are closer to Democrats on raising taxes: 36% of independents favored increasing taxes across the board versus 43% of Democrats and 7% of Republicans.
Moreover, a Sept. 27 YouGov poll revealed overwhelming support for raising taxes on the wealthy: 55% of independents favored raising taxes on families earning over $250,000 (versus 43% of Democrats and 7% of Republicans), and 72% of independents favored raising taxes on families earning more than $1 million (versus 88% of Democrats and 46% of Republicans).
Among the leading Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney has consistently done the best among independents nationally. He normally splits the independent vote with President Obama (38% to 38% in the Dec. 22 YouGov poll), while Newt Gringrich trails among independents by 13 points. But to win, Mr. Romney would have to do better than split the independent vote.
Neither President Obama nor the eventual Republican nominee has the independent vote locked up. How the candidates explain their plans to get the economy moving, and the crucial trade-offs among deficits, jobs and the safety net will determine how the crucial independent vote goes in the 2012 election. Preaching to the choir of Republican primary and caucus voters may well be necessary to win the nomination. But independents hold the key in November 2012.
Mr. Brady is deputy director of the Hoover Institution and a professor in the Graduate School of Business at Stanford University. Mr. Rivers is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor of political science at Stanford. He is also chairman of YouGov America, a survey and research company.
-
WILL BAIN DERAIL ROMNEY?
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on January 10, 2012
Printer-Friendly Version
The short answer is: No! People, particularly Republicans, understand the difference between capitalism and safety-net socialism. They are even savvy enough to have heard of Schumpeter's doctrine of the "gales of creative destruction" that blow through our economy. They grasp that if we save everyone's job and everyone's pension and everyone's company, we will become so ossified, so indebted, so burdened that we will never be able to create any new jobs or wealth.
They get it that to attract capital to turn around ailing companies, you need either to have a very good lobbyist who makes mega campaign contributions or a good enough return on capital to attract private investors. Obama is trying the first way. Romney did the second. Republicans get this.
They also understand that Romney was scarcely a "predator" as Rick Tyler, spokesman for the new anti-Romney movie, describes him. Critics zero in on GS Technologies, a steel company that, like more than forty others, went bankrupt in the late 90s or the early years of the new century. Was Romney a "predator?" Was Bain Capital? What predator would make an initial investment of $8 million and then up its investment to $16 million in an effort to turn the failing company around? What "predator" would merge the company with a stronger one in an effort to preserve it in a highly competitive global marketplace?
Was Romney a "predator" when GS went bankrupt in 2001? He had left Bain in 1999. The decision to deny the GS workers their pensions and health benefits was Bain's, not Romney's. He was out of the picture by then.
And what of the more than one hundred thousand people who have jobs and pensions and health insurance because of Romney's work at Bain Capital? What of the winners and the survivors who far outnumbered the losers during Romney's Bain Capital years?
For Republicans to be attacking a Republican for winning in the free market and for turning companies around so they make a profit (without public subsidy) is a sad sight. They will come to rue their criticisms. Bain will not become the bane of Romney's existence!
-
One reason Mitt Romney has had trouble pulling away from the Republican pack isn't just the strength or persistence of his opponents. It's also the changing nature of the party itself.
As Republican voters went to the polls Tuesday in New Hampshire, they were casting ballots within a party that has become steadily more blue collar, populist and driven by voters who are as much independents as Republicans. Those factors explain the rise of Ron Paul in New Hampshire and the wave that Rick Santorum rode into the state from his strong showing in Iowa—as well as the harsh attacks fellow Republicans launched on Mr. Romney's record as a financier at Bain Capital.
Stereotypes often die hard, which certainly is true in politics—and nowhere more true than in the perceptions of the two major parties. The image of the Democrats as the party of the working class and the Republicans as the party of the capitalist class has some basis in reality, but not nearly so much as a century ago when those perceptions became entrenched.
Consider a few data points that illustrate what Republican voters really look like today:
• When the thousands of interviews conducted in last year's Wall Street Journal/NBC News polls are combined, Americans who call themselves blue-collar workers actually were slightly more likely to identify themselves as Republicans than Democrats, and the two parties were split evenly among those with family incomes of $30,000 to $75,000.
• When the Journal/NBC News poll asked Americans in November who was responsible for the country's current economic problems, Republicans were precisely as likely as Democrats to blame "Wall Street bankers."
• In the 2008 presidential election, even as Republican nominee John McCain was losing the national vote by seven percentage points to Barack Obama, he won among white voters without a college degree—a reasonable definition of working-class whites—by 18 percentage points.
All that suggests a Republican party with a different kind of base than popularly imagined. It seems fair to trace the start of the GOP's evolution to this stereotype-busting condition back to the rise of Ronald Reagan in 1980 and his creation of a bloc of "Reagan Democrats."
Those were working-class voters who had stuck with the Democratic party for decades out of a sense the Democrats were looking out for their economic needs, but who moved to the Republicans because of their more conservative stance on cultural and social issues.
Then in 1996, Pat Buchanan started to put a populist economic overlay on this evolution by rousing his so-called pitchfork brigades of followers to win the New Hampshire primary. He also showed the limits of his movement by failing to win a single state after that.
In more recent years, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty—himself briefly a presidential candidate this cycle—identified the growing working-class contingent within his party by arguing the GOP should be explicitly designing economic policies to appeal to "Sam's Club Republicans."
Finally, two years ago, the tea-party movement arose and, in large measure, attached itself to the Republican party. That accentuated the populist, anti-establishment and anti-Wall Street impulses that already were flowing through the party.
All that formed the backdrop for the 2012 primary in New Hampshire, as well as Mr. Romney's struggle to maintain the position he long ago established as the prohibitive favorite there. Mr. Santorum nearly won Iowa's caucuses while emphasizing his conservative social positions as well as the blue-collar sensibilities and working-class empathy he inherited as the grandson of coal miners.
And Mr. Paul rode his libertarian, anti-big-bank, anti-establishment message into a much stronger position in New Hampshire than he enjoyed just four years ago, when he won less than 8% of the state's vote. In a period when the share of voters who identify themselves as neither Democrats nor Republicans but rather as independents is rising, Mr. Paul's ability to draw independents into GOP primaries and caucuses has changed the game.
It was against that backdrop that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich attempted to get a slice of the GOP's populist action by launching a harsh, 11th-hour attack on Mr. Romney's record as a private-equity executive at Bain Capital, painting him as a predatory capitalist who used the power of money to strip companies and toss blue-collar workers out of their jobs.
The fact that there was almost no difference between that line of attack and the one a liberal Democrat, Ted Kennedy, used against Mr. Romney in a 1994 Senate race says much about how the party has changed in the ensuing years—and why Mr. Romney will continue to hear such attacks after New Hampshire, even from fellow Republicans.
-
Newt elaborated quite extensively on his anti-capitalism message yesterday and has lost me forever. (Perry also.)
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/gingrich-defends-king-of-bain-ad-20120110
"I don't think I'm using the language of the Left. I'm using the language of classic American populism," he said on Fox and Friends. "Main Street has always been suspicious of Wall Street."
The ad targets Gingrich opponent and the front-runner Mitt Romney as a predatory capitalist who was “playing the system for a quick buck” during his time at private-equity firm Bain Capital.
The film features poignant interviews with people who lost jobs at companies bought and then later dissolved by Bain.
“There's a big difference between people who go out to create a company, even if they fail, if they try in the right direction, if they share in the hardships, if they're out there with the workers doing it together, that's one thing,” he said on Fox. “But if somebody who is very wealthy comes in, takes over your company, takes out all the cash and leaves behind the unemployment, I think that's not a model we want to advocate."
Watch the trailer, a story of greed. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/pro-newt-group-releases-trailer-for-anti-romney-movie-when-mitt-romney-came-to-town/
-
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/10/1053376/-Mitt-Free-Enterprise-Romney-sought-and-received-federal-bailout-for-Bain
============
Upright
"For the past year, the question has been whether Mitt Romney would be acceptable to the Republican party. ... Some pundits continue to dream of a great conservative hope who will enter the race and save us from Romney -- perhaps even at a brokered convention. But the voters have now had two opportunities to speak. Two thirds of voters in New Hampshire said they were satisfied with the field. Romney has won a solid victory there. He succeeded with Tea Party supporters and self-described conservatives. And now Newt Gingrich has offered Romney a gift. By attacking him from the left as a heartless tycoon, he has given Romney the chance to campaign as the defender of capitalism and free markets. ... While it's too early to say the race is sewn up, it is looking very good for Mitt Romney." --columnist Mona Charen
"Whatever chance at a comeback Speaker Gingrich and Governor Perry had went up on the pyre they lit with their attacks [against Romney], on Bain specifically and free-market venture capital generally. The recognition that one cannot defend capitalism while attacking capital is spreading. Blaming Bain for layoffs is like blaming the lifeboats for being late to the Titanic. No matter how you judge their performances, we are a whole lot better for having venture capitalists at hand, even when they don't bat anywhere near 1.000." --radio talk-show host Hugh Hewitt
==========
FWIW, I'd like to see more about Romney's Bain Capital record before make a decision.
-
“There's a big difference between people who go out to create a company, even if they fail, if they try in the right direction, if they share in the hardships, if they're out there with the workers doing it together, that's one thing,” he said on Fox. “But if somebody who is very wealthy comes in, takes over your company, takes out all the cash and leaves behind the unemployment, I think that's not a model we want to advocate."
Well said, and said by a Republican. :-D
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/26/1040130/-Redstate:-Romney-Unelectable-Because-of-Bain-Capital-Ties?via=sidebyuserrec
-
About the best that can be said about the Republican attacks on Mitt Romney's record at Bain Capital is that President Obama is going to do the same thing eventually, so GOP primary voters might as well know what's coming. Yet that hardly absolves Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and others for their crude and damaging caricatures of modern business and capitalism.
Bain's business model is little more than "rich people figuring out clever legal ways to loot a company," says Mr. Gingrich, whose previous insights into free enterprise include years of defending the taxpayer-fed business of corn ethanol.
A super PAC supporting the former House Speaker plans to spend $3.4 million in TV ads in South Carolina portraying Mr. Romney as Gordon Gekko without the social conscience. The financing for these ads will come from a billionaire who made his money in the casino business, which Mr. Gingrich apparently considers morally superior to investing in companies in the hope of making a profit.
Mr. Perry, who has no problem using taxpayer financing to back his political allies in Texas, chimes in that "I have no doubt that Mitt Romney was worried about pink slips, whether he was going to have enough of them to hand out. Because his company Bain Capital, with all the jobs that they killed, I'm sure he was worried he'd run out of pink slips."
Politics isn't subtle, and these candidates are desperate, but do they have to sound like Michael Moore?
***
We have our policy differences with Mr. Romney, but by any reasonable measure Bain Capital has been a net job and wealth creator. Founded in 1984 as an offshoot of the Bain consulting company, Bain Capital's business is a combination of private equity and venture capital. The latter means taking a flyer on start-ups that may or may not pan out, something that neither Mr. Gingrich nor Mr. Obama seem to find offensive when those investments are made by Silicon Valley firms in "clean energy."
One Bain investment during Mr. Romney's tenure was to back an entrepreneur named Tom Stemberg, who was convinced he could provide savings for small-business owners if they were willing to shop at a store instead of taking deliveries. Today, the Staples chain of business-supply stores employs 90,000 people.
Bain also backed a start-up called Bright Horizons that now manages child-care centers for more than 700 corporate clients around the world. Many other venture bets failed, but that's capitalism, which is supposed to be a profit and loss system.
Enlarge Image
CloseBoston Globe via Getty Images
Mitt Romney at Bain's offices in Copley Plaza in 1990.
.The loss part is what seems to trouble the Gingrich-Perry-Obama critics, especially in Bain's private-equity business. Like some 2,300 other such U.S. equity firms, Bain looks to buy companies that are underperforming or undervalued and turn them around.
Far from "looting," this is a vital contribution to capitalism and corporate governance. One of the persistent gripes of the left is that too many CEOs make too much money even as their companies flounder. Private-equity firms target such companies or subsidiaries, replace their management, and try to unlock the underlying value in the enterprise.
Private equity helps to promote dynamic capitalism that creates wealth, rather than dinosaur capitalism of the kind that prevails in Europe and futilely tries to prevent failure. Sometimes this means closing parts of the company and laying off employees, but the overriding goal is to create value, not destroy it.
A Wall Street Journal news story this week reported that Bain in the Romney era differed from many equity firms in buying more young and thus riskier companies. This contributed to a higher rate of bankruptcy or closure—22%—for companies held by Bain after eight years.
Bain disputes the Journal's calculations, but one test of overall success is whether investors keep entrusting a firm with their money. Mr. Romney and his colleagues raised $37 million for their first fund in 1984. Today, Bain Capital manages roughly $66 billion. Its investors include college endowments and public pension funds that have increased their investments in private equity to get larger returns than stocks and bonds provide. The people who benefit from those returns thus include average workers.
Bain's turnaround hits include Sports Authority and tech-research outfit Gartner Inc., which was once a small division of an advertising firm and is now a public company worth more than $3 billion. Another success was Steel Dynamics, which used Bain money to build a new steel factory and now employs 6,000 people.
The tougher questions for Mr. Romney involve the cases in which Bain took early payouts in dividends and management fees after purchasing existing businesses that ultimately went bankrupt. There are several in this category, including another steel company called GSI, though its hundreds of job losses were far fewer than the jobs created at Steel Dynamics.
The medical-equipment maker once known as Dade International is now much larger than it was when Bain bought it in the 1990s. But Mr. Romney's company later sold its stake, and heavy debts taken on during the Bain years forced Dade to spend two months in bankruptcy in 2002 and cost 2,000 jobs. The company later resumed its rapid growth, and Siemens bought it in 2007 for $7 billion.
Certainly Bain Capital made sure that its investment partners were paid first, but the larger truth is that the invisible hand worked pretty well. Notice that because the overall job statistics for Bain investments are by all accounts positive, many critics attack the Romney record with claims about private equity in general. The left is cheering a study commissioned by the Census Bureau that found that companies bought by private-equity firms suffer more job losses soon after a buy-out than similar firms that didn't experience buy-outs.
But this is hardly surprising since the companies were acquired in part because they were underperforming. The critics also don't mention that the Census study found that firms acquired in private-equity transactions created more new jobs in the ensuing decade. Imagine what might have happened if Chrysler or GM had been bought by private equity two or three decades ago. They might have been turned around much earlier, at far less pain to fewer workers, and without any taxpayer cost.
***
The larger political point is that Mr. Romney has a good story to tell if he is willing to elevate this ugly rumble into a debate over free enterprise and America's future. This is not Mr. Romney's strength, as he prefers to talk in personal terms ("I'm an optimist!") or to lapse into his default mode as the corporate technocrat. This invites personal attacks in return and it leads him into mistakes like this week's gaffe that "I like being able to fire people who provide me services."
Mr. Romney needs to rise above the personal and base his claim to office on a defense of the system of free enterprise that has enriched America over the decades and is now under assault. Mr. Obama will attack Mr. Romney as Gordon Gekko because the President can't win by touting his own economic record. Mr. Romney's GOP opponents (with the admirable exception of Rick Santorum) are embarrassing themselves by taking the Obama line, but Mr. Romney should view this as an opportunity to stake his campaign on something larger and far more important than his own business expertise.
-
"About the best that can be said about the Republican attacks on Mitt Romney's record at Bain Capital is that President Obama is going to do the same thing..."
- The difference is that the next accuser cannot be painted as anti-capitalism, anti-free market or far left when they can point to a conservative standard bearer like Newt Gingrich as the source of their attack. Our liberal Sen. Amy Klobuchar escaped all attempts to be painted as extreme by showing how Sen John McCain had shared her anti-Republican views in the early 2000s.
"...if somebody who is very wealthy comes in, takes over your company..."
- In a free society, how does someone 'come in and take over' your company? Someone help me with that. How does that happen with a private company, "your company". And when you took 'your company' public, or when you gave away shares and control to people from far away in exchange for money, what did you think that meant? (It isn't "your company" or YOU would be the one making that decision.)
-
Crafty: "FWIW, I'd like to see more about Romney's Bain Capital record before make a decision."
Likewise - I am no student of Bain but I know operations of other private venture capital firms. I would point out that a) Romney was 'vetted' in Massachusetts closer to where he operated, b) this was left to an 11th hour desperation attack, if disqualifying, where was it during the last 8 months of the anyone but Romney movement, and c) what do we know about the mortals who comprise his opponents as we make attacks on what everyone did going back 20+ years... Obama doing some blow(?) and meeting over a coffee with terrorists, saying Amen and will you preside over our marriage to Rev. 'God Damn America', Gingrich starting every sentence with Marianne and I publicly, while pressing the Clinton impeachment, while sleeping with Calista, then 'chief 'historian' of the GSEs etc. Romney is accused at being good at private sector capitalism, making organizations more effective and efficient which necessarily involves career setbacks for people deemed to be ineffective or in oversupply in a company. Good grief. Gingrich and Perry IMO aren't trying to save America from this capitalist. They are trying to keep themselves in a race that is looking a lot like a sweep.
The video draws a correlation between Romney getting wealthy and others losing jobs. In free enterprise people get wealthy and people lose jobs. Often times those are the same people who lost their job and went on to greatness! To Newt, JDN, whoever, are you for that or against that, or do you deny that? Michael Moore's premise in 'Roger and me' is that if GM employed everyone in our family for generations, they owe me and my children jobs forever, not matter how bad our work product or how uncompetitive our pay package and factory performance becomes. IMO, we are running against this mindset and looking for the person who can best explain and convey the advantages of freedom of enterprise, in spite of, like democracy, its ugliness.
Bigdog posted how winning Iowa alone, straw poll or caucus, was no great indicator of becoming President. Romney is the first non-incumbent to win both Iowa and NH since Iowa started the tradition of going first in 1976. Two very different contests. If he wins SC and FL, this is over and the these regrettable quotes were all just scorched earth ego offerings that will come back to bite.
-
9-9-9: THE KEY TO REPUBLICAN VICTORY
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on January 11, 2012
Printer-Friendly Version
Two facts emerge from the New Hampshire Primary with ominous implications for the GOP in 2012:
• Pat Caddell reports that there were 25,000 fewer votes in the New Hampshire Republican Primary this year than in 2008, even though there was a Democratic contest between Obama and Hillary to siphon votes away from the GOP contest that year.
• And exit polls show that Ron Paul won half of the votes of those under 30 in the New Hampshire contest. It is Ron Paul - with his message of fundamental economic change - not Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, or Rick Santorum - with their anti-Obama message that is spreading on American campuses, competing for the very heart of the Obama base.
Both data point to an enthusiasm gap for the 2012 Republican nominee that could be dangerous. As the campaigns descended into negative advertising, a decreased turnout was a predictable consequence. But the rallying of young people to Ron Paul suggests that the Republicans need more than just an anti-Obama message. After all, young people understand that the pre-Obama economy was bad and that the recession began before Obama was even running for president. They realize that their future depends on an affirmative program, not just on repeal of the Obama laws and regulations.
But, while we need the enthusiasm that Ron Paul ignites, we do not need Ron. Another Ronald -- Reagan - built the Republican majority by baking the three disparate wings of the Republican Party into one political layer cake. He combined the national security conservatives with the evangelical social populists and the free market economy advocates into a force that won at the polls. Ron Paul is seeking to deconstruct the Reagan coalition by embracing economic conservatism while shunning the evangelical social agenda and the concerns of the national security voters. His recipe is one for a massive defeat.
But you don't need to embrace Ron Paul's nutty foreign policy and self-flagellation in blaming terrorism on our own policies to get the restructuring that our economy needs. Herman Cain's 9-9-9 program will do the trick. It can appeal to the young Ron Paul voters offering them the kind of basic economic change that they seek. By transferring the locus of taxation from production to consumption, 9-9-9 can create jobs by incentivizing the creation of wealth. The Obama focus on economic stimulus that catalyzes demand for products and services often creates jobs in China more than it does in the United States.
Cain is planning a new effort to promote his 9-9-9 plan now that his candidacy is over. It could not come at a better time for the Republican Party. (Those wishing to join should go to www.cainconnections.com.) He is doing a bus tour and the rounds of television shows to push his substantive agenda. And, in the process, can breathe enthusiasm back into Republican ranks.
9-9-9 will satisfy the libertarian impulse that underscores Paul's appeal, particularly to the young. It will simplify the tax code so that it is a means of raising government revenue, not of promoting social engineering. Tax laws won't tell us what to buy, where to invest, and how to live. Instead, it will leave these decisions to each us.
9-9-9 offers an agenda to repair the flaws in the economy that led to the stagnation of the late years of the last decade before Obama even arrived on the scene. It will make America a land of incredible business opportunity, luring innovators and job creators to the nation with what would then be the lowest maximum personal income tax rate on earth. The repeal of the capital gains tax will eliminate the barrier that stands between innovation and capital and will encourage the kind of explosion of economic growth that we need.
If Mitt Romney is to be the nominee, he needs a better message than his current reliance on his private sector credentials and his desire to oust the current Administration. His flat tax ideas have not ignited a wave of enthusiasm nor will they. They are yesterday's ideas. He needs 9-9-9. The Republican Party needs it. And America needs it as well.
-
im sure you have seen this elsewhere,
but without further ado, I give you
vermin supreme
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFXXAuDK1Ao&feature=player_embedded
-
Somehow I missed that one Andrew :lol:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/romney-delivers-victory-speech-unlike-obama-i-will-never-apologize-for-the-greatest-nation-in-the-history-of-the-earth/
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/us/politics/romney-attacks-may-help-democrats.html?_r=1&ref=politics
-
... just ask him.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/203735-white-house-no-were-not-campaigning
-
By NEIL KING JR., BRODY MULLINS and DANNY YADRON
CHARLESTON, S.C.—Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney tried to slam the door Wednesday on criticism of his business record at Bain Capital, arguing his sweeping victory in New Hampshire repudiated that line of attack.
Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney tried to slam the door Wednesday on criticism of his business record at Bain Capital, arguing his sweeping victory in New Hampshire repudiated that line of attack. Neil King has details on Campaign Journal.
But the debate over Bain—a proxy for a broader argument about the rough and tumble of market capitalism—looks set to continue through the next primary in South Carolina, a state with a pronounced populist streak that is possibly the last chance for Mr. Romney's rivals to slow his march toward the nomination.
Newt Gingrich, one of the harshest critics of Mr. Romney's Bain years, acknowledged Wednesday that it was a tough argument, but his campaign said he has no plans to back off. A group supporting Mr. Gingrich's candidacy, Winning our Future, continued to hammer the issue, as did Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who described Mr. Romney as a "vulture capitalist" while spotlighting factories in South Carolina where he said Bain had cut jobs during Mr. Romney's tenure.
Supporting Mr. Romney were a number of Republicans, including two of his rivals for the nomination, who rallied around the former Massachusetts governor, raising the possibility that the spat could in fact strengthen his hand. "Capitalism without failure isn't capitalism," GOP candidate and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. told an audience of mostly students in Columbia, S.C. He was joined by Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who said bashing Bain was a mistake.
The Republican nomination fight, careening into the Palmetto State, is opening philosophical and tactical divides within the GOP. Some Republicans see the attacks on Mr. Romney as undermining the party's traditional defense of markets and rugged capitalism, as well as their likely nominee, while also playing into the hands of Democrats seeking to make hay out of many of the same issues.
Conservative commentators have criticized Messrs. Perry and Gingrich for attacking Mr. Romney's business credentials, saying they were mimicking the Occupy Wall Street movement and channeling the Obama administration.
At a campaign event in Spartanburg, an audience member urged Mr. Gingrich to "lay off" attacking Mr. Romney's time at Bain. Dean Glossop said he was a longtime admirer of Mr. Gingrich and opposed Mr. Romney's candidacy, but he said the attacks on Mr. Romney's private-sector career were counterproductive.
At the event, Mr. Gingrich said he agreed that it was a difficult argument to make and turned to blaming President Barack Obama for making it difficult for Republicans to talk about capitalism. Gingrich campaign spokesman R.C. Hammond said Mr. Gingrich "agreed it was tough to argue, not that he will back off."
Afterward, Mr. Glossop, 47, said of Mr. Romney: "Let's not criticize his success as a capitalist; rather we should criticize his failure as a conservative."
Driving the attack on Mr. Romney isn't just the tactical advantage viewed by some of his rivals, but a shift in the GOP that has been evident since before the 2010 midterm elections. As the tea party has energized the Republican base, the party as a whole has been willing to countenance populist arguments more commonly associated with outlier candidates of past years such as Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot.
According to a compilation of thousands of interviews conducted for The Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll in 2011, blue-collar workers now are slightly more likely to call themselves Republicans than Democrats. And when Americans were asked last fall whom to blame for the country's economic problems, Republicans pointed a finger at Wall Street bankers just as often as Democrats did.
Still, the results in both Iowa and New Hampshire suggest that Mr. Romney isn't hurt by these trends as much as some of his opponents may think. In both states, polls of voters suggest he had solid support among both self-proclaimed conservatives and tea-party supporters. Exit polls in New Hampshire showed that Mr. Romney won convincingly among both groups.
Bain Capital was a pioneer in the business of buying up companies with the idea of turning them around and selling them for a profit. The firm notched some big successes, and Mr. Romney has claimed it helped create 100,000 jobs. Its tactics, however, which often included job cuts, have become tinder for a debate that has been consuming the party leading up to the South Carolina vote Jan. 21.
The theme hit a chord with a growing camp within the GOP that sees Bain as a kind of elite capitalist club out of sync with the idea that anyone can succeed with hard work. They say Mr. Romney's years as a private-equity manager at Bain could weigh on his candidacy, especially amid signs of rising antagonism toward financial elites.
"I support capitalism, but if somebody does anything that's kind of questionable, then we have the right to ask all the questions," said Jean Hampton, vice chairman of Carolina Patriots, a tea-party group based in Myrtle Beach.
It was a message Mr. Perry in particular hit hard on Wednesday. "I understand restructuring…but the idea that we can't criticize someone for these get-rich-quick schemes is not appropriate from my perspective," the Texas governor told voters at a restaurant rally in Lexington.
Rivals of Mr. Romney acknowledged Wednesday that South Carolina likely represents the last place to knock him off his stride. Messrs. Perry and Gingrich once enjoyed strong footholds here, but both did poorly in the first two contests and are running low on money and momentum. Mr. Gingrich nabbed less than 10% of the votes in New Hampshire and Mr. Perry a meager 1%.
Hitting back at his opponents, Mr. Romney said on several cable TV programs Wednesday that his resounding victory in New Hampshire proved the attacks against him not only fell flat, but backfired.
Speaking to reporters later, Mr. Romney said he was prepared to face questions about his time at Bain but was surprised the volleys came from Republicans. "We've understood for a long time that the Obama people would come after free enterprise," he said after he boarded his campaign plane to South Carolina. "Little surprised to see Newt Gingrich as the first witness for the prosecution."
The feud has astonished some of the state's top business figures. Barry Wynn, one of South Carolina's most prominent Republicans and chief executive of the private investment group Colonial Group Inc., said he found the attacks hard to stomach.
"The whole thing smacks of desperation and is anathema to what most Republicans believe," Mr. Wynn said. Pushing back, he and around a dozen other longtime Republicans plan to endorse Mr. Romney as a group Thursday morning.
One risk to the party comes from alienating Wall Street firms that after decades of support for Democrats have started to venture into the GOP fold. Managers and employees of hedge funds, for example, directed a majority of their contributions to the GOP during the most recent midterm election season, a pattern not seen since 1996, when the industry was much smaller.
Some finance executives said they were watching Mr. Romney's response closely, hoping he defends their business.
"What we're more curious about is how hard Romney will fight back against this line of attack," said Todd Klein, who helps run Legend Ventures LLC, a private-equity firm that invests in younger companies. "The open question in our minds is what kind of 'scrapper' Romney will be and whether he will play defense or offense on this issue."
Dick Harpootlian, chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, said the attacks could get real purchase in the state, where unemployment is nearly 10% and the average person earns less than $30,000 a year.
"If Romney ends up appearing to be Gordon Gekko saying 'greed is good,' that causes him major problems in South Carolina," Mr. Harpootlian said.
One fund-raiser for Mr. Perry, who is close to the campaign, said he thought that the attacks on Mr. Romney were "deplorable" and that it was time for the party to begin coalescing around a candidate.
However, a "super PAC" supporting Mr. Gingrich released a 28-minute film called "King of Bain: When Mitt Romney Came to Town," which features interviews with distraught people who say they lost their jobs at companies taken over by Bain.
The pro-Gingrich group, Winning our Future, said it plans to spend as much as $3.4 million on ads attacking Mr. Romney in South Carolina, many of them based on footage from the film.
In a written statement, the group drew a distinction between Wall Street and what it called traditional forms of capitalism. "Wall Street and true free enterprise are divorced as never before," the group said.
Some members of the buyout industry said that for all his criticisms of Bain, Mr. Gingrich once benefited from the business as an adviser to Forstmann Little & Co. That firm led lucrative takeovers of Dr Pepper Co., Gulfstream Aerospace Corp., Topps Co. and others, deals that helped make its recently deceased founder, Theodore Forstmann, a billionaire.
Mr. Forstmann was critical of the heavy use of borrowed money by some in the industry, calling these rivals "barbarians."
As an adviser to the firm, Mr. Gingrich attended meetings two or three times a year, though he didn't spend much time working on the firm's deals, according to a person close to the matter.
"The private-equity bashing by Newt is most ironic," says Scott Higbee, a partner at Partners Group, a Boston-based firm that invests about $25 billion in private-equity firms including Bain and Carlyle. "It seems like a case of a cornered animal grasping to maintain relevancy."
Mr. Gingrich's campaign didn't immediately return a call seeking comment.
—Gregory Zuckerman and Carol E. Lee contributed to this article.
By Brody Mullins
Newt Gingrich struck a populist note at a South Carolina campaign event Thursday, saying that as president he would demand an accounting of federal funds that went to Wall Street during the financial crisis.
“We deserve some kind of accounting,” Mr. Gingrich said at The Palmetto Senior Show at the Columbia fairgrounds. “The American people have a right to know…where every penny went to find out who got the money and why they got the money,” he said.
Mr. Gingrich’s comments are his latest effort to tap into the populist sentiment in South Carolina ahead of the state’s Jan. 21 primary and draw a clear distinction between himself and his chief rival, Mitt Romney. Mr. Gingrich has come under fire from some conservatives here for attacking Mr. Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital, a private equity firm the former Massachusetts governor had headed.
These conservatives say that the Republican Party should be the defender of capitalism and free markets – not criticizing Mr. Romney for making a personal fortune at his private equity firm.
Today, Mr. Gingrich, the former House speaker, made it clear he will not defend capitalism in all forms. “When you have crony capitalism with politicians taking care of their friends, that’s not capitalism,” he said in an apparent reference to the government’s financial bailouts.
In a line that drew some applause, Mr. Gingrich referred to financial institutions as “these extraordinary wealthy institutions.”
By Jennifer Levitz
Republican star and Fox News political analyst Sarah Palin said criticism of Mitt Romney‘s record at Bain Capital by some Republican rivals is fair game and that voters should get “proof” of the 100,000 jobs Mr. Romney said he helped create while he headed the private equity firm.
In an interview with Fox host Sean Hannity Wednesday, Ms. Palin was asked about Texas Gov. Rick Perry‘s comments that Mr. Romney had practiced “vulture capitalism” rather than venture capitalism at Bain. Fox and The Wall Street Journal are owned by News Corp.
“I don’t agree with attacks on free-market capitalism at all but I don’t believe this is really what is at the heart of Gov. Perry’s criticism of Romney and his time at Bain,” the former Alaska governor replied. “This isn’t about a politician making huge profits in the private sector. I think what Gov. Perry is getting at is that Gov. Romney has claimed to have created 100,000 jobs at Bain and you know, now people are wanting to know is there proof of that claim.”
Gov. Palin’s comments add to the turmoil among Republicans: Is the GOP shooting itself in the foot and making things easier for Democrats down the road by criticizing Mr. Romney’s business record?
Mr. Palin, who was the GOP vice presidential nominee in 2008, has not publicly endorsed a candidate but her husband, Todd Palin, earlier this week endorsed candidate Newt Gingrich, who has been blasting Mr. Romney over his record of cutting jobs while at Bain.
Ms. Palin said it is fair for candidates to ask Mr. Romney to “own up to the claim being made” about jobs “because so many of us are concerned with what is going on Main Street as well as Wall Street.”
“That is fair. That is not negative campaigning,” she said.
-
second post
By Fred Barnes
Mitt Romney is rolling to the Republican presidential nomination. He's the first Republican other than a sitting president to win both the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. Yet he just began confronting the greatest threat to his quest for the presidency—an explosive issue that could diminish the Republican Party's prospects for defeating President Obama.
The issue is Mr. Romney's record as an investor and corporate-turnaround artist at Bain Capital from 1984 to 1999. That experience is the heart of his campaign for the White House, the source of his claim to be uniquely qualified to invigorate the economy and create jobs.
But increasingly Mr. Romney is accused, as boss of Bain, of buying battered companies to loot and bankrupt them, firing thousands of workers while making millions himself. The charge is bad enough. That it's now coming not just from Democrats but from two of his Republican rivals—former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Texas Gov. Rick Perry—makes things worse.
Enlarge Image
CloseAFP/Getty Images
Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney
.One can imagine TV ads aired by Mr. Obama's re-election team that feature clips of Mr. Gingrich, Mr. Perry and possibly ex-Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman attacking Mr. Romney on his Bain record. The ads would be a double-barreled assault on Mr. Romney's success as a businessman and on Republicans as the party of corporate wheeler-dealers and the uncaring rich.
The Bain issue surfaced last weekend, too late to have any noticeable impact on Tuesday's New Hampshire primary, won by Mr. Romney in impressive fashion. Though favored to win, Mr. Romney exceeded expectations.
That wasn't all. After nearly upsetting Mr. Romney in Iowa last week, former Sen. Rick Santorum was seen as a candidate around whom conservatives might rally in New Hampshire. But they failed to elevate him or anyone else as the conservative alternative to Mr. Romney. Mr. Santorum was nosed out by Mr. Gingrich for fourth place.
By winning, Mr. Romney has history on his side. Both other non-incumbent candidates who have won Iowa and New Hampshire—Jimmy Carter in 1976 and John Kerry in 2004—have gone on to capture their party's nomination. And if Mr. Romney wins the South Carolina primary on Jan. 21, he'd be close to locking up the nomination. He currently leads the polls in the Palmetto State, but with the Bain assault his path could be interrupted or reversed.
Related Video
Larry Sabato on the New Hampshire primary results and what to watch for in South Carolina.
..An outside super PAC backing Mr. Gingrich plans to spend nearly $3.5 million on television in South Carolina, with Bain its chief subject. It has acquired a 28-minute film that denounces Mr. Romney as a "predatory corporate raider." The private equity firm is also likely to get considerable attention in two nationally televised debates in South Carolina.
Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Perry insist Mr. Romney veered from "traditional capitalism" at Bain. Campaigning in South Carolina, Mr. Perry has been drawing a distinction between "venture capitalism" and the "vulture capitalism" he says was practiced by Mr. Romney.
This isn't the first time the Bain issue has been exploited against Mr. Romney. In 1994, he sought Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in Massachusetts, pulling even in polls weeks before election day. Kennedy responded with television spots of workers laid off at a company, American Pad & Paper, once owned by Bain Capital. The ads worked. Mr. Romney lost, 59% to 41%.
But the Bain angle has a twist today, as the essentially left-wing critique has been adopted by conservative Republicans. It's as if a Democratic challenger to President Obama attacked his health-care plan with arguments borrowed from Republicans and conservatives. As it is, Mr. Obama has no Democratic opponent.
Mr. Romney is reluctant to defend his conduct at Bain, perhaps fearing that would only add fuel the issue. On Tuesday night he zinged "desperate Republicans" for echoing Mr. Obama's strategy to "put free enterprise on trial. . . . This is such a mistake for our party and our nation. This country already has a leader who divides us with the bitter politics of envy." But that was it. Otherwise, Mr. Romney's speech focused on Mr. Obama.
Messrs. Gingrich and Perry appear untroubled by the potentially broad impact of their offensive against Mr. Romney and Bain. But "the consequences of this are serious," says Republican consultant Frank Luntz, as "seeds" planted now could lead to a GOP "disaster" in November.
Consider the damage if Mr. Romney, whom at least a plurality of Republicans regard as their most electable candidate, ultimately lost the nomination because of Bain. The party, left with a nominee whom Mr. Romney had beaten twice, would be angrily split, its enthusiasm gone. Or consider if Mr. Romney is nominated but is weakened by the Bain attacks. That's more likely, and it too would be divisive.
Mr. Romney bears some of the blame for the awkward situation. Candidates for president normally build their campaigns on a big idea. Mr. Gingrich's is that he would crush Mr. Obama in debates and win the election. Mr. Perry's is that he would extend the economic success of Texas to the entire nation. Mr. Romney's is himself, the man whose skill at economic revival was on display at Bain. This is an invitation to attacks.
What Mr. Romney needs is a bigger idea to deflect attention from Bain. He's treated the economy as susceptible to his personal care. That's insufficient. A bold plan for economic growth, especially a controversial plan with sweeping tax reform, might work. But if not that, then at least do something that dwarfs Bain—and do it soon.
Mr. Barnes is executive editor of the Weekly Standard and a commentator on Fox News Channel.
-
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/203941-romney-to-slam-foes-on-immigration-in-south-carolina
Romney to hammer Gingrich, Perry on immigration in SC
By Cameron Joseph - 01/13/12 06:00 AM ET
Mitt Romney plans to hammer Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry on immigration in a bid to win over conservative voters in South Carolina, where the GOP front-runner has a narrow lead in polls.
Romney intends to highlight his credentials as a firm opponent of illegal immigration in an appearance Monday with Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach (R), who co-authored Arizona’s controversial immigration law.
Appeals on immigration could be a winning formula in South Carolina, where the Legislature earlier this year passed a strict anti-illegal immigration law modeled on Arizona’s measure, which the Justice Department has sought to block.
The Hispanic population of South Carolina has ballooned in the last decade, growing 148 percent since 2000. Latinos now account for more than 5 percent of the state’s population.
It could also prove a potent attack on Gingrich and Perry, who could be vulnerable to charges, potent in a race for conservative votes, that they are soft on stopping illegal immigration.
Both Perry and Gingrich, who are vying to keep their campaigns alive with strong showings in South Carolina, have come out against deporting every immigrant who entered the country without authorization.
Perry also signed into Texas law a bill that allowed in-state tuition for some undocumented immigrants living in the state, for which Romney has attacked him. Perry took a lot of heat on the issue after arguing in a debate that those who disagreed with his policy didn’t “have a heart.”
“Mitt Romney stands apart from the others. He’s the only one who’s taken a strong across-the-board position on immigration,” Kobach told The Hill in an interview.
“Gingrich and Perry, with their pro-amnesty positions, are not acceptable on their issues to me or the vast majority of Republicans.”
Kobach also criticized Rick Santorum, another GOP candidate trying to win over conservatives, for voting in 1996 against a pilot program that turned into E-Verify, the national system which helps employers check the immigration status of their employees. But he did praise Santorum for more recently voicing support for the program.
“All of the other candidates stand to the left of Romney on immigration,” Kobach said. “This is an issue that people with weak backbones sometimes have trouble taking a position on, and Mitt Romney has shown some real backbone on this issue.”
There are some risks for Romney.
Democrats are already pointing to problems he could have with Hispanic voters in the general election, and the Democratic National Committee pounced on Kobach’s endorsement of Romney.
Romney is not the only candidate drawing attention to the issue. Santorum on Thursday announced the backing of Rep. Lou Barletta (R-Pa.), another anti-immigration hard-liner.
“I am honored to receive Lou's endorsement today,” Santorum said in a statement.
“Lou has been a national leader on fighting illegal immigration and has been a fighter for the people of northeastern Pennsylvania in Congress.”
GOP strategist Dave Woodard said emphasizing the issue of immigration could help Romney in South Carolina.
The Justice Department stepped in to block South Carolina’s law in late December, angering many in the state and drawing widespread press coverage.
“It’s one of those latent issues. We’ve had a run-in with the Obama administration on this and a candidate could bring it up in his stump speech … and bang, you just inflamed the thing,” said Woodard, also a professor at Clemson.
“The federal government telling us what to do is always a big issue down here.”
-
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/203963-no-joke-stephen-colbert-exploring-a-presidential-run
No joke? Stephen Colbert exploring a presidential run
By Jamie Klatell - 01/12/12 09:26 PM ET
Comedian Stephen Colbert is giving up control of his super PAC and forming an exploratory committee for a presidential run.
Colbert made his announcement at Thursday night's taping of his Comedy Central show, The Colbert Report.
"I'm proud to announce I plan to form an exploratory committee to lay the groundwork for my candidacy in the United States of South Carolina," Colbert said.
To satisfy election laws, fellow Comedy Central host Jon Stewart will take control of Colbert's super PAC, Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow.
Colbert has used the group to needle the GOP establishment in South Carolina, even offering to buy naming rights for the state's presidential primary.
Although he will not be on the ballot in South Carolina, Colbert said that he would succeed in the Republican field because he is not current front-runner Mitt Romney.
"Clearly my fellow South Caroliniacs see me as the only Mitternative," Colbert said.
A PPP poll released Tuesday found that Colbert drew 5 percent support in South Carolina. That put him 22 points behind Romney, but ahead of Jon Huntsman. :lol: :lol:
-
BD:
I have heard Newt speak at length on his illegal immigration policies. I think he is going to be able to counter Mitt quite nicely on this. Bottom line, he has a solid list of anti-illegal immigration policies, which are sweetened by something which will leave him eligible to go after the Latino vote.
IMHO on this issue Romney has demogogued Newt a bit (possibly a factor in the rancor obviously felt by Newt) in his "say anything, change any position" nature to win the nomination-- but he may come to regret not having Newt's more nuanced position come election time in states with big Latino vote.
-
Columbia, S.C.
Newt's a battering ram who'll wind up in splinters, but he can do plenty of damage along the way. The candidate people immediately speak of here when talk turns to the GOP primary is a man named Romneybut. "I like Romney but I could change my mind." "I like Romney but I like Santorum too." People take a kind of chagrined pride in the state's past reputation for crazed, malice-laden, bare-knuckle political brawling; they look away and laugh if you speak of Lee Atwater's old charge that a Democratic candidate had a "psychotic neurosis" and received electroshock therapy "hooked up to jumper cables."
But that was two generations ago, the old world. South Carolina's modern now, fully wired, demographically on the move. They still open up the first meeting of the statehouse GOP caucus with unifying prayer—"My wife's being operated on at 2 p.m. today, I'd ask you to pray that the Lord guide the surgeon's hands," "Bob Smith died in a car accident last weekend, please pray for his family"—but some people are looking down not only with reverence. They're also checking their BlackBerrys.
No one knows what's going to happen, because South Carolina takes pride in being prickly. They have a 30-year history of picking presidents, and nobody tells them who to pick. "New Hampshire thinks it's independent? Our great-great-great-great-grandfathers fired on the flag!" That's state GOP chairman Chad Connelly, sunny and garrulous. He's building up excitement and running out of breath doing it. "This thing is wide open. It's a battle royal. People are undecided. The debates will be decisive. South Carolina is the focal point of the world the next 10 days!" It is a great talent in life to spin relentlessly and not at all alienate the spinee.
All that said, if Mitt Romney wins here, he will win the nomination. And it's likely he will win here—that Romneybut will become Romney. But it's a real question how much damage will be done to him along the way.
***
People don't embrace Mr. Romney, they circle back to him. They consider him, shop around for something better, decide the first product they looked at will last longest and give value, and buy.
Enlarge Image
CloseGetty Images
The front-runner and Palmetto State voters on Thursday.
.The non-Mitt candidates continue, fracturing the conservative vote. Because no one dropped out after New Hampshire, no consolidation of the non-Mitt vote can begin here and get in the way of the buying. Newt Gingrich, tops in state polls a few weeks ago, has damaged himself by the means and manner of his campaign. Rick Santorum will have appeal, but he's voted against right-to-work legislation, and South Carolina is a big right-to-work state. Ron Paul will have appeal too, not only in the coastal cities but among active and retired military personnel, who've been fighting the wars the past 10 years.
Mr. Romney has the support of Gov. Nikki Haley, 39, an Indian-American who rose with the Tea Party and won after receiving Sarah Palin's endorsement. She backed him early, to signal to her supporters that it was OK. In an interview this week, she said the issues are "jobs, spending and the economy. Everyone in South Carolina knows somebody who's out of work." State unemployment is 9.9%, higher than the national average. "I've killed myself to bring jobs here. I need a president I can work with." "I don't want anyone tied to Washington. I have a great respect for business people to create jobs and make tough decisions. . . . Romney can do that."
Mr. Romney has a national organization that he can plug in locally, and money. And now momentum, which will prove crucial.
The chief argument here for Mr. Romney has been that he is electable, the most rightward viable candidate. That was powerfully reinforced by his victory in New Hampshire. "If he has a 25% ceiling, how come he just won with 39%?" His victory speech, more like an acceptance speech, was powerful: he finally brought all the strands together. This is what my candidacy means, this is what I'll do. That speech will have positive reverberations.
***
South Carolina continues to evolve. Retirees from the North increasingly populate the coastal towns and cities. They are economic conservatives, sympathetic to business. The top of the state, the Greenville/Spartanburg area is heavily Christian conservative, but less so. "It was the knot on the Bible Belt, now it's the knot on the fiscal belt," says a Romney backer. International companies, and their networks of suppliers, have had an impact.
The evangelical vote is split, and the economic calamity of the last four years has, in a way, become a values issue itself. Efforts to help the poor and the unborn, to have and raise children, to keep families together, are not made easier by a stressed economy. Social and economic issues are blending.
This is what you pick up about Mr. Romney in South Carolina: He is presentable, electable and a businessman. He knows what a spreadsheet is. He made money. He can help set up the circumstances where everyone else makes money too. And he is a conservative. He has the vibrations of a Massachusetts moderate—Newt isn't wrong about that—because he was a Massachusetts moderate. But now he holds conservative positions. He's not going to change them again, because you get only one chance to change in politics, not two. He is, therefore, perversely reliable. He's not going to get into the White House and announce: "By the way, I'm pro-choice again, ha."
***
The factor the media expected to hurt Romney—evangelicals will, en masse, reject the Mormon—isn't likely. Part of the reason is the big blend: Bias feels like self-indulgence in a time of crisis. What could hurt him, what actually promises to, is the Bain Capital attacks, the half hour minidocumentary and the commercials derived from its message. The documentary is first-rate agitprop: Mr. Romney has a nice smile but in real life he's a pious, new-class operator who swoops in, buys companies, breaks them up, lines his pockets, and calls it freedom. Might this gain traction in a high-unemployment state with a long populist tradition? I think so. You should see the faces of the people who talk about being laid off.
It's not clear whether Mr. Gingrich will air the documentary in South Carolina. If he does, he's going for broke.
Those who run the Romney campaign would be fools not to answer it, quickly and substantively, not only with a defense of free enterprise but with a defense of Bain. Are claims in the ad not true? Say it. Is there a case that more jobs were created by Bain than lost? Make it—with workers in front of workplaces that now exist because Bain existed.
A full-throated, detailed defense of Bain that is also a defense of economic freedom and free markets might not only benefit Mr. Romney. It just might help valorize, or rather revalorize, the reputation of capitalism, which has taken a beating the past few years and not recovered. That, actually, might be a public service.
The Obama campaign wanted to launch its Bain attack in the fall. Mr. Romney can face the attack now, head on, and begin not inoculating himself from the issue but exhausting it.
-
The Vermin video and the Colbert candidacy remind me of a book I recently found by Pat Paulsen outlining his non-run for the Presidency in 1968. Time permitting I would love to pull out passages from that book and from Obama 2008 speeches and see if the discerning reader can tell which is which.
I don't follow the comedians because I don't watch cable, but it seems that their theme to the politicians is just to stop acting like idiots. Colbert should run in the Dem primaries on a platform of common sense liberalism (he must think there is such a thing) and just see where it goes.
--------------
I made a prediction in 2009 that Pres. Obama will not be the nominee of his own party. I have gone silent on that lately because nothing is gained for either party or the country if he should drop out so late that only one person (Sec. of State) would be in a position to pick up the pieces.
--------------
I agree that immigration issues will flair up in SC and that Newt can hold his own. Romney knows that what is said to win SC will stay with him nationally in the general election. I hope he handles it well; it is a very difficult and divisive issue. It would be nice if someone would remind them they are on the same team and should at least appear to be pushing for a solution over a political gain. The Boeing dispute illustrates that there are plenty of other labor issues to address.
If Romney wins SC while leading in FL by 20 points, it is over. Romney can lose SC respectably and still win the nomination. The candidates who act desperate soon leave the race.
-
... when they are inconvenient for him.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/judge-rejects-perrys-va-ballot-suit-110781.html
-
My reaction to the Perry suit was roughly the same; he was not the guy you expected to come from far away and sue a state. If he thought he would ever be the candidate, he should have left that distinction for criticizing the President in the Obama administration v. Arizona.
That said, this law did not help Virginians who would be better off with more choices and I've never heard of banning write-in campaigns.
If there is a federal argument I don't know what it is. It is a state contest, though part of a national election. Given the unpredictability of federal courts in their rulings, such as the mixed results in the Obamacare rulings, people will always be tempted to try their luck.
-
Perry, Newt, et al have been left looking incompetent and unprincipled in all this.
BTW I caught yesterday somewhere that it appears that once fraudulent signatures were weeded out that His Glibness did not have enough signatures to quality in 2008 for , , , Indiana i think it was.
-
Reports are that Huntsman is dropping out and endorsing Mitt.
-
Reports are that Huntsman is dropping out and endorsing Mitt.
All six of his supporters will be very disappointed.
-
"All six of his supporters will be very disappointed."
Did you see him after the NH primary. Standing behind him on one side was his blond daughter and on the other the brunette. I thought I was watching a cheap reality show.
In any case, his message that "Americans are sick and tired of the partisan bickering" was a total bomb.
No I am not sick of bickering. What I am sick of IS compromise - get it?
-
That was a lively debate tonight!
Comments?
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/who-won-the-debate-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert-8/
-
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/01/15/andrew-sullivan-how-obama-s-long-game-will-outsmart-his-critics.html
Andrew Sullivan: How Obama's Long Game Will Outsmart His Critics
The right calls him a socialist, the left says he sucks up to Wall Street, and independents think he's a wimp. Andrew Sullivan on how the president may just end up outsmarting them all.
by Andrew Sullivan | January 16, 2012 12:00 AM EST
You hear it everywhere. Democrats are disappointed in the president. Independents have soured even more. Republicans have worked themselves up into an apocalyptic fervor. And, yes, this is not exactly unusual.
A president in the last year of his first term will always get attacked mercilessly by his partisan opponents, and also, often, by the feistier members of his base. And when unemployment is at remarkably high levels, and with the national debt setting records, the criticism will—and should be—even fiercer. But this time, with this president, something different has happened. It’s not that I don’t understand the critiques of Barack Obama from the enraged right and the demoralized left. It’s that I don’t even recognize their description of Obama’s first term in any way. The attacks from both the right and the left on the man and his policies aren’t out of bounds. They’re simply—empirically—wrong.
A caveat: I write this as an unabashed supporter of Obama from early 2007 on. I did so not as a liberal, but as a conservative-minded independent appalled by the Bush administration’s record of war, debt, spending, and torture. I did not expect, or want, a messiah. I have one already, thank you very much. And there have been many times when I have disagreed with decisions Obama has made—to drop the Bowles-Simpson debt commission, to ignore the war crimes of the recent past, and to launch a war in Libya without Congress’s sanction, to cite three. But given the enormity of what he inherited, and given what he explicitly promised, it remains simply a fact that Obama has delivered in a way that the unhinged right and purist left have yet to understand or absorb. Their short-term outbursts have missed Obama’s long game—and why his reelection remains, in my view, as essential for this country’s future as his original election in 2008.
Gallery: Obama's Promises
See more at the link above. It is a pretty interesting read, in my opinion.
-
It IS an interesting read. AS is not stupid and to deconstruct it would take more time and effort than I am inclined to invest while I am on the road, but I agree-- it is worth the time.
-
The right, the left and the center all have it wrong and he is right. He is just looking at the actual record. Everyone else is spin. (The emoticon I am looking for isn't in the choices.) "...the American people will come to see his first term from the same calm, sane perspective. And decide to finish what they started." - The coyote follows the roadrunner - off the cliff
"Mitt Romney accuses the president of making the recession worse, of wanting to turn America into a European welfare state, of not believing in opportunity or free enterprise, of having no understanding of the real economy, and of apologizing for America and appeasing our enemies. According to Romney, Obama is a mortal threat to “the soul” of America and an empty suit who couldn’t run a business, let alone a country.
- That made more sense to me than the rest of the piece. BTW, a google search of 'romney calls obama empty suit' only points to critics calling Romney that. And what business did Obama run?
"Leave aside the internal incoherence—how could such an incompetent be a threat to anyone?" - That is incoherent. IF he is in over his head, he IS a threat. If his Presidency isn't economic damage, it certainly is a 4 year delay on the solution.
"When Obama took office, the United States was losing around 750,000 jobs a month. The last quarter of 2008 saw an annualized drop in growth approaching 9 percent. This was the most serious downturn since the 1930s, there was a real chance of a systemic collapse of the entire global financial system, and unemployment and debt—lagging indicators—were about to soar even further. No fair person can blame Obama for the wreckage of the next 12 months, as the financial crisis cut a swath through employment. Economies take time to shift course."
- Broken record here, but am I really the only person in America that remembers that the Democrats took control of Washington 6 years ago this November, not 4.
"But Obama did several things at once: he continued the bank bailout begun by George W. Bush, he initiated a bailout of the auto industry, and he worked to pass a huge stimulus package of $787 billion."
- It was NOT a stimulus. There is no evidence of that. He admitted they were not shovel ready jobs. They were chosen instead for targeting key constituencies. He passed up true shovel ready jobs like the Keystone pipeline.
"The job collapse bottomed out at the beginning of 2010, as the stimulus took effect. Since then, the U.S. has added 2.4 million jobs. That’s not enough, but it’s far better than what Romney would have you believe, and more than the net jobs created under the entire Bush administration. In 2011 alone, 1.9 million private-sector jobs were created, while a net 280,000 government jobs were lost. "
- Intentional deception or a lie, you make the call. He compares only the slow growth stretch ofObama, ignores the first year because those are runners left on base by Bush (actually Pelosi-Reid-Obama-Hillary-Biden and Bush, a ruling coalition). Then he compares that with the "net jobs" of Bush, defined to combine the 52 months of solid growth under Bush policies with the recession left to him and with the asset collapse that came with Pelosi-Reid-Obama power handoff of Nov 2006/Jan2007. Take a look at this unemployment chart and see if "net jobs" under Bush is a good way to summarize what happened in those 8 years:
(https://fortress.wa.gov/esd/lmea/countydashboard/ChartImages/ctl00_ContentPlaceHolder1_UnEmploymentRate1_UltraChart1_57.PNG?KxRx=0x0633)
2003 is where the Bush plan kicked in. The lowest point in unemployment is where power switched back. The full asset collapse occurs in Sept 2008 when the reality hits the markets that the tax cuts will be allowed to expire. A change of that Democratic promise in early 2008, when China was lowering their business tax rates, would have removed the urgency of the asset collapse that occurred later that year that prevented Obama from becoming a great President. But NO!
"Overall government employment has declined 2.6 percent over the past 3 years. (That compares with a drop of 2.2 percent during the early years of the Reagan administration.) "
- The growth rate at this point in the Reagan administration was 7.75% sustained and he won 49 states. Does he really see some similarity there or think we are stupid with a one measure comparison. Yes, Reagan never slashed domestic spending; he had a Dem House for all 8 years. But we had a surging economy and surging government revenues very unlike now.
"the stimulus did exactly what it was supposed to do. It put a bottom under the free fall. It is not an exaggeration to say it prevented a spiral downward that could have led to the Second Great Depression."
- Not spin, just actual results, but in a 4 internet page article there was no room to back that up with anything? Maybe in a follow up piece (Newsweek February?) he will document how very Obama-like policies led to the original Great Depression (actual results) and how Reagan-like policies led to a quarter century of growth.
"You’d think, listening to the Republican debates, that Obama has raised taxes. Again, this is not true."
- I will make this point until someone hears it. The do not tax you to put money into an investment. They tax you later to take the return on that investment out. The tax rate that counts in job creating economy growth policies is the FUTURE MARGINAL TAX RATE. This President has managed to keep a tax rate increase impending perpetually. He has it coming back every 2 years so he gets none of the revenue enhancement of actual income taxed at the higher rate and all of the job killing economic carnage that increasing disincentives cause. I ask: what could be more incompetent and Sullivan says brilliant - what a long term thinker!
"Not only did he agree not to sunset the Bush tax cuts for his entire first term,"
- He extended the Bush tax cuts AFTER the damage was done and scheduled another growth killing tax hike in just 2 more years. Christina Romer wrote a paper on the job killing effect of these policies. Read it.
"he has aggressively lowered taxes on most Americans. A third of the stimulus was tax cuts, affecting 95 percent of taxpayers; he has cut the payroll tax..."
- Not all tax cuts are created equal. Marginal rates were not cut and the lower 95% tend to be the ones who don't hire. More money out of nowhere in their pocket is Keynesian, not supply side. If it were paid for, it would mean less money in someone else's pocket. It is not paid for so it just means every other dollar is worth less, with interest accruing to eternity. Interest paid to China alone by the end of Obama's second term will surpass all of China's military budget. What could possibly go wrong with that?
"His spending record is also far better than his predecessor’s. Under Bush, new policies on taxes and spending cost the taxpayer a total of $5.07 trillion. Under Obama’s budgets both past and projected, he will have added $1.4 trillion in two terms."
- Obama kept ALL of the overspending of the last decade and added onto it. Sullivan of course blends in "temporary", "emergency" spending that was the consensus policy of Bush-Obama-McCain, all on board, makes it permanent then adds onto it to the tune of trillions not counting the admitted underestimates of Obamacare and host of other new programs coming.
"On foreign policy, the right-wing critiques have been the most unhinged. Romney accuses the president of apologizing for America, and others all but accuse him of treason and appeasement. Instead, Obama reversed Bush’s policy of ignoring Osama bin Laden..."
- Really? Obama's policies led to that find? Not that I read. Maybe it is in Newsweek March 2012 edition, lol.
"immediately setting a course that eventually led to his capture and death."
- I credit the President for making the right decision - after sitting on the question 16 hours while bin Laden could have been tipped off of the danger and fled the scene. The President was cool; he was calm. In this case he was able to golf and capture OBL all at the same time - hold my calls please. There is a remote chance however that the campaign could overplay this one accomplishment that seems to be their answer for almost everything!
---------------
In my anecdotal real world today, two African American nurses working inner city home health care expressed a genuine interest in Republican economics and my furnace guy was all excited about the Republican debate last night, pointing out the exact same Newt quote that Crafty linked for us earlier today - all without knowing my view. The polls say people are thinking more like 2010 than 2006 or 2008 for this year. Assuming Andrew Sullivan is a very smart guy and I don't know that, he wrote this piece to be provocative more than to present a serious state of the race IMHO.
-
Nice work :-D
BTW, with regard to the data of the early Reagan years, I would add that
a) Volcker at the Fed, taking advice from the Dems who said the tax rate cuts would be inflationary (i.e. if people spend the money they make it causes inflation, but if the government does, it doesn't) stopped on the money brakes
b) The Reagan rate cuts were phased in over three years. This causes many businesses to defer taking profits, invest, etc until the rates had bottomed. In the January of the first year where the cuts were fully phased in Milton Friedman, using monetary criteria predicted poor growth. Jude Wanniski and the rest of the supply side school predicted outstanding growth. When the data came in, that quarter was 10%! Game, set, match-- the Laffer Curve won.
-
The question for each voter will boil down to something like this in November:
Are you better off now than you than you were five trillion dollars ago?
-
Very good work, Doug.
-
"Are you better off now than you than you were five trillion dollars ago?"
If the future Republican nominee is amongst our readers, I hope he is taking notes!
-
This AM I was really dismayed at how Romney handled the msm gotcha thing with his taxes.
This would have been the perfect time for him to agree that we need tax total *reform* like a flat tax (which he doesn't seem to promote.)
He is playing right into the hands of the *left's* talking points. As noted he sounds "flat footed".
I only wish Newt had a better temperment. A real genius with a gift for gab (perhaps without some bluster) would have been a lot better than a technocratic bland detail man who memorizes lists of lines and answers.
I know I sound depressing but I just can't see the sun arising over the horizon that Reagan spoke about.
-
I fear that just like George "Passionate Conservatism" Bush, Mitt suffers from what I call "patrician's guilt" and that therefor he will have a strong tendency to crumble and crump under class warfare and race-baiting from the progressives-Dems.
-
"I fear that just like George "Passionate Conservatism" Bush, Mitt suffers from what I call "patrician's guilt" and that therefor he will have a strong tendency to crumble and crump under class warfare and race-baiting from the progressives-Dems."
Yes! He should speak with great pride of his families accomplishments as well as his own and spread hope, challenge and direction on how all of us can achieve great success just like the Romneys.
They achieved an American dream. This is what it is all about (unless your an MSLSD type). Show us the way Mitt!
He needs to spin it around. Do Americans want to be like him or have government welfare pay for their bills?
Who in their right mind wouldn't rather have the chance to be like him? He is great role model.
Obama's plan is we all be resigned to be a bunch of losers who envy and need a nanny state to feed and protect us.
What a contrasting picture! If this doesn't resonate with a majority - God help us.
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/205025-dems-receive-more-bain-dollars-than-gop
-
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_81/with_help_from_foes_obama_off_the_mat_truman_strategy-211582-1.html?ET=rollcall:e11914:80133681a:&st=email&pos=epa
With Help From Foes, Obama Is off the Mat
* By Morton M. Kondracke
* Roll Call Executive Editor
* Jan. 19, 2012, Midnight
*
* imagePrint
* imageEmail
* imageReprints
*
o
o
o
Text size
Related Content
* Give 'Em Hell, Barry?
* Can Truman Strategy Work for Obama in 2012?
President Barack Obama is far from winning re-election, but his “Truman strategy” — plus some mild improvement in economic conditions — seems to have improved his prospects. And Republicans are helping.
The strategy, of course, is to portray himself, much as President Harry Truman did in 1948, as the defender of the middle class and Republicans as obstructionists bent on defending the privileged rich.
Polls suggest he is hitting two political bull’s-eyes — disdain for Congressional Republicans and a belief that rich people ought to pay more taxes.
GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney’s estimate that he pays only a 15 percent rate on his millions of dollars in income — plus his rivals’ denunciations of him as a “vulture capitalist” — can only help Obama.
And so will replays of the GOP TV debate in which not one presidential candidate was willing to accept a deficit reduction formula of $10 in spending cuts for $1 in revenue increases.
Truman famously came from behind to win in 1948 running against a “do-nothing Republican Congress” and as the Washington Post poll showed Monday — tracking all others on the subject — Congress’ standing with the public is at an all-time low.
Obama does not always distinguish between the Democratic Senate and the Republican House in condemning Congressional inaction.
However, every poll, including the Post’s, shows that disapproval of Congressional Republicans is greater than of Democrats — 75 percent to 62 percent, according to the Post.
Similarly, a Pew poll last month showed that voters blamed Republicans more than Democrats for failures to achieve results by a 17-point margin.
By 53 percent to 33 percent, Pew found, voters think the GOP is “more extreme in its positions,” while by 51 percent to 25 percent, they believe Democrats are more willing to work with the other side.
Obama’s own polls began to show some upturn in mid-December, about two weeks after Obama traveled to Osawatomie, Kan., to identify with President Theodore Roosevelt’s progressivism and to assail Republicans for refusing “to ask the wealthiest Americans to pay the same tax rate as they did when Bill Clinton was president.”
The Washington Post/ABC poll showed that by 44 percent to 40 percent, voters believed he was better at handling the economy than Republicans in Congress; by 44 percent to 41 percent, at creating jobs; by 50 percent to 35 percent, at protecting the middle class; and even by 46 percent to 41 percent, in handling taxes. He’d been running behind in most of those categories until then.
Polls have pretty consistently shown that large majorities believe “the rich should pay more taxes” — by 68 percent to 28 percent in an October Time magazine survey.
Obama has experienced an upturn in his overall approval ratings since the lows of last fall. He was down to 38 percent in the Gallup daily tracking poll in October. He’s now up to 46 percent.
Generally speaking, presidents with approval ratings below 50 percent are in danger. President George H.W. Bush had 46 percent at this stage of his presidency and went down to defeat.
On the other hand, President Clinton also was at 46 percent in January 1996 and won re-election.
At the moment, Obama is running about even with Romney in national polls — but significantly behind his own 2008 performance among key demographic groups.
The RealClearPolitics average of polls shows Obama with a statistically insignificant lead of 46.5 percent to 45.3 percent over Romney.
The latest Washington Post/ABC poll gives Romney a 2-point lead, reversing a 3-point Obama lead in December. CNN shows Obama with a 2-point lead.
A much-discussed paper by Ruy Teixeira and John Halpin of the liberal Center for American Progress indicated that demographic changes in key battleground states — chiefly growth in young voters and Latinos — would tilt the 2012 playing field toward Obama.
There’s no question that Obama should profit among Latinos from Romney’s hard-line immigration views — topped by his close alignment with Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who wrote model legislation that served as the basis for measures passed into law in Arizona and Alabama that cracked down on illegal immigrants.
Still, the latest Gallup poll shows Obama’s approval rating among Latinos is only 56 percent, down from 67 percent in 2008 exit polls.
Obama won 55 percent of support among women in 2008, but he’s currently at 48 percent. Among whites, he’s down from 43 percent to 36 percent. Among voters aged 18-29, he’s down from 66 percent to 53 percent.
Obama got just 45 percent support among seniors in 2008; he’s now down to 40 percent approval. And, crucially, among independent voters, he’s dropped from 52 percent to 42 percent.
Independent voters clearly are dismayed that Obama has failed to fulfill his major campaign promise: to unite “red” and “blue” America to get the country’s problems solved.
According to the Washington Post poll, 52 percent of voters say Obama has accomplished either “not much” (25 percent) or “little or nothing” (27 percent), while 47 percent say he’s accomplished “a great deal” (12 percent) or “a good amount” (35 percent).
Of those who think he’s accomplished little or nothing — presumably, mainly independents and Republicans — Obama gets the blame by a whopping 56 percent to 18 percent.
Obama is trying to convince the electorate that he saved America from plunging into a second Great Depression and is succeeding in triggering a recovery, albeit a slow one.
Improving unemployment numbers will help. Any renewed downturn — even if it’s the result of trouble in Europe — will hurt.
Obama will have the advantage of being able to husband his vast campaign resources if Romney’s opponents, especially former Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) and former Sen. Rick Santorum (Pa.), do not soon drop out of the race.
Romney seeks every opportunity to direct fire at Obama for trying to turn America into a “European welfare state,” but his opponents are equipping Obama with ammunition as they dwell on dealings by his former firm, Bain Capital.
The Democratic Party has also been assiduously adopting Romney’s GOP rivals’ argument that he’s a serial flip-flopper, and last week, former investment banker William D. Cohan unleashed a devastating critique that combined attack lines on Romney.
Cohan, author of two books on the misdeeds of Wall Street, charged that, under Romney, Bain made huge profits by offering high initial bids to buy firms at auction and eliminating competitors and then found ways to drastically reduce the offer during final negotiations.
“This win-at-any-cost approach makes me wonder how a President Romney would negotiate with Congress, or with China, or with anyone else — and what a promise, pledge or endorsement from him would actually mean,” Cohan wrote.
Even though Obama has run up the national debt and expanded government significantly, he is wrapping himself in distinctly American — not European — trappings, echoing Truman and Teddy Roosevelt.
And he’s got the money and the podium to paint Romney as a practitioner of the Wall Street practices that he says led to the Great Recession.
It’s going to be a brawl. I wouldn’t predict an outcome, but Obama has gotten off the mat.
-
Word is that Rick Perry is dropping his presidential bid.
-
Perry who? :lol:
"Generally speaking, presidents with approval ratings below 50 percent are in danger. President George H.W. Bush had 46 percent at this stage of his presidency and went down to defeat. On the other hand, President Clinton also was at 46 percent in January 1996 and won re-election."
Worth noting is that he won with well less than 50% of the vote due to Ross Perot. Will Ron Paul do the same thing to the same effect?
-
"I fear that just like George "Passionate Conservatism" Bush, Mitt suffers from what I call "patrician's guilt"
True, but I see him more like Geo H.W. Bush. He may not suffer from the guilt but has to fight off the perception.
I see him like the risk in a Supreme Court appointee. I think there is a 50% chance he will be a great President Newt I think carries higher risk that he won't stay consistent, bring the congress and the people with him.
The key will be to have him work the first 4 year with a GOOD Republican House and Senate.
If the new President doesn't bring and keep the people with him he will have no chance at bullying 60 votes in the senate for anything.
Tomorrow is the key to the race. Newt must win but if he does he may have a 2 man race and the advantage. If Romney wins, perhaps it is over.
-
Doug writes,
"I see him more like Geo H.W. Bush"
Great analogy! HW had more experience in the public sector being head of CIA, VP, etc but the analogy is right on.
Unfortunately, as Doug pointed out in the past HW was a "great diplomat, but so so President".
So far Romney is exactly the same. Takes no risks, always the safe bet. Tries to please the most people he can. He is essentailly a moderate. And.... just doesn't really connect like a Reagan, JFK, or even a Clinton.
"I think there is a 50% chance he will be a great President"
A great President? Nothing to suggest that will happen and naturally that is why he wins tepid support from the right. I remember looking at my mother during a Reagan debate and saying to her, "I think this guy could be a GREAT President". She said I think so too. So far does anyone think that with Romney?
Of course he could turn out to be one if he wins. I wonder if anyone thought that of Lincoln when he took office.
-
I would proffer the probability that Romeny's weenie response on his tax returns this past week typifies how he will respond to class warfare from Barak and the Demogogues.
Oh, and btw, NEWT WINS :-D :-D :-D
-
"I have seen him (Newt) readily agree on his failings in the past."
I would argue that point a bit - true for the marital crap but not for the leadership points brought up by other members of his House leadership team - but today is Newt's day. Congrats. The momentum is Newt's The race is now Newt's to lose. Literally.
"I see him more like Geo H.W. Bush.
Only meant as an analogy coming into it, not a compliment. Both HW Bush and Romney start with the potential to be a great or at least solid President.
"I would proffer the probability that Romney's weenie response on his tax returns this past week typifies how he will respond to class warfare from Barak and the Demogogues."
Agree on the first part, it was lame although how his blind trust is taxed should be more a reflection on those in power than on him. On the second part, how he will respond, I don't know.
If any of these guys had a core principle or a backbone, answering the questions would be a lot simpler.
-
Newt slapping down John King was pretty cool, I must say.
-
HOW TO WIN FLORIDA
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on January 22, 2012
Everybody is focused on momentum, money, and manpower as the keys to victory in
Florida. But the three Ms won't matter much. It is a fourth M that will determine
the winner: message.
Don't count on Mitt Romney's money or organization to win the Florida primary after
his devastating loss in South Carolina. And don't bet on Newt's momentum coming off
a win to mean a whole lot. With two debates next week, it will be these rhetorical
matchups that will determine the winner, not money or manpower. The GOP debates are
the functional equivalent of campaign finance reform!
Florida is a very different state from South Carolina. It has an altogether
different mix of the three elements that comprise the GOP electorate. It is strong
on national security and evangelical conservatives, but there are fewer economic
conservatives in the mix. The Florida Panhandle is a lot like South Carolina, but
its west coast is pure Midwestern and its east coast is composed largely of New York
and New Jersey refugees and Latinos - quite unlike South Carolina.
Newt Gingrich's social populism played well with evangelicals (and Romney's religion
hurt him). His long-standing embrace of a strong military attracted lots of military
active and retired voters to give him a winning coalition.
But, in South Carolina, it is the free market economic conservatives who will
predominate.
To win, Romney must link Newt's attacks on Bain Capital and his tax rate to Obama's
class warfare. He needs to play jujitsu to Newt's new found economic populism,
making himself the poster boy for capitalism.
But, first, Romney needs to release his tax returns. There is likely nothing in
them so deadly as the question mark that hangs over the GOP contest. Where formerly
Romney was seen as the most likely to defeat Obama, now worries about what might be
in his taxes overshadow his claim to electability.
If Newt hits Romney over taxes, he will be playing into his rival's hands and
setting up the class warfare argument for Mitt. For his part, Romney must explain
the inequity of double taxation to voters and should ask a simple question: Does
anyone in America voluntarily pay more than they legally owe in taxes? So why
should I have done so? Then he needs to cite his millions in charitable donations
to explain what he does instead with his fortune.
For Newt's part, he will make a big mistake if he continues to pound on Romney over
taxes and Bain Capital. If he attributes his victory in South Carolina to these
attacks, he will be wrong. He won because of his positive message. He triumphed
because he won the debate on Monday in grand style - slamming Paul for comparing
Osama bin Laden to a Chinese dissident seeking asylum and calling Obama the
"foodstamp president." His incredible insights, his unique way of looking at
issues, and his intellect and sagacity brought him to victory in South Carolina, not
his attacks on either the media or Romney.
Santorum is still in this race. In a four way contest, if A and B attack one
another, it is C and D who benefit. After a week of watching Mitt and Newt fight it
out, Rick will look pretty good to many voters. His relatively strong finish in
South Carolina - 17% isn't bad - after languishing in single digits in most polls
was due to his victory in Thursday's debate. So he is still on the map and the
likely beneficiary of the battle between Romney and Gingrich.
Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum each have a shot in Florida. But the Sunshine State
won't determine the outcome. This battle still has a long way to go!
-
Newt Gingrich's sweeping victory in South Carolina throws the GOP Presidential contest into a useful uproar and poses a challenge for Mitt Romney, what's left of the Republican establishment, and not least for Mr. Gingrich himself. We'll see who rises to the occasion.
There's no denying the breadth of the former House speaker's triumph in the Palmetto State. He won among rank-and-file Republicans, tea partiers, men and women, all manner of conservatives, most income groups, and every age group save those under 30 (who went narrowly for Ron Paul over Mr. Gingrich).
Most strikingly, he routed Mr. Romney on what had been the former Massachusetts governor's greatest strength—electability. Some 45% of voters in the exit poll said defeating President Obama was the candidate trait that mattered most, and they went for Mr. Gingrich over Mr. Romney, 51% to 37%.
***
This reflects Mr. Gingrich's debate skills but perhaps more his willingness to promote conservative values. Since Reagan, Republicans have had a President or nominee who was typically either tongue-tied or timid in defending their policies and principles. With Mr. Obama preparing a re-election assault on those principles, GOP voters understandably want a tenacious advocate. Voters sense that, whatever his other failings, Mr. Gingrich can match Mr. Obama on the issues and won't go down without a fight.
Enlarge Image
Reuters.
This is in contrast to Mr. Romney, who is cautious at his most tenacious but in the last week has seemed befuddled by questions he surely knew were coming. The demand to release his tax returns was inevitable, especially with Mr. Obama preparing to attack him as "Mr. 1%." Mr. Romney said Sunday he will release his 2010 tax return on Tuesday, but blowing that layup suggests either personal stubbornness or the lack of an adviser who can tell him when he's wrong.
The more serious flaw exposed by the tax debate is Mr. Romney's inability, or unwillingness, to make a larger and persuasive case for free-market economic growth and lower tax rates. Before last week, he seemed to believe he could dodge a class-war battle by not proposing a cut in tax rates. This was always implausible given Mr. Obama's campaign, but it is impossible now that he has disclosed that his own effective tax rate is 15%.
He faces a fundamental political choice: Duck and cover against the barrage of attacks on his 15% rate, the lower rate on "carried-interest" and any overseas income he might have, or go on offense by standing for something larger than his own career, such as a major tax reform to spur growth.
Mr. Romney and his advisers are making the mistake that John Kerry made against George W. Bush in 2004—believing that voters are so unhappy with the incumbent that all Mr. Romney has to do is present himself as a safe alternative. Mr. Romney seems to think it's enough to run on his biography as a businessman.
It won't be enough—unless the economy goes into another recession, which no one should want in any case. The Republican nominee will have to make a sustained and specific case that Mr. Obama's policies made the recovery weaker than it should have been (stimulus, health care), squandered resources on political boondoggles (Solyndra), and how and why GOP policies will do better. Mr. Romney's 59 economic proposals are fine but forgettable little ideas. He needs a big idea.
In the wake of his victory, Mr. Gingrich has his own challenge because he has always been at his worst when he is on top. The Georgian's main vulnerability isn't his failed marriages, as South Carolina proved. It is his penchant for over-the-top statements and sudden shifts of strategy or policy based on personal whim. In South Carolina, for example, he began to rise when he muted his misguided attacks on Bain Capital and focused on other issues.
Rick Santorum is candidly saying he plans to stay in the race, despite a distant third-place finish, mainly because he thinks Mr. Gingrich will blow himself up again. Mr. Romney and his surrogates will also try to portray the former speaker as unreliable and erratic, a Hindenburg sure to explode if he gets the nomination. If Mr. Gingrich handles the attacks with good humor and rational explanation, he'll reassure voters. If he erupts in anger or unleashes his inner de Gaulle, he'll play into the hands of his competitors.
Mr. Gingrich will also eventually need a more inclusive message than he is now offering. He made a stab at it in his South Carolina victory remarks by mentioning the strengths of his competitors. His bow to Mr. Paul's "sound money" platform was especially shrewd, but then he kept talking and talking in his familiar undisciplined fashion.
Mr. Gingrich's biggest problem is that more voters say they dislike than like him. In a recent Fox News poll, 56% said they had an unfavorable view of him, versus 27% favorable. That's a net unfavorable rating of minus-29%, compared with a plus-5% for Mr. Obama and plus-7% for Mr. Romney.
Mr. Gingrich is never going to be well loved, and voters may overlook that if they want a hard man for hard times. But he can't only practice the politics of contrast and win an election. Media-bashing may work when the questions seem unfair, but not when they are legitimate queries concerning his record at Freddie Mac or in Congress. He needs to practice the politics of addition with independents and nonconservatives.
***
As for the GOP establishment, such as it still is, Mr. Gingrich's re-emergence is likely to cause a panic attack. They don't believe he is electable. Our advice would be to relax and let the voters decide. If Mr. Romney can't marshal the wit and nerve to defeat the speaker, then he isn't likely to defeat Mr. Obama.
If GOP office-holders had a better candidate, they should have rallied behind one to get into the race, and they still could if the primary contest drags on without a clear winner. In any case the record of elected GOP politicians in picking nominees is hardly inspiring. Rank-and-file voters are likely to have a clearer sense of what the country needs. On to Florida.
-
The conventional wisdom is Newt can beat Obama in any debates. Suppose he is the nominee and Obama simply ducks the debates?
After all said and done at this time I prefer Romney as the "safer" candidate. Newt seems just too risky. On this count I agree with Coulter about Newt. I don't agree with her assertion he would absolutely lose against Obama. Yet the "insiders" must be doing studies of this and what they find is telling them independents don't/won't like Newt.
I guess the question is how will Newt do with the independents? My understanding is Romney is more popular with them.
The conservatives seem convinced that all they need is a great voice in the darkness to convince the independents that their contrasting vision for America is the best choice and all the independents will have some sort of awakening and vote for a Republican. I am not so sure.
Surely if Wesbury is right and the stock market is up 20% this year (despite the debt +/- unemployment) independents might very well go for Brock. He is very intent on buying their votes ("it is all about the middle class").
-
""I see him more like Geo H.W. Bush.
Only meant as an analogy coming into it, not a compliment."
I know. I just took it the next step by projecting that if Romney who does seem a lot like Bush Sr. would also be roughly the same success/failure as HW.
But who ever knows?
Some are born leaders and have gifts for the politics. Some are more made. Romney is a studied (albiet very smart, likable, hard working guy) manager type.
Newt is blessed with the mind but not quite the right personality or temperment.
I happen to agree with Geraldo Rivera this moring who points out with shock how the Republicans seem willing to bet the farm on Newt - so far - since he now has a several point lead in Florida.
I still prefer the safer bet - but not etched in stone. Yeah I want to see Newt debate Obama into the hole but I also don't want to see a crash and burn.
-
Dick Morris had it right. It is not momentum of Newt or organization of Mitt now, it is the message from here on out, and it better get more focused.
Newt is a known commodity and has real high negatives, a bad combination that could cost R's the lead in the House and Senate takeover as well if things went badly. Best case is if the contest now between these two raises the eventual candidate to a level they wouldn't have attained otherwise.
Romney has not yet raised his game to deserve to win. South Carolina should clarify his thinking and help him to streamline his staff.
Mark Steyn wrote one of the strongest rips against Newt earlier. Here he take Romney over his knee and spanks him pretty badly:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/288873/man-who-gave-us-newt-mark-steyn
The Man Who Gave Us Newt
By Mark Steyn
January 22, 2012 6:40 P.M.
The nature of this peculiar primary season — the reason it seems at odds with both the 2009–2010 political narrative and the seriousness of the times — was determined by Mitt Romney. Even if you don’t mind Romneycare, or the abortion flip-flop, or any of the rest, there’s a more basic problem: He’s not a natural campaigner, and on the stump he instinctively recoils from any personal connection with the voters. So, in compensation, he’s bought himself a bunch of A-list advisers and a lavish campaign. He is, as he likes to say, the only candidate with experience in the private sector. So he knows better than to throw his money away, right? But that’s just what he’s doing, in big ways and small.
Small: It’s a good idea to get that telegenic gal (daughter-in-law?) to stand behind him during the concession speech, but one of those expensive consultants ought to tell her not to look so bored and glassy-eyed as the stiff guy grinds through the same-old-same-old for the umpteenth time. To those watching on TV last night, she looked like we felt.
Big: Why is the stump speech so awful? “I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that’s the America millions of Americans believe in. That’s the America I love.” Mitt paid some guy to write this insipid pap. And he paid others to approve it. Not only is it bland and generic, it’s lethal to him in a way that it wouldn’t be to Gingrich or Perry or Bachmann or Paul because it plays to his caricature — as a synthetic, stage-managed hollow man of no fixed beliefs. And, when Ron Paul’s going on about “fiat money” and Newt’s brimming with specifics on everything (he was great on the pipeline last night), Mitt’s generalities are awfully condescending: The finely calibrated inoffensiveness is kind of offensive.
And what’s with the wind up? The “shining city on the hill”? That’s another guy’s line — a guy with whom you have had hitherto little connection other than your public repudiation of him back in the Nineties. Can’t any of his highly paid honchos write him a campaign slogan that’s his own and doesn’t sound in his mouth so cheesily anodyne, as if some guy ran a focus-group and this phrase came up with the lowest negatives?
And where, among all the dough he’s handing out, is the rapid-response team? Newt’s “spontaneous” indignation at John King was carefully crafted by Gingrich himself. By contrast, Mitt has a ton of consultants, and not one of them thought he needed a credible answer on Bain or taxes? For a guy running as a chief exec applying proven private-sector solutions, his campaign looks awfully like an unreformable government bureaucracy: big, bloated, overstaffed, burning money, slow to react, and all but impossible to change.
Mitt’s strategy for 2012 as for 2008 was to sit on his lead and run out the clock: Four years ago, that strategy died in New Hampshire; this time round it died one state later. Congratulations! Years ago, I was chit-chatting with Arthur Laurents, the writer of West Side Story and The Way We Were and much else, about some show that was in trouble on the road that he’d been called in to “fix.” “The trouble with a bad show,” he sighed, “is that you can make it better but you can never make it good.” The Romney candidacy is better than it was four years ago, but it’s not clear that it’s good. Mitt needs to get good real fast: A real speech, real plan, real responses, and real fire in the belly. Does he have it in him?
-
Steyn is ABSOLUTLEY right about Mitt's bland unimaginative lines.
Newt said this after his SC win and I thought what a GREAT line and why can't the other guy come out with this kind of stuff:
Newt warned: “imagine how radical he would be in a second term.” I thought YES! Could we imagine Obama unleashed without having to pretend he is a moderate to get re elected?
Steyn says: "And where, among all the dough he’s handing out, is the rapid-response team?"
Another resounding YES! Remember Clinton's rapid response goons (obnoxiousness aside) hitting the MSM airwaves ALL day and night in response to every single remotely negative insinuation or accusation against the greatest spinner of the last century?
Doug writes:
"Dick Morris had it right. It is not momentum of Newt or organization of Mitt now, it is the message from here on out, and it better get more focused."
The question is the message going to win over the independents? Otherwise we have the 40 40 split right vs left who have already drawn their sides and dug in.
-
We had a little fun with cause and effect recently over on the Path Science thread, but it seems that all has gone wrong for Mitt Romney since securing the Jon Huntsman endorsement.
McCain on stage with Romney was also symbolic of all that went wrong in recent years for the party. Romney had better put some new people with him on stage and behind the scenes along with a better focus in his message SOON if he wants to lead the next 4-8 years.
-
Well he does seem to have most of the Wash crowd behind him.
I've heard Mitt has his family do a lot of the inside advising.
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html
-
I'm surprised Santorum scores as well as Newt.
-
Kind of reminds me of this fight:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96KfeAFakak
-
MRS. GINGRICH'S REVENGE
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on January 26, 2012
Printer-Friendly Version
All the male commentators and pundits got it wrong! Marianne Gingrich's sorrowful remembrances of her marriage to Newt have, indeed, arisen to bite the former Speaker's candidacy.
Both the Rasmussen and the Monmouth University Polls show Romney pulling ahead of Gingrich in Florida. After the former Speaker opened the primary with a nine point lead, he now trails Romney in both surveys by almost ten points. Monmouth has Romney ahead by 39-32 and Rasmussen has him up by eight at 39-31.
There are, of course, many reasons for this turnaround: Romney's attacks on Newt over Freddie Mac are scoring, especially because Gingrich was unable to give a good explanation of what he did for the money in the Monday debate. Newt's attacks on Romney focus on his flip flopping and Romney care, negatives that have already received quite an airing over TV in the debates and are old news. Either voters buy Romney's explanations or they don't, but a negative ad is not likely to do much one way or the other.
But the gender breakouts in the Monmouth Poll tell the story: Newt is ahead among men by 5 points but trails among women by 19!!! This 24 point gender gap can only be attributable to the Marianne Gingrich interview aired on Thursday night of last week. It had no immediate impact on the South Carolina vote two days later, nor was it in evidence in the post-South Carolina polls in Florida. But, after a round of breakfast table conversations and talks over lunch, women have reached a verdict: They are not voting for Gingrich.
Monmouth has Newt winning men by 38-33 and losing women by 45-26. This stunning turnaround mirrors poll findings at the start of the presidential race when Gingrich was winning twice as many men as women. But the former Speaker had closed the gender gap in subsequent polls only to have it open up wide now with his presidential ambitions squarely on the line.
There is, of course, a debate tonight and Newt often wins such contests. Much could change, but it looks bad for Gingrich among women in the Florida balloting.
-
Comments on last night's debate?
I thought Santorum did very well.
------------------------------------
WSJ
Newt Gingrich is outpacing Mitt Romney among Republican voters nationwide, but he also is showing evidence of the vulnerabilities that could hurt the former House speaker in a general election, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.
With the two rivals fighting it out in Florida after Mr. Gingrich's big South Carolina victory last week, the poll found Republicans nationwide favoring Mr. Gingrich 37% to 28% over Mr. Romney. GOP voters gave the former House speaker high marks for knowledge and experience, while they continued to harbor doubts about Mr. Romney's positions on the issues and his feel for average Americans.
WSJ/NBC News Poll
Poll archive: Results of previous WSJ/NBC News polls
.But the survey also finds that many Americans overall, notably political independents, hold negative feelings about Mr. Gingrich, and that Mr. Romney fares considerably better in a hypothetical matchup against Democratic President Barack Obama.
In the final debate before Tuesday's GOP Primary in Florida, Mitt Romney showed a tougher side, taking on Newt Gingrich on immigration, government spending and entitlements. WSJ's Patrick O'Connor gives his impressions.
.The poll captures on a larger stage much of the drama playing out now in Florida, where Mr. Romney is scrambling to stop Mr. Gingrich's resurgence by jabbing at his weaknesses. The two engaged in verbal jousting at a Thursday evening debate in Jacksonville, where they criticized each other over the familiar topics of taxes and illegal immigration, as well as such new topics as investment portfolios and space exploration.
The struggle between the two has made the Florida race volatile; after trailing at the start of the week, Mr. Romney has moved to even or just ahead in more recent polls before next Tuesday's primary there.
Full Results
View Document
.Pulse of the Poll
See results from The Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.
View Interactive
..The Journal/NBC poll also puts a spotlight on the bigger issue of electability, registering a distinct uptick in positive sentiment both toward the economy and Mr. Obama. Greater confidence in the economy would strengthen the president's position leading up to the election.
Mr. Obama's approval rating nudged up to 48%, while 46% disapprove of the job he is doing, the first time the reading has moved into positive territory for the president since June. Mr. Obama was losing to a generic Republican candidate last month, but the new survey finds him beating an unnamed Republican 47% to 42%, his best margin in seven months.
Specifically, Mr. Obama tops both of the leading GOP candidates, but he is far stronger against Mr. Gingrich. When Americans were asked how they would vote today, the president surpasses Mr. Romney 49% to 43%. Against Mr. Gingrich, his margin swells to 55% to 37%.
"Republicans better bring their 'A' game to the election, because they cannot depend on a negative, crushing environment to win," said Republican pollster Bill McInturff, who conducted the poll along with Democratic pollster Peter Hart.
Poll Tracker
WSJ's guide to the latest political polls
.On the Issues
Read where each Republican hopeful stands on major issues in the campaign.
View Interactive
.More photos and interactive graphics
.Mr. McInturff's message to GOP contenders: "You are not going to get elected simply by being the option to the president."
Mr. Hart had a similar assessment. "This is a great start for Obama with a lot of work to be done for the Republicans," he said. "The Republican primary is hurting them, and the improving economy is helping Obama."
The poll of 1,000 adults was conducted between Sunday and Tuesday, after Mr. Gingrich's surprisingly strong victory in South Carolina's primary. Mr. Gingrich led Mr. Romney by a wider margin in last month's Journal poll, 40% to 23%, though his fortunes have moved up and down in the intervening weeks.
Among the other two GOP contestants still in the race, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum garnered 18% support among GOP primary voters in the latest poll, while Texas Rep. Ron Paul got 12%. When winnowed down to just the two front-runners, 52% of Republicans picked Mr. Gingrich, compared with 39% for Mr. Romney.
The survey illuminates both where Mr. Gingrich has solidified his support and his broader weaknesses.
Mr. Gingrich owes his edge over Mr. Romney in large part to strong support in the South, where he leads the former Massachusetts governor by 24 percentage points. The former speaker notched outsize support among tea-party supporters and Republicans who see themselves as "very conservative."
.Meanwhile, though many analysts still see Mr. Romney as the likely nominee, the poll found him failing to convince key blocks of his own party. Among Republican primary voters, he was favored by 29% of women, 21% of tea-party backers and 17% of strongly conservative Republicans. His largest segments of support come from those calling themselves moderates and liberals. "Gingrich is just killing Romney in the core of the party," said Mr. Hart, who noted Mr. Romney continues to play "to a slim portion of the electorate."
At the same time, just over half of all Americans—and 57% of independents—gave Mr. Gingrich poor marks on the question of which candidate has "high personal standards." Mr. Romney came out markedly stronger on that front. Some 48% of all Americans say they have negative feelings toward Mr. Gingrich, compared with 36% for Mr. Romney and 39% for Mr. Obama.
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich pushing debate moderator Wolf Blitzer to stay on track, Blitzer challenges Gingrich to address prior statements during the Republican debate in Florida. Courtesy of CNN.
.Mr. Gingrich's personal life flared as an issue last week when his second wife, Marianne, said in an interview that he asked for an open marriage before their divorce in 2000. More than one-third of adults said they viewed Mr. Gingrich more negatively after hearing stories about his marital problems.
Like many Republicans, Roy Hooper is a voter torn between the pluses and minuses of the two GOP front-runners.
The California high-school teacher, who was among those polled, said he wasn't thrilled with either man. He likes Mr. Gingrich, except "I extremely dislike his immigration policy," which supports leniency for illegal immigrants who have been in the U.S. for decades. He said he might "look more closely at Romney, but then with his health-care stuff looking like Obama, that's almost a deal-breaker for me."
Enlarge Image
Close.On broader questions of the national mood, 30% of those polled think the nation is heading in the right direction, up from 22% in December. Exactly half of Americans disapprove of Mr. Obama's handling of the economy, down from his all-time high of 59% in August.
More
Gingrich Blends Potential With Peril
Santorum's Main Backer Plans to Keep on Funding
.At the same time, Mr. Obama earns the approval of just 38% of whites for the job he is doing, compared with the 43% who voted for him in 2008. "So long as he remains below 40%, he remains in substantial peril," said Mr. McInturff.
Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich sparring over housing and Gingrich's record of consulting at mortgage giant Freddie Mac at The Republican presidential debate in Florida. Courtesy of CNN.
.The poll found both unease about the current crop of candidates and optimism that the eventual nominee will be able to win in November. More than three-quarters of Republicans said they saw the GOP field as average or weak, 80% were optimistic the eventual nominee could beat Mr. Obama.
But the poll shows signs of Mr. Obama's original election coalition—African-Americans, Hispanics, young voters and college-educated whites—beginning to reassemble.
"We don't yet see his coalition coalescing," Mr. McInturff said. "But it is like a magnet, with the little threads moving toward the magnet."
-
Newt Gingrich's South Carolina bump is fading, and polls show Mitt Romney again leading in Florida. A Romney victory in the Sunshine State could sew this up.
It won't be because Mr. Romney has become a better or more effective candidate. Primaries exist to help with that process, to let contenders read signals from the political landscape, to adapt, become stronger. Successful politicians absorb the signals and change up. Not Mr. Romney. If politics were evolution, the governor would still be swimming in the primordial soup.
That much was clear this week. The first signal was Mr. Gingrich's resounding victory in South Carolina. If Mr. Romney were listening, he'd have understood that vote was as much against him as it was for Mr. Gingrich. It took but one punchy Gingrich debate performance to have voters abandoning the front-runner in droves.
South Carolina voters also clearly explained why. Exit polls showed that Mr. Romney's two (and only) messages—that he is the best suited to turn around the economy and to defeat Barack Obama—aren't working for the majority of voters. Mr. Gingrich beat Mr. Romney on both issues. The electorate explained that they first and foremost want a candidate willing to passionately promote conservative ideals.
Mr. Gingrich then followed his victory with a week in which he all but goaded his opponent into voicing some bigger principles. He kept up the "Massachusetts moderate" label. He again went populist and accused Mr. Romney of not working for all his money and profiting from big banks. He compared Mr. Romney to Charlie Crist. Among Florida conservatives, there is no greater diss.
Enlarge Image
CloseAFP/Getty Images
Candidate Romney
.A candidate with even half the usual complement of political antennae would have seen this as a game-changing opportunity to win with conservatives. It was Mr. Romney's moment to turn his occasional defense of Bain Capital into a broad rallying cry for capitalism. Florida posed the perfect backdrop to elevate his causes of free-market housing and energy. It was a chance to unveil a simpler and bolder economic reform plan.
Mr. Romney had some strong moments in Thursday's debate, but on the Florida stump he's mostly been plodding on. As in Iowa, as in New Hampshire, as in South Carolina, he's still criticizing Mr. Gingrich. He's still running on his biography. He's still sending the media press releases announcing the latest Miami Dade politician to pronounce him most electable against Barack Obama.
Which gets to the other story of this week: the president's State of the Mitt Address. Mr. Gingrich might have some Republicans spooked, but Democrats are still hoping for the Massachusetts governor. They, too, have noticed that Mr. Romney is ducking the class-warfare debate, and that not even the Gingrich threat has moved him to engage. They take that as an invitation to make it the central theme of the Obama re-elect. The president's Tuesday speech was a direct assault on Mr. Romney's wealth and tax breaks for "the rich."
That challenge, coming on the back of Mr. Romney's tax release, was all the more reason for him to change the narrative by seizing on a big idea like comprehensive tax reform. He could have underlined how the tax code that Mr. Obama wants to further contort only undermines growth and leaves average Americans paying a higher effective rate than does Mr. Romney. Instead, he complained that Mr. Gingrich's tax simplification plan would let off rich guys.
Mr. Romney has his unscripted, inspired moments. Late in South Carolina, a feisty Mr. Romney chastised a heckler—who was slamming him for being the 1%—for seeking to "divide the nation . . . as our President is doing," and then riffed on America's great economic model. Romney strategist Eric Fehrnstrom boasted it was "Mitt Romney at his best." He was right. And it lasted all of 30 seconds. A few days later Mr. Romney was back to borrowing the heckler's language, telling Floridians "the 1% is doing fine. I want to help the 99%."
The Romney camp lives in terror of deviating from the months-old script. It did, and will, defend RomneyCare. It did, and will, stick with a 59-point economic plan. It did, and will, promote only the "middle class." Did. Will. No flip-flops here, folks. Move along.
Yet it is precisely Mr. Romney's past flips that now require him to adjust, to convince conservative voters that the convictions he today claims are real and strong. Mr. Romney likes to repeat that he is a free-market conservative. What voter is going to blame him for proving it by putting out a roaring tax reform? That's not a flip-flop. That's progress.
Mr. Romney isn't beating Mr. Gingrich in Florida on the arguments. He's barely eking ahead of a man whose own history and temperament are his hurdles to victory. Mr. Obama won't have that problem. If a Nominee Romney thinks he can win the White House with the sort of uninspired performance he put in this week, he's got a long 2012 ahead of him.
-
Regarding the WSJ editorial of Mitt muffing it, I will take (WSJ editorial page editor) Paul Gigot over either one of these guys any day. Romney could read that column or this forum daily and save a lot of money on his overpriced Washington establishment advisers.
I did not see the debate again, but read lots of reactions. Sounds like Santorum was strong and Mitt did well except for getting nailed to the wall on Romneycare by Santorum. My read is that he bent his politics to fit the wishes of the most liberal state, is happy to take a more conservative line now but stuck with needing to reconcile the unreconcilable and just wishing the question would go away. There is a difference between the state government imposing healthcare and the feds doing it, but not much. WSJ and Crafty are right that he needs to drop the rich guilt and focus on selling economic freedom and policies that move us boldly in that direction.
Rick S. looking good probably hurts Newt whose best shot is a one on one Republican matchup against Romney.
I didn't catch what the first lady fluff question was. It seems to me that line of thought hurts Newt. Callista is sharp but both Marianne and Callista were 'home wreckers' before becoming Mrs. G. I can forgive them but I don't admire them.
I have a burnout on this race because I can't fix either one of them. More attention should start getting directed to influencing the agenda that will come out of the next congress. It was Pelosi's gang that wrote 'Obamacare'. Maybe it can be my conservative congressman and his allies who will write the tax and spending reform of 2013, if they win majoorities, the Presidency and can get their own thinking straight.
Santorum should play up his double digit loss in PA 2006 as a positive and a marker in time. He offered voters a clear choice. They went the other way. This is what happened. 6, 7 or 8 trillion dollars of new debt later and millions of jobs lost and they get another shot at a clear choice. This time they know more about where the other path (leftism) leads.
-
I thought Santorum was far stronger last night than the chattering class seems to be giving him credit for. His answer to the Latin America question was outstanding, both on content and in terms of the politics of the state of FL. The Cuban vote there will recognize a depth of familiarity with the issues that cannot be faked. His pithy rejoinder to Ron Paul's attempted criticism was withering.
He took the lead in steering the moderator and Newt-Mitt away from the catfight the two of them were having (with Romney spanking Newt at a couple of moments-- how utterly feeble of Newt to try the "you owned stock in FMs" only to be humilated by the "Yeah, you dumb fk, it was in a blind trust" retort.) Newt had the wit to jump on board, and slightly pick up lost ground when Mitt kept it going a bit longer, but really the leader in this was Santorum.
I thought Santorum really soared at several moments last night. I still think him out of the running (and a big loser against Baraq), but then, as is recorded here, I thought is candidacy an irrelevancy many months ago even though I liked him, and he has proven far more formidable than I would have given him credit for.
-
Someone pointed out that Santorum has little money.
On that count no one can compete with Romney. It was said Perry had lots of cash.
Your right the MSM gives him no credit.
-
When Bain Capital sought to raise money in 1989 for a fast-growing office-supply company named Staples, Mitt Romney, Bain’s founder, called upon a trusted business partner: Goldman Sachs, whose bankers led the company’s initial public offering.
When Mr. Romney became governor of Massachusetts, his blind trust gave Goldman much of his wealth to manage, a fortune now estimated to be as much as $250 million.
And as Mr. Romney mounts his second bid for the presidency, Goldman is coming through again: Its employees have contributed at least $367,000 to his campaign, making the firm Mr. Romney’s largest single source of campaign money through the end of September.
No other company is so closely intertwined with Mr. Romney’s public and private lives except Bain itself. And in recent days, Mr. Romney’s ties to Goldman Sachs have lashed another lightning rod to a campaign already fending off withering attacks on his career as a buyout specialist, thrusting the privileges of the Wall Street elite to the forefront of the Republican nominating battle.
Newt Gingrich, whose allies have spent millions of dollars on advertisements painting Mr. Romney as a heartless “vulture capitalist,” seized on Mr. Romney’s Goldman ties at Thursday’s Republican debate in Florida, suggesting that he had profited through Goldman on banks that had foreclosed on Floridians. And as the fight over regulation of financial firms spills onto the campaign trail, Mr. Romney’s support for the industry — he has called for repeal of the Dodd-Frank legislation tightening oversight of Wall Street — may draw more fire.
Mr. Romney’s positions and pedigree have helped draw to his side major donors in the financial world. The securities and investment industry has given more money to Mr. Romney than any other industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, and some of its leading figures have donated millions of dollars to Restore Our Future, the “super PAC” bolstering Mr. Romney’s campaign. Goldman employees are also the biggest source of donations to Free & Strong America PAC, a group Mr. Romney founded but no longer controls.
But Mr. Romney’s personal finances are particularly entwined with Goldman.
His federal financial disclosure statements show Mr. Romney and his wife, their blind trusts and their family foundation to be prodigious consumers of the bank’s services. In 2011, Mr. Romney’s blind trust and the couple’s retirement accounts held as much as $36.7 million in at least two dozen Goldman investment vehicles, earning as much as $3 million a year in income. Mrs. Romney’s trust had at least $10.2 million in Goldman funds — possibly much more — earning as much as $6.2 million.
Tax returns released by the campaign this week also highlighted some of the privileges Mr. Romney enjoyed as a friend of Goldman: In May 1999, a few months after he left Bain to run the Salt Lake City Olympics, Goldman allowed Mr. Romney to buy at least 7,000 Goldman shares during the firm’s lucrative initial public offering — a generous allotment even among Goldman clients, according to people with knowledge of the deal. When Mr. Romney’s trusts sold the shares in December 2010, a few months before he formed his presidential exploratory committee for the 2012 race, they returned a profit of $750,000.
A spokeswoman for Goldman declined to comment, as did a spokeswoman for Mr. Romney.
Investing with Goldman was not without risks: Like other Goldman clients, the Romneys invested money in a family of funds known as Whitehall, which placed highly leveraged bets on office buildings, casinos and hotels. Some Whitehall deals collapsed during the financial crisis, saddling Mr. Romney and its other investors with big losses.
And some of the attacks on Mr. Romney have overreached. While Mr. Gingrich charged on Thursday that his rival did business with a firm that “was explicitly foreclosing on Floridians,” that is not accurate: The family’s holdings include a Goldman fund that, like other investment funds, has invested partly in mortgage-backed securities. Goldman sold its mortgage servicing arm, Litton Loan Servicing, last year.
But other elements of Mr. Romney’s personal and business ties to Goldman may prove more controversial. Bain’s mid-1990s acquisition of Dade Behring, a medical device maker with factories in Florida, has become a totem of the economic upheaval that private equity can inflict. Goldman invested in the acquisition, which brought the bank $120 million and Bain $242 million — but led to the layoffs of hundreds of workers in Miami. Democrats hammered Mr. Romney over the deal this week.
When Mr. Romney was building Bain into one of the world’s premier private equity firms, Goldman’s bankers clamored for Bain business, and won assignments advising or financing an array of Bain deals, including Bain’s 1997 $800 million buyout of Sealy, the nation’s largest mattress company, which it later sold.
As Mr. Romney amassed his fortune, Goldman also offered up the services of an elite Boston-based team in the bank’s private wealth management unit. The relationship gave him access to Goldman’s exclusive investment funds, including private equity vehicles known as Goldman Sachs Capital Partners.
Mr. Romney is far from Goldman’s largest client — some investors have billions of dollars at the firm — but his political connections and founding role at Bain have elevated his importance there. His Goldman investments are handled by Jim Donovan, who has built one of the largest-producing businesses in Goldman’s private wealth management unit, managing several billion dollars for the firm’s individual clients.
Goldman gave Mr. Romney’s trusts access to the bank’s own exclusive investment funds and helped him execute an aggressive and complex tax-deferral strategy known as an “exchange fund” in 2002. (Since 2003, most of Mr. Romney’s money has been held in blind trusts, meaning that he no longer makes many of his own investment decisions.) According to tax returns released this week, the family’s three principal trusts earned more than $9 million from various Goldman Sachs investment vehicles in 2010.
Floyd Norris, Michael Barbaro and Kitty Bennett contributed reporting.
-
**The POTH might want to rethink the line of attack they are trying to push in the article above.
(http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/PRESIDENTGOLDMANSACHS.jpg)
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/286704/repo-men-kevin-d-williamson?pg=1
If you’re making money on the Wall Street scale — which is nothing like your boring, middle-management in the Fortune 500, Hamptons-and-Mercedes, barely–a–1 percenter type money — then you can buy basically anything. When real-estate investor Robert Rosania put part of his storied champagne collection up for sale in 2008, the auction was predicted to fetch $5 million — couch-cushion change to Rosania, who had not yet reached his 40th birthday, making him a good deal younger than many of the vintages in his cellar. (Known in the wine world as Big Boy, he brandishes a special saber designed for decapitating head-clutchingly expensive bottles of champagne. Bespoke vintage-champagne cutlery: That’s how you know you’re rich.) Not far from Zuccotti Park, where Occupy Wall Street was fragrantly encamped, I noticed a young man wandering into a store to buy a pack of cigarettes on a bright Saturday morning, wearing blue jeans, a T-shirt, and a $237,000 Vacheron-Constantin watch. In a world of $600,000 cars (consult your local Maybach dealer) and $4,300-a-night whores (consult Eliot Spitzer), it’s no big deal to buy a president, which is precisely what Wall Street did in 2008 when, led by investment giant Goldman Sachs, it closed the deal on Barack Obama.
For a few measly millions, Wall Street not only bought itself a president, but got the start-up firm of B. H. Obama & Co. LLC to throw a cabinet into the deal, too — on remarkably generous terms. President Obama, for a guy prone to delivering prim and smug little homilies denouncing greed, greed, greed — the only of the seven deadly sins that truly offends Democrats (though Mrs. Obama has done some desultory work on gluttony) — is strangely comfortable among the Gordon Gekkos of this world. Shall we have a partial roll call? Beat the drum slowly and call out the names: With unemployment still topping 9 percent, the catastatic world economy teetering on the brink of another, even larger financial catastrophe, and trillion-dollar U.S. deficits as far as the green-shaded eye can see, let’s hear it for Obama’s first National Economic Council director, Lawrence Summers (of hedge-fund giant D. E. Shaw and venture-capital firm Andreessen Horowitz), who has had some nice paydays courtesy of Lehman Bros., JPMorgan Chase, and Citigroup. Let’s hear it for Citigroup’s Michael Froman, deputy assistant to the president and deputy national-security adviser for international economic affairs, for Hartford Financial’s Neal Wolin, deputy Treasury secretary, for JPMorgan’s William Daley, Obama’s chief of staff, and for his predecessor, Rahm Emanuel of Wasserstein Perella. Let’s hear it for Fannie Mae’s Tom Donilon, national-security adviser. (No, seriously: One of the luminous interstellar geniuses who brought Fannie Mae to its current aphotic state of affairs, upside down to the tune of trillions of dollars, is running national security, and the former director of the White House Military Office, Louis Caldera, was on the board of IndyMac when it finally went toes up — sleep tight, America!) And, lest we forget, let’s have three big, sloppy cheers for economic-transition team leaders Robert Rubin (Goldman Sachs, Citigroup) and folksy tax enthusiast/ghoulish billionaire vulture Warren Buffett.
That’s a pretty fantastic lineup, from Wall Street’s point of view, but the real bonus turned out to be Treasury secretary Tim Geithner, who came up through the ranks as part of the bipartisan Robert Rubin–Hank Paulson–Citigroup–Goldman Sachs cabal. Geithner, a government-and-academe man from way back, never really worked on Wall Street, though he once was offered a gig as CEO of Citigroup, which apparently thought he did an outstanding job as chairman of the New York Fed, where one of his main tasks was regulating Citigroup — until it collapsed into the yawning suckhole of its own cavernous ineptitude, at which point Geithner’s main job became shoveling tens of billions of federal dollars into Citigroup, in an ingeniously structured investment that allowed the government to buy a 27 percent share in the bank, for which it paid more than the entire market value of the bank. If you can’t figure out why you’d pay 100-plus percent of a bank’s value for 27 percent of it, then you just don’t understand high finance or high politics.
-
It looks like it's all over in Florida. Even before the voting has begun in Tuesday's primary, polls show Mitt Romney with a comfortable lead. If the former Massachusetts governor wins by a respectable margin, it would be completely understandable to take it as confirmation that he needs to stick with his campaign strategy.
It would also be a colossal mistake.
At least since South Carolina, Mr. Romney has been laboring under the assumption that his most serious challenge is to defeat Newt Gingrich. It's not. Mr. Gingrich's viability after months of also-ran status owes itself almost entirely to Mr. Romney's glaring weaknesses. The governor's challenge is not merely to best Mr. Gingrich but to do so in a way that addresses those weaknesses.
Enlarge Image
CloseAFP/Getty Images
GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich
.For those who have dealt with him, Mr. Gingrich presents an oddly captivating figure. Where Ronald Reagan was the Teflon president for the way that attacks never seemed to stick to him, Mr. Gingrich is like the blob from some horror movie, absorbing everything shot at him without stopping. That's why Nancy Pelosi's claim that she has something that would sink him is laughable: At this stage, is there really anything left that could discredit this man?
GOP voters know all about Mr. Gingrich's dirty laundry. What attracts them, especially in the debates, is that they see him taking the fight to all the people they oppose: liberal Democrats, the liberal press, and squishy Republicans afraid to challenge either with conservative ideas.
On the other hand, Mr. Gingrich has attacked Mr. Romney from the left on his earnings at Bain Capital and disparaged the man's character. With his usual reach for superlatives, the former speaker of the House accuses Mr. Romney of giving "the most blatantly dishonest answers" not just in this race but "in any presidential race in my lifetime."
Related Video
Columnist Dan Henninger on the Florida primary and Romney-Gingrich dogfight.
.
.Mr. Gingrich is neither the front-runner nor the likely nominee. But he may be the candidate who ensures that the present nastiness continues right up and through the convention. And while Mr. Romney may win Florida, dusting off Bob Dole to launch an assault on Mr. Gingrich's character will do nothing to kill the larger threat from the Newt insurgency.
That's because at bottom the Newt insurgency is fueled by the sense that Mr. Romney's tepid policy agenda reflects no fixed beliefs. Many who support Mr. Gingrich will concede he is not their ideal candidate. In fact, it's telling that Mr. Romney's GOP rivals are defined as non-Romneys, each standing for something lacking in the front-runner.
The most constructive way for Mr. Romney to kill off his rivals while bringing the party together is simple: Steal their best ideas. Mr. Gingrich has done precisely that with Ron Paul by calling for a commission to study the gold standard. Mr. Romney could easily do the same, echoing Mr. Paul's call for an honest dollar or adopting Mr. Gingrich's flat tax.
He might steal a lesson in style from Rick Santorum. With little money and a shoestring organization, Mr. Santorum has managed to articulate the core arguments of the conservative agenda: why we need to address Iran, why we need to help Americans keep more of what they earn and, most of all, why the words of our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution matter still. In the last debate he proved you can be tough without being personal, skillfully demolishing all the governor's pat answers about RomneyCare.
Ronald Reagan always understood that ideas were more potent than invective. Nor was he above looking to others for those ideas. The across-the-board tax cut he made the heart of his 1980 campaign was largely the work of a then-obscure congressman from upstate New York named Jack Kemp.
There's no reason Mr. Romney could not likewise work with the chairman of the House Budget Committee, Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan, on a complete rewrite of our debilitating tax code—which would give all Republican Party candidates something substantive to rally around in this fall's campaign against President Obama and his Democratic allies on Capitol Hill.
In the end, the arguments for Mr. Romney come down to this: He has executive experience in both business and government, he's got the most money and the best organization, and he's electable. They are good points. Still, they add up to one argument by résumé and two from process.
Those of us who believed that a primary fight would toughen Mr. Romney up have little to show for it. Far from sharpening his proposals to reach out to a GOP electorate hungry for a candidate with a bold conservative agenda, Mr. Romney has limited his new toughness to increasingly negative attacks on Mr. Gingrich's character. It's beginning to make what we all assumed was a weakness look much more like arrogance.
-
By JAMES TARANTO
(Best of the tube tonight: We'll appear on Fox Business's "Lou Dobbs Tonight." The program starts at 7 p.m. ET, with our panel around 7:40.)
In a Forbes.com column, our friend Richard Miniter aims to debunk the common view that Mitt Romney is "electable." This column will serve as a rebunking.
Let's begin by saying we largely agree with Miniter's ideological critique of the Republican front-runner. Indeed Romney "is not a tax-cutter" and "is not a Reaganite reformer," and we'd prefer if he were. We are unpersuaded by the connection Miniter draws between these shortcomings and the question of electability, but we'll get to that after we go through some other points:
Romney is not an election winner. He lost in his U.S. Senate race to unseat Ted Kennedy and decided not to seek re-election as governor, largely because he would have almost certainly lost. And he lost to John McCain in 2008, which is not exactly playing the varsity.
Miniter also observes that "so far, Mitt Romney has only won in states where he owns summer houses, like New Hampshire" and that Romney "has never won a majority . . . of Republican primary or caucus voters."
That last observation has little bearing on the electability question, since it's true as well of Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and most candidates for open nominations at this early stage of the primary process. (As for 2008, Romney dropped out in the first week of February.) It is a certainty that if Romney wins the nomination, he will have won a majority in some statewide contests. As to his only having won states in which he has vacation homes, that's a lot of states, isn't it?
Getty Images
Almost everyone loses a few.
.Romney would not be the first man elected to the White House with prior election losses. In fact, he would be the eighth in a row. Barack Obama ran unsuccessfully for a House seat in 2000, as did George W. Bush in 1978. Bill Clinton lost a 1974 House race and his first re-election as governor of Arkansas, in 1980. (He made a comeback two years later.) George H.W. Bush lost a Senate race in 1970 and was an unsuccessful candidate for the GOP presidential nomination in 1980. Ronald Reagan failed to win the Republican nomination in both 1968 and 1976. Jimmy Carter lost his first bid to become Georgia's governor, in 1966. Richard Nixon was defeated for the presidency in 1960 and the California governorship in 1962. Lyndon Johnson lost a special election for the Senate in 1941.
The last man to be elected president without a prior election defeat was John F. Kennedy--and the candidate he beat, Nixon, also was undefeated up to that point.
There is also a tension between the complaints that Romney isn't conservative enough and that he has a poor electoral record in Massachusetts, a very liberal and Democratic state. Surely many Bay Staters voted against him in 1994 and 2002, and would have in 2006, because by their lights he was too conservative.
Romney is not a strong debater. Certainly he improved greatly in the most recent Florida debate, but he still trails Santorum and Gingrich in his ability to woo a crowd. While debates, by themselves, do not determine elections, they move marginal voters one way or the other. A strong debate performance will be essential to defeating Obama for the Republican nominee.
We're on record expressing skepticism about that last assertion, but that second sentence gives away almost the whole game anyway. Gingrich's supposed brilliance at debating has been the central argument for nominating him. But in the last debate, last Thursday, the ex-governor dominated the ex-speaker, demonstrating either that Gingrich is overrated, that Romney is underrated or has become much better, or both. There is, to be sure, a case to be made on this point for Santorum, who outshined Romney last week in an exchange on health care.
Romney's racial problem. If he wins the nomination, Romney will be running against the first black President of the United States while he comes from a church that did not see black people as eligible members until 1978. Since then, the Church of [Jesus Christ of] Latter-Day Saints has done remarkable outreach and can claim vast numbers of members in all races and all parts of the globe. And, of course, Romney is not a racist.
Nevertheless, this issue will be brought up by Obama's surrogates in 2012 campaign. It is not fair and not right, but it is reality. The views of Mormons toward blacks, Jewish ancestors and Jesus Christ will be presented as strange and revolting by too many voices in the major media. Religious bigotry exists, even among the very educated and influential. How that issue is handled will sway moderates, independents and suburban women--all of whom the GOP needs to prevail in November.
It's a given that Obama's surrogates and supporters, defending a black president with a lousy record, will level ugly race-based accusations against whoever is the Republican nominee. It's already happening with Gingrich. Our guess is that this tactic will put off more swing voters than it will attract, and even more so if the focus of the attacks is the GOP nominee's religious affiliation--another form of bigotry--as Miniter speculates it would be in Romney's case.
Miniter also argues that Romney's defense of his record at Bain Capital "may not be as effective in the general election as in a Republican primary." Perhaps so, and as we've argued, he has reason to be grateful to Gingrich for helping prepare him for the fall campaign.
Finally, Miniter observes that "GOP establishment support actually hurts Romney" among "many ordinary voters," who "want an electable reformer, not a cautious moderate." This seems to argue against Romney's inevitability as the nominee more than his electability if nominated. Which brings us to Miniter's case for why Romney would be more electable if he were more conservative:
Romney's nomination presents the real risk of a third-party presidential challenger, a candidate who hopes to hoover up libertarians, Tea Partiers and conservatives disaffected with Romney. Sure, that candidate would win, at most, 2% of the vote--but that percentage would be enough to swing the election to Obama.
This is not an implausible scenario. In fact, it's roughly analogous to what happened to Al Gore in 2000. But it is far from a likely one. It presupposes that a significant number of voters on the right will be more disaffected with Romney than they are with Obama, that a third-party candidate will emerge to take their votes, and that the Romney-Obama race will be close enough for this group of voters to swing the election. But even if all this comes to pass, Romney will be shown to have been only as unelectable as Al Gore was in 2000--which is to say, so electable that he came within a hair's breadth of being elected.
The central argument for Romney's electability is that his rivals for the GOP nomination have qualities that are far more likely to put off independent voters: that Gingrich and Santorum, each in their own way, are too harsh, and Gingrich also too zany, to win as many independent voters as the blander Romney could do. We have yet to see an argument for why this is wrong.
We do agree with Miniter's concluding advice to Romney: to "present some dramatic reform plans, starting with income-tax cuts and ending pointless government agencies." Some readers may wonder how that squares with our advice to the GOP yesterday to "run a campaign centered on competence, not ideology."
The answer is in the word "centered." When Barack Obama ran for president in 2008, all the left-wing ideology was there, but his campaign centered on what has come to be known derisively as "that hopey-changey stuff," vague promises of unity and better government.
Romney's campaign has substantive deficiencies that augur ill for a Romney presidency. Gingrich's and Santorum's have defects in tone that probably can't be overcome, and that would make them easier for Obama to beat (assuming the president himself isn't unelectable. as Sean Trende argues he is). That's why Romney, for all his shortcomings, is the most electable Republican candidate.
-
This bodes well for Romney. Despite the MSLSD and WasserwomanSchultz's claim that Brock is the great and formidable campaigner he is, it appears the independents are not buying into his story line. So far Romney's caution may be paying off. He is too moderate for me but then again I'll vote for any Republican (except maybe Paul) over Obama (on second thought, I would probably not vote). It IS the independents who count. A few Republican voting Latinos thrown in won't hurt Romney get it.
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/gallup-state-numbers-predict-huge-obama-loss/352881
-
whats the latest on the Tea party?
-
whats the latest on the Tea party?
As far as what? It's not a political party per se, but a grassroots movement, as you probably know.
-
Andrew:
We're wishing Newt weren't so flawed.
Marc
-
Earlier he said clumsily, I like to be able to fire my heath care provider. I think the correct word was 'choose'.
Yesterday he said he is not focused on the poor or on the rich.
What is missing is the full explanation of how things work. It is an integrative economy. We shrink the ranks of the poor with 'income mobility'. We may not worry abut the rich but we should value the essential role they play and grow their ranks and strength with ... 'income mobility'.
Some Americans are pulling the wagon; some are riding in it As CCP has pointed out, that ratio has become roughly 50-50. The best way to support the needs of the truly needy is to give our best pullers reason to pull even harder while enticing those riding who should be pulling to do so.
-
Barack Obama's poorly received State of the Union speech deserves a second look. Conventional wisdom pronounced the SOTU a relatively weak Obama effort. It was. Diffuse, filled with the usual enemies, it pulled together various back-filed policy ideas into a proposal he called, with a straight face, "An Economy Built to Last."
Bemused election-year observers remarked that both ObamaCare and the nation's entitlement bomb passed unmentioned. In his reply, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels noted that we are not going to be able to outrun the simple math on entitlement spending. That's true. We can't. But Mr. Obama just may for the next 10 months.
How? By exploiting political vulnerabilities in the Republicans' case against his presidency. Republicans think it's all about the bad economy. It is. But Barack Obama is going to do something his opposition wouldn't think possible. He's going to take ownership of the American economy. Not the real one, but the one he's just made up, "the economy built to last." It won't last long, but long enough.
In the days after his Washington lecture, Mr. Obama took a shorter version of his SOTU speech on the road—to Colorado, Michigan, Iowa, Nevada and Arizona, states he needs in November. On the White House website, you can see him give this campaign tuneup speech at the new, $5 billion Intel chip-fabrication plant in Chandler, Ariz. It's worth watching and pondering. You'd think the best and the brightest would be beyond Mr. Obama's crude populist pitch. You of course would be wrong.
About 6,000 Intel employees—young, well-educated technology sophisticates—applauded and cheered Mr. Obama from start to finish. Even when he ripped into those awful American companies with factories overseas, such as their own employer. "An America where we build stuff and make stuff and sell stuff all over the world." (Applause.)
A speech that flopped among Washington's policy sophisticates is soaring out in the country. Republicans had better figure out why.
Reading through the White House's text of "An Economy Built to Last," any half-awake citizen will notice the words that fail to appear: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, entitlements and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The deficit is in the document's last paragraph, three sentences long.
Gilda Radner's Emily Litella famously said "Never mind," and you would too if you had to run on this economy. Thus, the Obama solution: Run against the economy. This effectively means Mr. Obama is running against himself, but . . . never mind.
Related Video
He will marginalize his opponents as the bloodless Numbers People.
..Mr. Obama may not know much about the private economy, but he knows a lot about the uses of human anxiety. Proposing to replace his own bad economy with a virtual substitute "built to last" allows Mr. Obama to place himself outside the White House and on the street making common cause with the genuine economic anxieties of the American people. It also lets this president put in motion what he thinks he knows best—empathy. In "The Audacity of Hope" he put empathy "at the heart of my moral code." Practice makes perfect.
It is beyond audacious. How can a president simultaneously hammer real job creation with the Keystone XL pipeline decision, then go into the country and claim kinship with the anxieties of the jobless? No problem. Just do it.
It could work. If we know nothing else about Barack Obama it is that he can play "hope" like a Stradivarius. The version of "An Economy Built to Last" that he performed at Intel is his concerto for re-election.
The Obama-Axelrod-Plouffe team knows that the Republicans instinctively will respond by quoting, endlessly, the poor economic data of the Obama years. They plan to turn this reality on its head as well. In a down economy, Barack Obama is going to position his GOP critics as economic determinists. The bloodless Numbers People. The tea party, by its own admission, obsesses over "the deficit"—numbers. Mr. Obama's likely opponent has self-defined as a competent manager, a numbers guy. That false Obama demagoguery about rules-free GOP Darwinians is just one piece of this unflattering portrait.
In Arizona he said, "An economy built to last also means we've got to renew American values: fair play, shared responsibility." Wild applause. For those who think they have facts on their side, it will be maddening and enraging to watch other Obama audiences across the country cheer and applaud "An Economy Built to Last." Get used to it.
The GOP is appealing, as its candidates so often do, to the American brain. Barack Obama is happy to be left by himself, going for their hearts. If he wins, the Republican will wail at the unfairness, irrationality and illogic of what beat them.
Rick Santorum, in his Tuesday night also-ran speech to what looked like a roomful of about 35 people at a Nevada Days Inn, spoke of couples "sitting around a kitchen table" to figure out what comes next. Whatever his campaign's shortcomings, Mr. Santorum is the one man running who understands the Obama strategy to marginalize Republicans. At some point after the inevitable end of the nomination campaign, Mitt Romney should ask Rick Santorum to sit down with him to discuss the inner melodies of life in America these days. Barack Obama is the maestro of this music, and without it, you can't win a presidency.
-
Henninger gives a lot of credit to Obama's power of persuasion.
First, there are 40-45% of the people in the US who WILL vote for him no matter what. They will never cross the Democrat line.
"The GOP is appealing, as its candidates so often do, to the American brain. Barack Obama is happy to be left by himself, going for their hearts."
Clinton proved the independent block of the public can turn on a dime. And it is that group (independents) that will vote based on how good they feel THAT day. If the economy is bad then Obama can pull on all the heart strings he wants. He will not win. Then again if the economy is or appears to be getting better, it might work. If the market is going up and the stated though corrupted unempolyment number is coming down than that group will stop and think, "well this guy isn't doing that bad" and Mitt just do anything to excite me.
"any half-awake citizen will notice the words that fail to appear: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, entitlements and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act."
Apparantly the Democrats have decided NOT to touch those "rails" of politics. It is obvious they are gaming the Republicans to do so. I guess they have polling data to show they can get a bit more than 45% by letting the Repubs commit themselves and then demogague them.
"He's going to take ownership of the American economy. Not the real one, but the one he's just made up, "the economy built to last."
""An Economy Built to Last,"
Is this the new catch phrase analogy to hope and change?
OK let Mitt begin to study this. IF one wants an entitlement economy which IS what he is building on, it won' t last.
If one wants an economy that will last, like what we have had for 200 hundred years then don't vote for the big government guy. Lest we want to look like Europe with some of us paying for the bankrupt Californias, NJs, etc.
-
Reliability of the following is unknown.
OBAMA ELIGIBILITY COURT CASE…BLOW BY BLOW
By Craig Andresen on January 26, 2012 at 9:25 am
Editor’s Note:
The hearing was before Judge Michael Malihi of the Georgia state Office of State Administrative Hearings. David Farrar, Leah Lax, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by California attorney Orly Taitz, who has handled numerous cases concerning Obama’s eligibility; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield. This hearing took place in the courthouse lacated at: 230 Peachtree Street N.W., Suite 850 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 on January 26th 2012 at 9am EST.
Docket Number: OSAH-SECSTATE-CE
1215136-60-MALIHI
Given the testimony from today’s court case in Georgia, Obama has a lot of explaining to do. His attorney, Jablonski, was a NO SHOW as of course, was Obama.
The following is a nutshell account of the proceedings.
Promptly at 9am EST, all attorneys involved in the Obama Georgia eligibility case were called to the Judge’s chambers. This was indeed a very interesting beginning to this long awaited and important case.
The case revolved around the Natural Born clause of the Constitution and whether or not Obama qualifies under it to serve. More to the point, if found ineligible, Obama’s name would not appear on the 2012 ballot in Georgia.
With the small courtroom crowded, several in attendance could be seen fanning themselves with pamphlets as they waited for the return of the attorneys and the appearance of the judge.
Obama himself, who had been subpoenaed to appear, of course was nowhere near Georgia. Instead, Obama was on a campaign swing appearing in Las Vegas and in Colorado ignoring the court in Georgia.
Over the last several weeks, Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, had attempted several tactics to keep this case from moving forward. He first tried to have it dismissed, then argued that it was irrelevant to Obama. After that, Jablonski argued that a state could not, under the law, determine who would or would not be on a ballot and later, that Obama was simply too busy with the duties of office to appear.
After all these arguments were dispatched by the Georgia Court, Jablonski, in desperation, wrote to the Georgia Secretary of State attempting to place Obama above the law and declared that the case was not to he heard and neither he nor his client would participate.
Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, fired back a letter hours later telling Jablonski he was free to abandon the case and not participate but that he would do so at his and his clients peril.
Game on.
5 minutes.
10 minutes.
15 minutes with the attorneys in the judge’s chambers.
20 minutes.
It appears Jablonski is not in attendance as the attorneys return, all go to the plaintiff table 24 minutes after meeting in the judge’s chambers.
Has Obama’s attorney made good on his stated threat not to participate? Is he directly ignoring the court’s subpoena? Is he placing Obama above the law? It seems so. Were you or I subpoenaed to appear in court, would we or our attorney be allowed such action or, non action?
Certainly not.
Court is called to order.
Obama’s birth certificate is entered into evidence.
Obama’s father’s place of birth, Kenya East Africa is entered into evidence.
Pages 214 and 215 from Obama’s book, “Dreams from My Father” entered into evidence. Highlighted. This is where Obama indicates that, in 1966 or 1967 that his father’s history is mentioned. It states that his father’s passport had been revoked and he was unable to leave Kenya.
Immigration Services documents entered into evidence regarding Obama Sr.
June 27th, 1962, is the date on those documents. Obama’s father’s status shown as a non citizen of the United States. Documents were gotten through the Freedom of Information Act.
Testimony regarding the definition of Natural Born Citizen is given citing Minor vs Happersett opinion from a Supreme Court written opinion from 1875. The attorney points out the difference between “citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen” using charts and copies of the Minor vs Happersett opinion.
It is also pointed out that the 14th Amendment does not alter the definition or supersede the meaning of Natural Born. It is pointed out that lower court rulings do not conflict with the Supreme Court opinion nor do they over rule the Supreme Court Minor vs Happersett opinion.
The point is, to be a natural born citizen, one must have 2 parents who, at the time of the birth in question, be citizens of the United States. As Obama’s father was not a citizen, the argument is that Obama, constitutionally, is ineligible to serve as President.
Judge notes that as Obama nor his attorney is present, action will be taken accordingly.
Carl Swinson takes the stand.
Testimony is presented that the SOS has agreed to hear this case, laws applicable, and that the DNC of Georgia will be on the ballot and the challenge to it by Swinson.
2nd witness, a Mr. Powell, takes the stand and presents testimony regarding documents of challenge to Obama’s appearance on the Georgia ballot and his candidacy.
Court records of Obama’s mother and father entered into evidence.
Official certificate of nomination of Obama entered into evidence.
RNC certificate of nomination entered into evidence.
DNC language does NOT include language stating Obama is Qualified while the RNC document DOES. This shows a direct difference trying to establish that the DNC MAY possibly have known that Obama was not qualified.
Jablonski letter to Kemp yesterday entered into evidence showing their desire that these proceedings not take place and that they would not participate.
Dreams From My Father entered.
Mr. Allen from Tuscon AZ sworn in.
Disc received from Immigration and Naturalization Service entered into evidence. This disc contains information regarding the status of Obama’s father received through the Freedom of Information Act.
This information states clearly that Obama’s father was NEVER a U.S. Citizen.
At this point, the judge takes a recess.
The judge returns.
David Farrar takes the stand.
Evidence showing Obama’s book of records listing his nationality as Indoneasan. Deemed not relevant by the judge.
Orly Taitz calls 2nd witness. Mr. Strunk.
Enters into evidence a portion of letter received from attorney showing a renewal form from Obama’s mother for her passport listing Obama’s last name something other than Obama.
State Licensed PI takes the stand.
She was hired to look into Obama’s background and found a Social Security number for him from 1977. Professional opinion given that this number was fraudulent. The number used or attached to Obama in 1977, shows that the true owner of the number was born in the 1890. This shows that the number was originally assigned to someone else who was indeed born in 1890 and should never have been used by Obama.
Same SS number came up with addresses in IL, D.C. and MA.
Next witness takes the stand.
This witness is an expert in information technology and photo shop. He testifies that the birth certificate Obama provided to the public is layered, multiple layered. This, he testifies, indicates that different parts of the certificate have been lifted from more than one original document.
Linda Jordan takes the stand.
Document entered regarding SS number assigned to Obama. SS number is not verified under E Verify. It comes back as suspected fraudulent. This is the system by which the Government verifies ones citizenship.
Next witness.
Mr. Vogt.
Expert in document imaging and scanners for 18 years.
Mr. Vogt testifies that the birth certificate, posted online by Obama, is suspicious. States white lines around all the type face is caused by “unsharp mask” in Photoshop. Testifies that any document showing this, is considered to be a fraud.
States this is a product of layering.
Mr. Vogt testifies that a straight scan of an original document would not show such layering.
Also testifies that the date stamps shown on Obama documents should not be in exact same place on various documents as they are hand stamped. Obama’s documents are all even, straight and exactly the same indicating they were NOT hand stamped but layered into the document by computer.
Next witness, Mr. Sampson a former police officer and former immigration officer specializing in immigration fraud.
Ran Obama’s SS number through database and found that the number was issued to Obama in 1977 in the state of Connecticut . Obama never resided in that state. At the time of issue, Obama was living in Hawaii.
Serial number on birth certificate is out of sequence with others issued at that hospital. Also certification is different than others and different than twins born 24 hours ahead of Obama.
Mr. Sampson also states that portion of documents regarding Mr. Soetoro, who adopted Obama have been redacted which is highly unusual with regards to immigra tion records.
Suggests all records from Social Security, Immigration, Hawaii birth records be made available to see if there are criminal charges to be filed or not. Without them, nothing can be ruled out.
Mr. Sampson indicates if Obama is shown not to be a citizen, he should be arrested and deported and until all records are released nobody can know for sure if he is or is not a U.S. Citizen.
Taitz shows records for Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama, showing he resides in Hawaii and in Indonesia at the same time.
Taitz takes the stand herself.
Testifies that records indicate Obama records have been altered and he is hiding his identity and citizenship.
Taitz leaves the stand to make her closing arguments.
Taitz states that Obama should be found, because of the evidence presented, ineligible to serve as President.
And with that, the judge closes the hearing.
What can we take away from this?
It’s interesting.
Now, all of this has finally been entered OFFICIALLY into court records.
One huge question is now more than ever before, unanswered.
WHO THE HELL IS THIS GUY?
Without his attorney present, Obama’s identity, his Social Security number, his citizenship status, and his past are all OFFICIALLY in question.
One thing to which there seems no doubt. He does NOT qualify, under the definition of “Natural Born Citizen” provided by SCOTUS opinions, to be eligible to serve as President.
What will the judge decide? That is yet to be known, but it seems nearly impossible to believe, without counter testimony or evidence, because Obama and his attorney chose not to participate, that Obama will be allowed on the Georgia ballot.
It also opens the door for such cases pending or to be brought in other states as well.
Obama is in it deep and the DNC has some…a LOT…of explaining to do unless they start looking for a new candidate for 20
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/georgia-birther-hearing-obama_n_1236719.html
-
:cry: Ah well, a man can dream , , , :lol:
-
Here's a bit more on the GA proceedings:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/georgia.asp
-
So many threads this could go in... Famous people reading the forum, but the Presidents advisers are taking JDN's reading of the (Christian) Savior supporting a tax and spend agenda as Gospel. :?
Imagine the MEDIA uproar if this was President Michele Bachmann claiming to have the higher powers on her side. (Yes she would do that, and no should would not get a pass on it!)
What church in Washington have the Obama's joined (NONE!) so that I might double check his interpretation of scripture.
The President also shamelessly copied JDN's approach to no comment on 'Thou Shalt Not Kill', 'Thou Shalt Not Covet...' or making a distinction between giving and TAKING: 'Thou Shalt not Steal'.
Follow up to Romney's gaffes and the conservative criticism e.g. Charles Krauthammer, Marc Levin) that Gov. Romney cannot explain conservatism, note that his general election opponent will not be heading into the fall contest gaffe-free either.
----
Here is a link for the quote and some commentary:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/02/render-unto-barry.php
-
"Imagine the MEDIA uproar if this was President Michele Bachmann"
Yes, it is frustrating how the media will knit pick with anything any Republican will say and ignore all the deceit and lies an mispeaks from Obama. Escept for Drudge, Fox and talk radio.
Without them we would have never heard of Wright, Ayres, Alinsky, or any of it. Th public would have been totally decieved about Obama's nature.
Every SINGLE day we hear CNN etc going off on every tiny minute thing a Repub says in great detail. For ex. the new thing is Romney's not concerned for the poor thing. Totally taken out of context. Truthfully I am not losing sleep over the poor and YES they do have safety net as Mitt pointed out when one hears the whole statement. Yet the MSM will run with this. There are clearly too many Dem party operatives in the MSM who will eagerly daily bash Repubs every chance they get - the jurn-off liist
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dRr854zxbA&feature=player_embedded
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dRr854zxbA&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
-
Crafty, taken from AfPak discussion: "At the moment, it looks to me that Baraq will win."
Polls will back you up on that today and the economy will likely improve slightly more by then. Still I disagree. For the last 7 months Republicans have b een shooting themselves more than exposing and attacking the President. They also have been targeting the right wing, but the centrist seems to have won. For the next 7 months the leader will mostly be targeting Obama and gradually the rest of the party will jump on board. There is no enthusiasm on the right for Mitt over Newt or vice versa (low turnout), but there will be enthusiasm for Romney and Rubio turning out the incumbent.
-----------------
Funny line regarding Pres. Obama making the same political mistakes as Jimmy Carter:
" I watched the “Meet the Press” roundtable this morning, and I was struck with the firestorm David Brooks set off by criticizing the Obama Administration’s moves against the Catholic Church... One of the things that turned evangelical voters against Jimmy Carter in 1980 (evangelicals had supported him strongly in 1976) were administration rules affecting the tax exempt status of private religious schools. It got almost no attention from the New York Times, etc, but was a huge issue for religious voters in 1980, and was a lit fuse that blew up in churches across the country. I’m amazed at how often Obama seems to imitate many of Carter’s political mistakes. It’s like he was in college or something smoking dope at the time and didn’t pay attention. Oh, wait. . ."
- Presidential biographer Steven Hayward writing at Powerline today.
-
"I have warned here more than once that Republicans currently lack coherence and message on foreign policy. Some of you have commented, in effect, so what? The economy sucks and the Reps will win on that. Wesbury argues, and in the last 9 months his track record as a prognosticator exceeds that of our GM, the economy is improving and the meme of the Pravdas goes in the same direction. At the moment, it looks to me that Baraq will win."
I'll point out that our economic improvement results only from fraudulent stats and media spin. One hard jolt and the house of cards topples. Wait for the Greeks to default and we'll see just how bright things are. Meanwhile many other bad things loom on the horizon.
-
That would be more persuasive if the Rep candidates themselves were making the case. Maybe they need to read this forum. Both Mitt and Newt have substantial weaknesses as candidates which Baraq has the budget to hit them with. Rep vote numbers in the primary are not strangle Baraq will get away with a lot with the aid and support of the Pravdas. His campaign themes, recently aired out, play well to the ear and to the emotion. To the extent that the Reps offer any coherence on foreign affairs it is contrary to the mood of the majority, which has lost confidence in the competence of Washington to lead foreign adventures.
-
All true, and his drivel almost makes sense (if you are Rip van Winckle), but... Is the voter better off now than he or she was $5 trillion ago? Can Obama run against a do-nothing congress when the do-nothing chamber is still led by his colleague Harry Reid of Pelosi-Reid-Obama fame. Does the Obama agenda correct anything that is holding us back? Will the local candidates even campaign with him in the vulnerable districts?
The news may say unemployment percentages are down, but millions leaving the workforce is a force that can't be ignored. Fewer people pulling the wagon and more people riding on it is a very heavy, double-negative force that can't be papered over with words.
Romney may not be articulate in supply side economics, but he has enough specifics in his plan to actually turn things around if elected and if his proposals were to be enacted. Also, he sounded quite persuasive to me the other day ridiculing the Obama campaign theme (I can't find the quote) - a vision in failure reduced to telling us it would have been even worse without them. We can do better than that.
Weaknesses of Mitt or Newt aside, the contrast will be stark. The excitement level in the black inner city where I frequent is zero. If they show up they might pull the lever for him one more time, but not for anything historic or for any expectation of bettering themselves or their families. The white vote is admittedly lost for Barack. The Jewish support is way down. The Hispanic vote is conflicted. The youth vote would have to be stupid with blinders on to think the current direction brings jobs to next year's college graduates. He won't win the Catholic vote by 10 points again! Best case for Obama IMO is to sound out moderate themes through November, paint his opponents as scary villains, hope for an uneventful economy and eek out some kind of close popular victory - just like Al Gore did in 2000. :wink:
This is not the recovery of 1984; this is more like Jimmy Carter's 2nd or3rd term. You and I might not be impressed with Romney, but the moderates and independents I know are drawing a collective sigh of relief to not have a fire breathing far right winger (like a Bachmann, for example) as their only real alternative to Pres. Obama.
------------
Dick Armey, now President of Freedomworks, has it right (must be reading the forum). If you are conservative and uninspired by the Presidential choices remaining as most conservatives are, then put your money and energies this year right now into winning the House and Senate where the bills will need to be written and passed. Margins and victors in congress will be crucial to governing no matter who wins the Presidential race.
-
Copying this important line from a WSJ piece(and the Dept. of Labor) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204369404577206980068367936.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop I put earlier in Glibness and Fairness to stand by itself in the election thread:
5.5 million fewer Americans have jobs today than in 2007
That would be very troubling if we had a declining population, BUT WE DON'T, so it much, much worse.
Why? What happened / what changed in Jan 2007?
In 2007 Sen. Obama along with Sen. Biden along with Sen. Hillary Clinton, and Senators Reid, Durbin, Dodd, Boxer, Schumer and Bernie Sanders, all moved to majority power in congress along with Speaker Pelosi and 232 other House Democrats, they took control of both chambers at once making the scapegoat Pres. Bush truly a domestic lame duck 2 years early and then they took the White House too. New Mpls Rep. Ellison put his hand on the Holy Qur'an in Jan 2007 and together with his co-conspirators they promised the transformational destruction of American wealth and they got it. What they didn't seem to know is that employment involves employers, investors and a healthy, globally competitive business climate.
What is ironic is that there is actually more government money available to redistribute under pro-growth policies than there is under redistribution focused policies.
If Republicans cannot make that most obvious and provable case persuasively now, then we all deserve what we get. Per GM, buy your ammo and canned food now and beat the hoarders.
-
the fact that they are openly coming after civil liberties means a lot of people can't vote for them. Gay people.
What? Exactly what civil liberties are you talking about?
Immigrants.
You mean illegal aliens? Criminals who have violated our laws and are taking jobs and funds from Americans?
And now they have this lame, "Hospitals are Churches," view of the workplace designed to make it sound like they are reasonably standing up for religious freedom; unfortunately it seems transparent and stupid to every non-Christian I've talked about it to.
Oh, so the federal gov't can use it's power to make religious organizations buy things they don't want? Can we make mosques buy pork roasts too? Is that constitutional?
-
CW:
"No matter how much they may be right, the fact that they are openly coming after civil liberties means a lot of people can't vote for them."
As many posts on this forum attest, our freedoms are a matter of great importance around here. Lets take a look at your examples however.
"Gay people." The only issue is whether marriage is by definition between a man and a woman or something else. Thinking it is between a man and a woman is hardly "going after" gay people is , , , forgive me, vapid tripe.
"Women who use birth control. Men with women who use birth control." No one is "going after" birth control. The issue is whether people get to make other people pay for it (a.k.a. legalized stealing) or make people opposed to it provide it (a.k.a. liberal fascism) Again, vapid tripe.
"Immigrants." C'mon CW, the issue is ILLEGAL immigrants, not all immigrants. The distinction is not a difficult one and you accusation a vapid waste of time.
"And now they have this lame, "Hospitals are Churches," view of the workplace designed to make it sound like they are reasonably standing up for religious freedom; unfortunately it seems transparent and stupid to every non-Christian I've talked about it to." Then you need to expand the range of people to whom you talk. Furthermore, the issue is not Churches, it is the free exercise of religion. The Catholic Church opposes birth control. The state seeks to force Catholic organizations to violate their religion in how they do business. The arrogance of Team Obama et al is staggering.
CW, sometimes you have something worth saying. This wasn't one of those times.
-
Sorry, I write a lot of posts and then delete them. I thought I got it before anyone read it. It was up for like 5 minutes. Sometimes I vent ideas and then decide there isn't anything worth posting here.
Of course you two didn't like my posts (; I didn't link to a pundit that agrees with me.
-
"Sometimes I vent ideas and then decide there isn't anything worth posting here."
Then the three of us (GM, you, and me) are in agreement! :lol: :evil:
-
OK Gents, big day yesterday by Santorum.
Assessments?
-
OK Gents, big day yesterday by Santorum.
Assessments?
Mittens will still be the nominee. Probably the high water mark for Santorum.
-
Santorum swept MN Colo and Missouri caucuses last night. Big setback for Ron Paul IMO who thought that was his ticket to be a factor in the race and the convention. Big setback for Newt too who on paper should have been able to sweep these grass roots events. It is a small setback for Romney who could and should use this as a teachable moment. The people he needs first are still not sold. If he enters the general election like McCain did still needing to reach to the right instead of focusing on winning the center of the nation, he will lose.
Very quick update from the caucus I convened last night in MN. Our group followed closer to the discussions here I thought. One guy my age spoke passionately for Ron Paul, very strong on anti-tax and anti-big spending. He conceded that he didn't agree with Paul's foreign policy and that he was unelectable. He said he would vote Libertarian rather than for one of the others in the election.Two first time voters to be also came out to support Ron Paul. I tried to talk afterward with one of them to find out how Paul is reaching these people. One lady spoke passionately for Newt, but conceded the same problems with him that we have seen that accompany his brilliance and his unique accomplishments. Santorum only had one vote, considered unelectable, uncharismatic but probably the most conservative of the bunch. Romney won our vote based on a perception he can win; beating the incumbent and changing course was the top concern. Guest speakers from State officials. R's won the state house and senate but lost the governorship in 2010. A very fluid situation here with the thin majority in the Republican state senate particularly vulnerable, but a better situation than usual for one of the nation's bluest states - the only state Reagan never won. I was reelected co-chairman with all but one vote - mine. I liked the other candidates better for doing the work of the next 2 years.
I tried to tell the young people supporting Ron Paul that there are differences and their final vote will matter. Supreme Court picks is the most obvious one, just look at the latest two appointees. What I didn't get said: The Supreme Court is kind of a buzz word for social conservatives (and liberals) because abortion etc. but the Court is also where the power for the big government they so strongly oppose got authorized or validated. Look at the case for and against Obamacare right now for example. The decision of whether that is a federal power will come down to who is on the Court more than the merits of the arguments (IMO). There is no clause that says congress shall set healthcare rules and standards. Standing on principle to not let a Republican lesser of two evils win and getting 4 more years of Obama will move you backwards for generations, maybe forever, from ever limiting the size and scope of government.
-
"And now they have this lame, "Hospitals are Churches," view of the workplace designed to make it sound like they are reasonably standing up for religious freedom; unfortunately it seems transparent and stupid to every non-Christian I've talked about it to." Then you need to expand the range of people to whom you talk. Furthermore, the issue is not Churches, it is the free exercise of religion. The Catholic Church opposes birth control. The state seeks to force Catholic organizations to violate their religion in how they do business. The arrogance of Team Obama et al is staggering. "
Hogwash. The State is not asking the Catholic organizations to violate their religion; a hospital is not a church; it's a business as you point out. As a business I can't opt out of the plan for my employees because I personally don't believe in birth control. 7th Day Adventists don't believe in blood transfusions, however their numerous and excellent hospitals do offer blood transfusions to those who want it.
Further, the Hospital/Business are/will be taking state funds for research and care/treatment reimbursement. You take my money, I get to set the rules....
-
So, is it constitutional for the US gov't to force muslims to buy pork? A mandate for muslim owned restaurants to sell pork products? Commerce clause, right?
-
A pithy question there from GM.
"The State is not asking the Catholic organizations to violate their religion". You're right. It is not asking them, it is TELLING them.
"Further, the Hospital/Business are/will be taking state funds for research and care/treatment reimbursement. You take my money, I get to set the rules...."
So, in order to do, for example, cancer research using govt money in part, a Catholic organization must violate its religious beliefs? A non-sequitor for me, but I will grant that the commonness of the argument makes a powerful case for repealing Obamacare in particular and limiting the govt to its' the originally intended functions in general.
-
It is still very early but I am getting nervous looking at Mitt not being able to overcome the MSM slant about him.
It was never a big problem that Kerry was the richest man in the Senate when he ran.
All of a sudden we hear the MSM tagging Mitt with the he is the 1% guy and suddenly that is a reason that disqualifies him for President.
I am not sure that the Republicans are at this point doing themselves a favor by having Santorum running and Gingrich, well I am not sure wht he is accomplishing.
Mark Levin who I really like is WRONG if he thinks having someone who can take a stand - and probably LOSE - is better than a "moderate" like Mitt who can have a much better chance of winning - is the right course. That is exactly the wrong course.
The prospect of another Sharon Angle who unbelievably lost to Reid in Nevada - occuring in the Presidential race -
this makes me lose sleep a lot more than wringing my hands about the world's poor. There were always poor people, there always will be and the poor in this country have it far better than most if not all places in the world.
-
This is so Clinton. At the last minute just before the election announce a NEW stand on an issue as though he was for it all along and take credit for it and also take away a wedge issue from his opponent. JDN will of course scream with delight the brilliance of his politics, the independents won't have a clue and it will possibly work to help save his behind next November:
****Obama to pitch lower corporate tax
He'll likely propose a rate closer to an average seen in peer nations
Below:
+-WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama will call for cutting the top 35 percent corporate tax rate as early as this month, according to two sources close to the administration.
The president is likely to propose a rate closer to an average of that seen in peer nations, the sources said.
This would jibe with remarks made last year by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who suggested the United States should be moving to a rate more in line with its major trading partners in the high 20-percent range.
Obama outlined tax measures - including closing tax loopholes for companies that move facilities and jobs overseas - in his State of the Union speech in January, and will lay out principles for revamping corporate taxes by the end of February, a senior administration official said.
"We will talk more before the end of the month on what corporate tax reform would look like," the official said on Friday, confirming that it would include a call for "lower rates."
Facing a potentially tough presidential re-election challenge this November, Obama will propose cutting the rate following the release of his 2013 budget plan on Monday, February 13, according to the sources, who were not authorized to speak on the record.
While he spent a big part of his January speech to Congress criticizing businesses for moving jobs overseas, Obama said that "companies that choose to stay in America get hit with one of the highest tax rates in the world."
Only Japan has a steeper corporate tax rate than the United States among industrialized countries, though other countries make up the revenue with a value-added tax, he said. The United States does not have a VAT.
An overhaul of the corporate tax system is extremely unlikely in an election year, but the president's proposal could be an olive branch to the business community to show that he agrees with them on one key aspect of tax reform.
"I think what he will end up doing is saying, 'For years folks have been asking for a lower corporate rate, and here it is - what do you think?,'" said Jared Bernstein, a former economic advisor to Vice President Joe Biden.
Advertise | AdChoicesObama's Treasury Department was close to releasing a revamp of corporate taxes last year, but pulled back after business opposition, according to a former official.
Republican Rep. Dave Camp, the chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives' tax-law writing Ways and Means committee, has set a goal of trimming the top 35 percent corporate rate to 25 percent.
Gene Sperling, director of Obama's National Economic Council, has told reporters that the president will be laying out "principles" for corporate tax reform close to the budget release.
Obama's corporate plan will also include a new minimum tax on foreign profits earned in low tax countries - an unpopular idea in the corporate community.****
-
After pushing class warfare, this reeks of desperation, not Machiavellian triangulation.
-
Fear and greed are what rule the stock market, why should it be any different in politics.
BTW, in a similar vein to what we see here with the change on the corporate tax rate, I think the "accord" signed with the 5 big banks the other days over mortgages, will play very well politically.
-
Fear and greed are what rule the stock market, why should it be any different in politics.
BTW, in a similar vein to what we see here with the change on the corporate tax rate, I think the "accord" signed with the 5 big banks the other days over mortgages, will play very well politically.
I don't. Like many initiatives from this administration it sounds good in theory but is filled with unintended consequences that will go very wrong. Almost like the president had no real world experience and was an affirmative action empty suit.
What you will see is the banks become more aggressive in forclosures and a system still filled with fraud and uncertanty with the expected negative consequences.
-
There are parts of this speech that show me that he gets it, looks like a President and sounds Reagan-like themes. I like the part where he seems to know where the greatness in this country came from and where it will need to come from again. There are also times I think where conservatives sense inauthenticity. All he can do now about that is move forward everyday with clarity and consistency. These positions are now on tape. He doesn't need to shift away from conservatism or move to the center, he needs to sell conservatism, make the hard choices of governing within old fashioned constitutional limits.
One point about his background as largely an outsider, just a one term governor, is that he does lack some experience in the political game, for better and worse. He makes political mis-steps, but so does the President. Also note that his Republican competitors lack executive experience. He makes a good point about how as chief executive in success you share and spread out the credit, and in failure you take responsibility. Obama had no executive experience and sees it differently; governing is a game of always trying to gain personal political advantage. The speech:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/02/10/mitt_romney_i_am_severely_conservative.html
Also his running mate Sen. Marco Rubio at CPAC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEdyViVg1i4&feature=related
He starts a little off the cuff and speaks without a teleprompter, but when he gets going he is clear and passionate. WATCH IT ALL! He said he did not want to be Pres or Vice Pres, not ready yet. By summer he will get it that he cannot save the country in time as 1 of a hundred in the senate waiting until his seniority builds up. If asked, I think he will serve. He is not afraid of debating taking on the President and he is not not likely afraid of debating Joe Biden over the direction of the country, lol. This painful process could actually have a happy ending if these two people could step forward and simply do what they are saying.
-
The URL for Romney gives me John Lennon doing Imagine :?
-
Post updated, sorry.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/02/10/mitt_romney_i_am_severely_conservative.html
There are other URLs in my computer that could have been worse...
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2099957/Video-proof-Libyas-freedom-fighters-turned-brutal-torturers.html
Caught on video: The horrifying proof that Libya's freedom fighters have turned into brutal torturers
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2099957/Video-proof-Libyas-freedom-fighters-turned-brutal-torturers.html
Arab Spring and Recovery Summer!
-
Ummm , , , GM , , , luv ya man, but please work on your thread selection skills a bit :-D The general prinicple is to choose the thread that is most specific. What you posted clearly belongs in the Libya thread. Thank you.
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XW0JTcYeKXg[/youtube]
Colbert keeps it real.
-
Ummm , , , GM , , , luv ya man, but please work on your thread selection skills a bit :-D The general prinicple is to choose the thread that is most specific. What you posted clearly belongs in the Libya thread. Thank you.
Well, I'd point out that some have been trying to push Obozo as the "foreign policy president". Just wait until his epic failures in that area really begin to bear poison fruit....
-
Actually, from the capture of of bin laden. to the closing of the wars, our good relations with Europe, the overall success of the Arab Spring to promote democracy, etc. Obama is and rightfully so "The Foreign Policy President". He has done a surprisingly good job without any experience. Backed up by I might point out his brilliant Secretary of State. :-)
Besides, do you expect him to run on his fantastic domestic economic policy? :wink:
And if Romney keeps shooting himself in the foot (or other Republicans keep shooting it), I expect to see Obama for 4 more years! :-)
-
Actually, from the capture of of bin laden. to the closing of the wars, our good relations with Europe, the overall success of the Arab Spring to promote democracy, etc. Obama is and rightfully so "The Foreign Policy President". He has done a surprisingly good job without any experience. Backed up by I might point out his brilliant Secretary of State. :-)
Besides, do you expect him to run on his fantastic domestic economic policy? :wink:
And if Romney keeps shooting himself in the foot (or other Republicans keep shooting it), I expect to see Obama for 4 more years! :-)
Are you high? Or even dumber than usual?
-
:-D
GM; I like you but gotta lighten up. :-) And maybe open your mind a little......
While you may not agree, most Americans (see polls) are grateful and support Obama's foreign policy success. It's not perfect by any means, but overall he get's a B+ A-
And, most are very surprised, on both sides, but agree, regardless of your view of the Clinton's that Hillary has done an excellent job as Secretary of State.
As for Obama running on his "fantastic economic policy" did you see my wink? Obviously that is Obama's weakness. However,
Romney is NOT impressive. Sorry. If you wanted a moderate with class, my boy Huntsman was far better. Or if you want a smart fire breathing conservative who often made good sense, then Gingrich is your man. And the Republicans are dragging out out this dirty fight; the only one who wins is Obama on the sidelines.
Recent polls (as Doug has pointed out, I admit they are not worth much at this point) has Obama beating Romney.
So yeah, maybe you will see Obama for four more years. :-)
-
"Actually, from the capture of of bin laden"
It appears you don't know what the word "capture" means.
'Cheney's assassination squad' just killed bin Laden
Mark Hemingway
It's been reported that bin Laden was killed by SEAL Team Six, officially known as Naval Special Warfare Development Group or DevGru. Marc Ambinder has a good report that fills in some of the particulars:
DevGru belongs to the Joint Special Operations Command, an extraordinary and unusual collection of classified standing task forces and special-missions units. They report to the president and operate worldwide based on the legal (or extra-legal) premises of classified presidential directives. Though the general public knows about the special SEALs and their brothers in Delta Force, most JSOC missions never leak. We only hear about JSOC when something goes bad (a British aid worker is accidentally killed) or when something really big happens (a merchant marine captain is rescued at sea), and even then, the military remains especially sensitive about their existence. Several dozen JSOC operatives have died in Pakistan over the past several years. Their names are released by the Defense Department in the usual manner, but with a cover story -- generally, they were killed in training accidents in eastern Afghanistan. That?s the code.
Under Bush, JSOC was routinely smeared by the left and placed at the center of many Bush/Cheney conspiracy theories. Specifically, New Yorker reporter Seymour Hersh alleged it was Dick Cheney's personal assassination squad:
"After 9/11, I haven't written about this yet, but the Central Intelligence Agency was very deeply involved in domestic activities against people they thought to be enemies of the state. Without any legal authority for it. They haven't been called on it yet."
Hersh then went on to describe a second area of extra-legal operations: the Joint Special Operations Command. "It is a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently," he explained. "They do not report to anybody, except in the Bush-Cheney days, they reported directly to the Cheney office. ... Congress has no oversight of it."
"It's an executive assassination ring essentially, and it's been going on and on and on," Hersh stated. "Under President Bush's authority, they've been going into countries, not talking to the ambassador or the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving. That's been going on, in the name of all of us."
Now that a Democratic President has employed JSOC to take out Osama bin Laden, will the fever swamps of the Left continue to assert that it's just a Bush/Cheney plot to run around unjustifiably killing people?
-
"to the
closing losing of the wars"
Fixed it for you.
-
"our good relations with Europe"
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,788807,00.html
US President Obama has given the Europeans a harsh lecture on the dangers of their ongoing debt crisis. Offended by the unsolicited advice, Europeans have suggested the US get its own house in order first. Obama's remarks were "arrogant" and "absurd," German commentators say on Wednesday.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/8004129/Carla-Brunis-rivalry-with-Michelle-Obama-has-damaged-US-relations-with-France.html
Carla Bruni's rivalry with Michelle Obama has damaged US relations with France
French President Nicolas Sarkozy's wife Carla Bruni's alleged rivalry with Michelle Obama has strained relations between the French and US presidential couples.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100045186/even-london-cab-drivers-are-turning-on-barack-obama/
In a series of meetings with leading opinion formers in the UK, I barely heard a good word said about the president’s handling of relations with Britain or for that matter his presidency in general. In contrast, when he first entered the White House 17 months ago, impressions of Barack Obama across the Atlantic were overwhelmingly positive.
But the disillusionment with Obama extends far beyond the political and media elites. I was particularly taken aback on this trip by the level of animosity towards Obama’s leadership expressed by some London black cab drivers, who have also turned against the US president, especially over his handling of the BP issue. In numerous trips across central London I asked cabbies their opinion of the Obama presidency and in particular his handling of BP. Without fail, the views expressed of the president were overwhelmingly negative, and there was a strong belief among many drivers that Obama is anti-British.
I mention London cab drivers, not only because they are the best taxi drivers in the world by a mile, but also due to the fact they usually take a keen interest in politics and international affairs, and are often a good barometer of British public opinion. If Obama has lost the sympathies of the average London black cab driver, I would argue he has lost the support of the British people too.
Without a doubt, Barack Obama has a mounting image problem in the United Kingdom. Why does that matter? Because Britain is by far America’s most important ally, and the two nations are together leading a major war in Afghanistan. The president’s declining popularity across the Atlantic makes it significantly harder for Washington to advance US leadership on the world stage in conjunction with its allies.
-
"the overall success of the Arab Spring to promote democracy"
Oh, please do explain, this should be brilliant.....
-
Sorry, mistype on my part. bin Laden's dead not captured. But you knew that. Personally I'm happy he's dead; but I thought you would be too?
And guess who was President when he was killed? Not Cheney (oh he was never President), not Bush, he failed, not Biden (like Cheney he's not President either)
so I guess the answer is Obama. Who gets the credit? Obama.
As for Obama and the Topic; most Americans would give Obama a B+ or A- in foreign policy. Check it out...
But I'm surprised you are worried about "French President Nicolas Sarkozy's wife Carla Bruni's alleged rivalry with Michelle Obama has strained relations between the French and US presidential couples." :-)
That sounds pretty serious.
And "If Obama has lost the sympathies of the average London black cab driver, I would argue he has lost the support of the British people too."
That really sounds serious. :-o
Back to subject, I think you are just worried that Obama might be re-elected to another four years! :-D
-
Sorry, mistype on my part. bin Laden's dead not captured. But you knew that. Personally I'm happy he's dead; but I thought you would be too?
And guess who was President when he was killed? Not Cheney (oh he was never President), not Bush, he failed, not Biden (like Cheney he's not President either)
so I guess the answer is Obama. Who gets the credit? Obama.
**Obama's only success was done by following Bush's lead, using the tools and intelligence Bush left him. Obama and Biden then desperate for good press leaked the SEAL info to the press, setting up SEALs for the revenge killings in A-stan by the ISI.
As for Obama and the Topic; most Americans would give Obama a B+ or A- in foreign policy. Check it out...
**Then they are as ignorant and stupid as you are.
But I'm surprised you are worried about "French President Nicolas Sarkozy's wife Carla Bruni's alleged rivalry with Michelle Obama has strained relations between the French and US presidential couples." :-)
**I'm not worried, just pointing out how Obozo damaged relations after gliding in on glowing expectations.
That sounds pretty serious.
And "If Obama has lost the sympathies of the average London black cab driver, I would argue he has lost the support of the British people too."
That really sounds serious. :-o
Back to subject, I think you are just worried that Obama might be re-elected to another four years! :-D
**I think you are even more worried how your worldview is being destroyed by the real world consequences of your policies being implimented.
-
Actually, I'm not worried about Obama's foreign policy.
I really don't care a whole lot what happens in the middle east except for the fact that we need oil. That said, in general I support freely elected democracies, whether they support us or not, versus dictatorships.
I'm glad bin Laden's dead.
I'm glad we are out of Iraq (it should have happened a long time ago) and i'm glad we are withdrawing from Afghanistan; we never should have gotten involved. And frankly, as CCP said,
I really don't care what happens after we leave. We gave them every chance, but they've been killing themselves for a long time. We've given Libyan's and others a chance for democracy too; if they
don't run with it, then I have no guilt.
We need to reduce our military thereby saving money. And stop being the world's policeman.
Etc. Etc. Etc.
Frankly, if the issue was only Obama's foreign policy, he would be a shoo in for re-election.
-
"I really don't care a whole lot what happens in the middle east except for the fact that we need oil."
Good thing we are drilling for it here and getting it from Canada, right?
-
"i'm glad we are withdrawing from Afghanistan; we never should have gotten involved"
Perhaps a harshly worded letter after 9/11?
-
"We need to reduce our military thereby saving money. And stop being the world's policeman."
Like defending Japan? Isolationism has it's own costs, and there is never a power vacuum. If the US isn't walking the global beat, you'll see the various thugs taking over their areas of influence, and the end result won't be pretty. Especially with unchecked global nuclear proliferation.
-
Morris: Obama seeks to replace pro-choice with pro-contraception
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/contraception-obamas-real-motivation-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/
-
I like Morris but and have looked forward to his insights. Unfortunately, I am learning he is just preaching to the Right's choir.
I don't think he has any real insight to independents who seem to bend with the wind.
Brock's team knows this.
That is why they are unleashing this total propaganda war.
Independents will believe whatever they hear @ the moment.
They think the economy is doing better - right or wrong - they vote for Brock.
The market goes up they vote for Brock.
I know, the Repubs are too busy fighting each other and will also get their media machine rolling once we get the nominee.
-
By ALICIA MUNDY and ALEXANDRA BERZON
Billionaire Sheldon Adelson, by far the biggest financial backer of Newt Gingrich's presidential bid, is preparing to open his wallet again. But this time, the casino magnate appears to have more than one agenda.
Sheldon Adelson, shown last year, is ready to use his cash to push Rick Santorum from his position atop the latest national polls.
In a bit of political chess, Mr. Adelson is ready to not only directly support the former House speaker in the Republican primary, but to use his cash to push Rick Santorum from his position atop the latest national polls, according to people who have discussed the matter with Mr. Adelson.
If Mr. Gingrich could afford to continue campaigning, one of those people said, he might be able to draw off conservative and evangelical voters from Mr. Santorum, improving the chances of Mitt Romney, who Mr. Adelson believes has a better chance to win November's general election.
"Sheldon says we all have to keep our eyes on the goal here—beating Obama," said a person who talked with Mr. Adelson.
According to the people who have discussed the matter, Mr. Adelson could give an additional $10 million or more to an independent group supporting Mr. Gingrich before Super Tuesday, March 6, a likely pivotal day when 10 states go to the polls. The Adelson family has already given $11 million to support Mr. Gingrich since December.
Mr. Adelson has repeatedly declined to comment on his donations. He "holds his cards tight to the chest because this has been such a seesaw primary you don't know where it's going to go," said Andy Abboud, vice president for government relations at Las Vegas Sands Corp., Mr. Adelson's company.
Mr. Adelson also isn't likely to announce his decision, Mr. Abboud said, because the casino executive "does not want his opinions to be part of that process…because it's a distraction."
The Santorum campaign didn't respond to requests for comment.
Mr. Adelson's money has kept Mr. Gingrich's cash-starved campaign afloat and allowed the candidate to continue his fight as a top alternative to Mr. Romney, a former Massachusetts governor. But after several losses in recent weeks and no fresh funding from Mr. Adelson, Mr. Gingrich has had to spend time seeking cash from donors.
•
His spokesman said Tuesday that Mr. Gingrich's fund-raising efforts this week have been "excellent."
A Republican, Mr. Adelson is one of the 10 wealthiest Americans, according to Forbes magazine, with a net worth of $21 billion. He has long been a proponent of Israel and its current conservative government, a position that Mr. Gingrich shares. Mr. Adelson owns a conservative newspaper in Israel.
During the 2008 election, Mr. Adelson gave millions to conservative U.S. candidates and causes, much of it through a group he helped establish called Freedom's Watch, according to people affiliated with the effort. He has given more than $100 million to a charity that pays for young Jewish people to visit Israel.
New campaign-finance rules that are kicking in for the first time in this election have made it even easier for individuals to donate large sums to help candidates. That has given donors a new, powerful arena to argue for their political preferences.
Mr. Adelson doesn't oppose Mr. Santorum, but he doesn't share the former Pennsylvania senator's socially conservative positions, including his strong antiabortion views, associates said. Mr. Santorum was one of only two Republicans who didn't meet with Mr. Adelson in October around the time of a candidates' debate in Las Vegas, according to a person familiar with the matter.
Though he isn't yet switching allegiance, Mr. Adelson is thought to be comfortable with Mr. Romney as the ultimate nominee, friends said. The two men met before the Feb. 4 Nevada Republican caucuses, according to a person familiar with the matter. That person described the meeting as a "warm" one.
"They talked about the issues in the campaign and the importance of the campaign," this person said.
After Mr. Romney's victory in the Nevada caucuses, several Republicans called Mr. Adelson to ask him to stop funding Mr. Gingrich, according to friends.
Las Vegas Sands spokesman Ron Reese said Mr. Adelson declined to comment on "specific private conversations."
-
Interesting post Crafty.
Readers know I have been disappointed to say the least over the years seeing so many fellow Jews supporting liberal political causes.
I had never heard of billionaire Adelson until I read about his several million donation to Newt. I am glad the right appears to have an answer to Soros et al. (and Jewish :-D)
I am not sure why Shledon suddenly feels comfortable with Mitt when indeed he was not only weeks ago when he shelled out big money (not for him) for Newt.
FWIW (very little except to make conversation) I like Santorum. I am not thrilled by Mitt. Obviously many Republicans feel the same way. Yet I still conclude Mitt is the stronger candidate for Obama.
Probably there is still time to give Santorum one more shot at why he is Presidential and should be the nominee.
Romney is like Campbell's chicken soup. Basically adequate but just doesn't make my mouth water. Hopefully with the right management and a real defined appealing campaign message this will be enough.
If not, to borrow Ross Perot's famous phrase, "we will be in [deeper] deep doodoo".
BTW, I wonder what happended to him. Is he still alive?
-
I'll note that Adelson hosts wounded warriors at his casinos, all out of his own pocket.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot
-
Newt Gingrich at least is the kind of conservative that conservatives can rely upon to settle their scores for them, especially when that means getting off a bon mot at the expense of the media. Rick Santorum is at least an anti-Mitt who is also an anti-Newt—walking the talk when it comes to family.
Yet what conservatives like least about Mitt Romney—aka Mr. Calculation—is exactly the quality paid off in his swift and effective response to the rise of Newt Gingrich in Florida. It's not just that Mitt stuck the knife in; he did it when necessary, coolly, and without malice. Yes, Mr. Romney still needs a big idea or two, but he'll always be the get-it-done candidate.
But get what done? Off to the side persists the debate about his business career and his taxes, and meanwhile President Obama just put taxes at the center of the 2012 election with his new campaign document, er, budget that fleshes out his premise that making the rich "pay their fair share" is the solution to all America's problems.
Why not pick up this gauntlet? Mr. Romney might give his candidacy some life with a straightforward promise: Tax reform will deliver prosperity, and I will deliver tax reform. His campaign would finally have a theme for its pudding. It would also have the inestimable additional benefit of challenging the central myth of Mr. Obama's political persona.
Let us quickly acknowledge that the phrase "dishonest political rhetoric" is often a case of using three words where two will do. Mr. Obama blazes no trails in this regard. You might even say he and Mr. Romney deserve each other in the fall, since both are—and we mean this in the most respectful way—utter political fakers. But nonetheless it's past time that somebody challenged Mr. Obama on the claim, so central to his presidential appeal four years ago, that he is a pure soul who transcends partisanship.
Enlarge Image
CloseGetty Images
Rick Santorum (left), MItt Romney and Newt Gingrich at a Republican presidential debate in Tampa, Fla., Jan. 23
.Bipartisan is when the parties act on matters on which there is agreement. Bipartisan leadership is when a president challenges his opposition to vote for things it claims to support. There is no clearer case than tax reform, which was endorsed by Mr. Obama's fiscal commission, by Rep. Paul Ryan, by countless other Republicans in the Reagan mold, by economists of every complexion.
Mr. Obama himself, when exhibiting his post-partisan reasonableness for the press, pays lip service to a flatter, less-distorting tax code. He did so again this week, even as he proposed to festoon the tax code with more distortions.
A pro-growth tax reform enacted a year or two ago, we're convinced, would have given employers and investors a badly needed jolt of confidence and voters the pleasure of seeing that their country can govern itself successfully. It would have helped repair the nation's strained finances. It would have coaxed Americans to begin the necessary job of saving and budgeting for their own retirement and health care. It would have done nothing to prejudice Mr. Obama's expansionist social welfare agenda—unless, that is, Mr. Obama believes recovery itself would have been prejudicial to his agenda (perhaps a subject for Tim Geithner's memoirs).
Mr. Obama's insincerity on tax reform has been a giant missed opportunity. Mr. Romney is the get-it-done candidate. He could not only point to Mr. Obama's failure to act, but explain why—because it would conflict with the campaign of class resentment that he and his surrogates are so busy denying they intend to run on in the fall.
Mr. Romney needs to do something. Mr. Santorum's rise is a telling rebuke—a "conservative" who hails from a blue state and yet who succeeded because he found a natural way to bridge the gap, thanks to his affiliation with unions and hard-hat workers. Yes, his resulting tax and subsidy prescriptions may be unwise, but at least he's made his way without repeatedly flipping positions on fundamental issues.
Mr. Romney has been as mealy-mouthed, in his own way, as Mr. Obama on taxes, favoring a pro-growth tax code for everybody but "the rich." Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney could both do themselves a favor, talking honestly for a change about what they believe, if they turned the campaign into a debate about whether we want a tax code geared toward redistribution or toward growth.
For that matter, all Republicans in the race, including Mr. Santorum, could learn from Ronald Reagan, whose name they constantly invoke. In a parting address to his White House staff on Dec. 13, 1988, Reagan touched all the conservative hot buttons but placed instructively narrow brackets on his own administration's contributions, saying: "As a first step, we said that the way to restore vitality to the economy was to cut marginal tax rates and cut needless regulations."
This is wisdom. Americans know the right way to live and don't need either party's social engineering (to borrow a phrase from Newt Gingrich). What they need is more prosperity, to enable them to live the lives they aspire to.
-
Ryan would make a GREAT VP candidate. His ability to wonk the numbers in an easy to understand way is outstanding and the need for this ability a sine qua non to defeating Obama.
==============
By Damian Paletta
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) isn’t ruling out joining the eventual Republican presidential candidate’s ticket as vice president.
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) on Feb. 7, 2012, after a Republican strategy meeting on Capitol Hill. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite) “I have no clue,” he said Thursday during a wide ranging breakfast meeting with reporters hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. “I mean…that’s somebody else’s decision. That’s a long time from now. It’s kind of like a bolt of lightning striking you. So what’s the point in thinking about that? I’ve got a lot to do right now, I’m really busy. …I’d cross that bridge when I got to it if it ever came.”
Here are some other excerpts from the breakfast:
On President Barack Obama’s 2013 budget proposal:
“It’s just extremely disappointing, I would simply say. Very frustrating as well, because the biggest challenge facing this country is a fiscal challenge which affects our economy. This is the president’s fourth budget, and the fourth time he has decided to just duck the issues, the big issues of the day…To me it’s just a moral failing. It’s an obligation that needs to be met.”
On the House GOP’s plan last year to overhaul Medicare:
“We put out our plan, very specific, and you know, some people would say we led with our chin, we led with ideas to fix this problem… Medicare is the issue. this is the big budget issue… We have a lot of new people (among House Republicans), but they now have year under their belts, doing townhall meetings, going to senior centers, talking about this issue.
He said Republicans would be playing offense on Medicare this year:
“If you just play defense or ignore this, they are going to define this, they [Democrats] are going to demagogue you. And they’ll get away with it. And they’ll scare seniors.”
On the November election:
“We owe the country a very clear choice. The gridlock is as bad as it’s ever been. We need the American people to break it and what we owe them is if we don’t like the direction the president has gone, which we don’t, we owe them an alternative. We owe them an articulate vision…We just can’t have an ordinary election where it’s a personality contest and then you win by default and you don’t have a mandate. We need to have an election with a mandate so we can actually fix these problems.”
On the government safety net:
“This system we have of freedom and free enterprise and limited government has done more to help the poor than any other system has ever done. It needs patching, it needs improving. Just to give you a sense of my mindset here… I don’t think of people in classes. We left class-based societies to create this country. You know, when I was flipping burgers at McDonalds when I was 16, or as a parks runner or waiting tables, I never thought of myself in some class, I just thought of myself in a temporary station in life where I was working to better my condition, to improve my life, to meet my aspirations and my goals. To me the focus has to be on upward mobility, on removing the barriers that makes it harder for people to rise.”
What will happen during the lame duck session of Congress:
“It depends on who wins [the November elections] I really believe that. So look at all the things you’ve got. You’ve got all the tax policies [expiring]. You’ve got the sequester coming Jan. 2. The debt [limit] thing is just an unknown…My guess is, depending on who wins will determine what lame duck activities occur. In my perfect world view [Republicans win the House, Senate, and White House]…we will be putting our governing coalition together and we will buy time. We will extend things for a period of time enough to put in place permanent replacements, permanent fixes to fix these things. If it’s divided, and obviously you have this president, I don’t know. I don’t know.”
On presidential hopeful Mitt Romney:
Mr. Ryan said Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney needed to speak more about tax reform, but he said “he is stepping into that groove. I think he is getting into that mode of doing that.”
On taxes:
“I think tax reform is in play. The whole tax code blows up at the end of this year.”
-
By Sara Murray and Danny Yadron
It’s shaping up to be a lonely night in Georgia next month.
Republican presidential candidates, from left, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Rep. Ron Paul (R., Texas) look toward moderator Wolf Blitzer of CNN as they participate in the Republican presidential candidates debate in Jacksonville, Fla., Jan. 26, 2012. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul dropped out of the GOP candidates’ debate March 1 in Atlanta, robbing former House Speaker Newt Gingrich of his chance to dominate the stage in his former stomping grounds days ahead of Super Tuesday.
CNN, which is hosting the debate, said it will be canceled. “Without full participation of all four candidates, CNN will not move forward with the Super Tuesday debate,” the cable network said in a statement.
The mass dropout strips Mr. Gingrich of his preferred mode of campaigning: Slamming his opponents – and the media – on the debate stage.
The Republican debates have taken on outsized influence this year. They’ve been watched by millions and have repeated caused shifts in the polls, contributing to an already volatile GOP primary.
“If they won’t do their job as a candidate, how can we expect them to do their job as president?” said Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond.
Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul noted there have been 20 debates, including eight hosted by CNN.
“Gov. Romney will be spending a lot of time campaigning in Georgia and Ohio ahead of Super Tuesday,” Ms. Saul said in a statement. “With eight other states voting on March 6th, we will be campaigning in other parts of the country and unable to schedule the CNN Georgia debate.”
Hogan Gidley, spokesman for Mr. Santorum’s campaign, said his candidate has no plans to participate either.
“We got to campaign, man,” Mr. Gidley said. “At some point we have to get out shake hands and get some votes.”
Texas Rep. Paul is out as well. “He’s not going, either,” said spokesman Gary Howard.
The candidates are still scheduled to debate in Mesa, Ariz., on Feb. 22, which is also hosted by CNN.
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/obama-is-romneys-secret-weapon-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/
-
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/washington-secrets/2012/02/michelles-ski-trip-marks-16-obama-vacations/294051
YOU WOULD, WOULDN’T YOU? “You’d think with her husband’s reelection on the line, Michelle Obama would not go on another vacation. She must really need to get out of the White House. It looks awful for the campaign, which attempts to radiate concern for the economically downtrodden, to have her romping on another luxurious vacation. Aspen, for skiing, after Christmas in Hawaii, and — a while back — summer on Martha’s Vineyard. These selections couldn’t be more precisely chosen to inspire envy. You’d think they’d rein her in… or at least moderate the optics. What’s going on? Are they super-confident of victory in November? Counting on our short memories? Or is getting Michelle away from the White House a big priority?”
Posted at 10:28 am by Glenn Reynolds
-
Gee, give the woman a break; who cares....
Copied from you posted article;
"According to presidential watcher Mark Knoller of CBS, George W. Bush, at this time of his presidency, had made 30 visits to his Texas ranch spanning all or part of 220 days. The Obama’s vacation day count is less than half of that."
-
Gee, give the woman a break; who cares....
Copied from you posted article;
"According to presidential watcher Mark Knoller of CBS, George W. Bush, at this time of his presidency, had made 30 visits to his Texas ranch spanning all or part of 220 days. The Obama’s vacation day count is less than half of that."
Where he would clear brush on his ranch, unlike Queen Michelle's high dollar getaways.
-
Obama is leading in the individual matchups at this point in spite of presiding over a miserable economic 'recovery', therefore he will win in November; that is the pessimism I have been hearing. Polls from other Presidential years:
Gallup Jan 1980 Carter 63%, Reagan 32%
Dukakis up by 17% over George H.W. Bush, July and August 1988
-
Doug,
Good point. No need to panic as it is way too early. The Repubs have not consolidated and are not focused on Obama and the MSM is having a great time yucking up their attacking each other.
When reporters go out on the street and ask pedestrian basic questions about politics, the direction of the country, history, etc. It is amazing how little people know. It seems most people are not paying attention or thinking beyond the headlines if even that.
I guess that is one reason why it is so easy to bribe people for votes and blame the "rich".
Gallup says the unempolyment rate is 9% - watch for all sorts of explanations why this is wrong for the OBama outlets, why their calculations are misleading and for the WH to dispute the numbers, and finally "it would be far worse without Obama". Anything but the truth and accepting any responsibility.
-
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/20/some-republicans-whisper-about-a-plan-b/
Mesa, Arizona (CNN) - In a whispering campaign not ready to go public, some senior Republicans are so anxious about the state of the GOP race they are actually considering the unheard of: a scenario that would lead to another candidate entering the Republican primary race, and potentially an open convention.
They are not unhappy enough, however, to go on the record calling for another candidate to enter the fray. In fact, when pressed, many Republicans say the chatter about another candidate is inevitable in this long and inconclusive primary process. They also say it's just not likely to happen.
Why?
"If you bring somebody new into the race, that person will lose," said a senior GOP strategist who admits a bias towards Romney. "The party - especially conservatives - will not respond to somebody who has not gone through the process."
That being said, it's clear Rick Santorum's recent rise in the polls - and what some see as his electability problems - has struck a nerve with Republicans.
"There is something called agenda control," said one unaffiliated GOP strategist. "Santorum does not have it. Instead of talking about the economy, he's been going down rabbit holes for the last four or five days."
Santorum's emphasis on cultural issues may intensify his conservative and evangelical support and help him win the nomination or at least differentiate himself from Newt Gingrich. The fear is he may also be narrowing his support in a general election population.
And Santorum's surging candidacy is not the only concern for senior Republicans. Mitt Romney's inability to close the deal has also raised eyebrows - and angst. And the anxiety will only intensify should Romney lose his home state of Michigan in the primary on February 28, several senior Republicans told CNN.
"Michigan is the whole shooting match," said one senior GOP strategist not aligned with a campaign. Says another: "If Romney loses Michigan, all hell breaks loose."
Given that real possibility, one knowledgeable GOP source confirms that some Republicans are circulating the deadlines and the basic math that would allow another candidate to get into the nomination fight and take it all the way to the convention. More than a half dozen states' filing deadlines have yet to pass. A majority of the delegates to the national convention are still up for grabs. One more factor to be considered: many states are choosing their delegates proportionally, which makes it easier for a candidate pick up delegates without outright winning a state.
Politico first reported the existence of a document circulating among Republicans.
Santorum's highlighting of cultural issues could play well for him in the short-term. But the worry among Republicans is that his views will raise the question of his electability. "After a while, Republican voters will start asking whether this is the guy to take on Obama," says one GOP strategist. In addition to the fear of a potential loss to Obama, some Republicans worry about losing the House of Representatives if Santorum were at the top of the ticket.
“There is no faith he would bring independent or moderate voters. If he does well on Super Tuesday you’ll have serious people talking about convention strategies etc,” one Republican congressional leadership aide told CNN Senior Congressional Correspondent Dana Bash.
"Santorum would so alienate voters, especially women…he would be lucky to carry a dozen states," one senior Republican told CNN, referring to Santorum's disapproval of pre-natal screening.
Santorum's campaign disagrees. It considers him a strong social conservative who is the best equipped to take on President Obama on the economic issues – -particularly in the rustbelt states. "He won in Pennsylvania, which has both Democrats and women the last time I checked," says a senior Santorum adviser, who calls his boss a "full spectrum conservative."
One of the Republicans who has seen the memo said "no one is hoping that this will come to play," regarding a new candidate entering the fray. Yet some Republican partisans feel they need to make some contingency plans depending on the outcome in coming primaries. Other veteran Republicans contacted by CNN dismissed any possibility of another candidate entering the contest at this date.
There are no names of possible candidates mentioned in the memo. Who would the Republicans possibly turn to? The usual suspects include Sarah Palin, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie or Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. They could still enter the race although they all have repeatedly said they will not mount a campaign despite new inquiries by some in the party.
"I really would not be interested," Daniels told CNN affiliate WISH Monday. "If we get to that point, I would be interested in finding someone who can present a really credible and winning alternative to where the nation is going right now. I still think it's very unlikely. These things have a way of resolving themselves."
For its part the Republican National Committee is downplaying the prospects of another contender entering the fray.
“We are four games into what is a 54 game league and people are trying to pick the equivalent of a super bowl or a world series. We have 4 great candidates. I’m confident one of them will be our nominee and will go on to be successful in November,” RNC Spokesman Sean Spicer said.
-
"Michigan is the whole shooting match," said one senior GOP strategist not aligned with a campaign. Says another: "If Romney loses Michigan, all hell breaks loose."
If Santorum wins, he is the sustained frontrunner; he is the already the leader at this point. Feb 28 is the turning point either way for Romney. Michigan is a primary not a caucus state and the other side is uncontested so anyone eligible to vote and willing to show up and say they are Republican will get a ballot. In Feb 2000, moderates showed up for McCain.
Only one debate (tomorrow, Mesa AZ, CNN) before the vote.
-
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/transcript-tonights-cnn-republican-debate-arizona_631777.html
I read the transcript this morning, did not see the debate. In general I would say each got to clarify his positions somewhat and no new ground was really broken. All 4 seem a little more cautious about practicing scorched earth politics as they each now trail the failed President in the polls. All 3 (except Ron Paul) seem to be in pretty close agreement over foreign policy.
The earmark discussion was interesting. When funds are not earmarked by congress all goes to the executive branch. The real question was how all these things get lumped on to other bills and how the line item veto that would solve this was struck down by the court.
----
Adding a comment, Santorum's defense of endorsing Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey was that Specter was chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and promised Santorum he would move the President's conservative Supreme Court picks through a 51-49 senate where the 51 included some very Democrat-like moderates.
Romney answered one charge against Romneycare from Santorum, that Santrum had endorsed him as a good conservative in 2008 - well after Romneycare.
-
I did watch it and thought Newt, returning to his pre-FL persona, did well, but his demogoging MR on Bain may well have done him in for good-- unless Addelson ponies up some seriously big bucks? Santorum would have done well to emphasize economics more. I suspect his way of making his social issues points is burning bridges with many independents and many women. MR is burning cash fast and heavily outspending his opposition is the MO of his campaign. RP is now #2 in delegates?
I saw a poll which had each of the 4 about 10 points down against His Glibness.
This begins to look like looking up to see an atom bomb falling. You know its falling, you just don't have enough time to get out of its way , , ,
-
Crafty,
Take heart from this poll just off drudge. Like DMG pointed out, its way to early:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/212225-gallup-romney-leads-obama-by-four-points
-
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203918304577239092290860440.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Romney's Tax Reboot
His 20% marginal rate cut changes the tax reform debate.
One oddity of this Republican Presidential primary season is that front-runner Mitt Romney has had by far the least inspiring tax plan. That changed yesterday when the former Massachusetts Governor took a dive into the deep end of the tax reform debate with a proposal that includes a 20% across-the-board cut in income tax rates. Now we're getting somewhere.
The rate cut follows the Reagan formula of applying to anyone who pays income taxes. The current 35% tax rate (set to rise to 41% in 2013 including deduction and exemption phase-outs) would fall to 28%, the 33% rate to 26.4%, the 28% rate to 22.4%, the 25% rate to 20%, the 15% rate to 12%, and the 10% rate to 8%.
***
As an economic matter, this is the most effective kind of tax cut because it applies at the margin, meaning the next dollar of income earned. A mountain of economic research shows that a marginal-rate cut does far more than tax holidays or targeted tax credits to change the incentives to invest and hire workers, and thus provides the most economic lift.
The proposal from Mitt Romney, above, provides a tax contrast with Rick Santorum.
This is especially true because the vast majority of businesses in America today aren't corporations. They're sole proprietorships, partnerships or Subchapter S firms whose profits are "passed through," as the jargon goes, to the owners and are taxed at the individual rate. These noncorporate firms account for over half of all business income, according to IRS data. By lowering their taxes and making the rates permanent, Mr. Romney's plan would do much to make the U.S. more job and investment friendly.
By contrast, President Obama's proposal yesterday (see below) to cut the corporate rate to 28% from 35% wouldn't apply to this "pass-through" business income. It would thus favor big corporations at the expense of smaller businesses that file as individuals and would see their marginal rate rise to 41% or more under Mr. Obama's plan to raise individual tax rates.
Mr. Romney has already proposed a cut in the corporate tax rate to 25% from 35%, and by adding the cut in the business pass-through rate to 28% he is proposing the more ambitious and far more economically potent reform.
The Obama campaign will attack his plan as favoring the rich, but it would do so even if Mr. Romney proposed no tax cut. Now Mr. Romney will have a better response because in return for cutting rates he says he would also close loopholes and deductions that have become shelters from high tax rates.
Mr. Romney made the mistake yesterday of distinguishing between deductions for "middle-income families," which he said would be preserved, and for the "top 1%," which he said would be on the table. This sounds like a pollster's bad advice. It merely plays into Mr. Obama's class-war theme when Mr. Romney should be stressing growth. But at least Mr. Romney says all deductions would be on the reform table, including those for mortgage interest, state and local taxes and health care.
The Romney campaign is also shrewd to say it will assume some dynamic revenue feedback from his marginal-rate cuts. This does not mean that the tax cuts will entirely "pay for themselves" right away. It does mean that it can safely assume that his proposal would recapture about one-third of the revenue loss from the rate reductions through more investment and economic growth.
That's a defensible and conservative estimate based on historical experience with rate reductions. Tax revenues soared after the Reagan 1981 tax cuts (the Gipper cut rates across the board by 25%) and the Bush 2003 rate reductions. The 2003 investment tax cut was expected to lose revenue, but the gain in jobs and business activity produced $786 billion more in revenue from 2003-2007.
Related Video
Editorial board member Steve Moore breaks down Mitt Romney's and President Obama's tax plans.
Economists Greg Mankiw and Glenn Hubbard, who are both advising Mr. Romney, have done studies documenting the feedback effects of marginal-rate tax cuts. So has Harvard's Martin Feldstein, among others.
All of this should also help Mr. Romney politically, if he makes the case well and with confidence. Conservative voters who have wondered if he is one of them can now see a tangible proposal that will be a governing priority, not merely a pledge to fight for reform some day. It gives him something to fight for beyond his business biography.
The Romney proposal will also provide a tax contrast with Rick Santorum. The Pennsylvania Senator favors a top tax rate of 28% but he also wants to triple the child tax credit to $3,000. He'd have a hard time credibly doing both without blowing up the budget because the tax credit has almost no revenue feedback effect. It's a social gesture with little or no impact on economic growth.
Meanwhile, on corporate taxes, Mr. Romney's tax cut applies to all companies equally. Mr. Santorum would cut the rate in half for most companies, except manufacturers would pay 0%. This is a form of industrial policy that would have every company lobbying to qualify as a manufacturer and would defeat the tax neutrality that is a main goal of tax reform.
***
Now that he has the right policy, Mr. Romney's main challenge will be selling it without apology. He has resisted tax cuts for individuals lest he be criticized for helping the rich, and he sometimes sounds guilty about his own wealth. But voters will sense if Mr. Romney doesn't believe what he says or if he shrinks from making a forthright case for it.
The only way to defeat Mr. Obama's politics of envy is with the politics of growth and rising opportunity. Voters don't really care about a candidate's wealth as long as they conclude he has a plan to increase theirs.
-
"RP is now #2 in delegates?"
Bringing the bulk of those supporters to support the eventual nominee will be quite a challenge; some will never do it. I don't know if Ron Paul has endorsed any Republican candidates for the general election since Reagan.
RP is only growing stronger in his (anti-) foreign policy views. He talks about the number of US bases surrounding Iran, implying that their claim of needing the weapons for defense is real and saying that it is ridiculous for us to fear Iran having a few nukes. The Soviets had 30,000 of them - no problem (except that we were about one election from having to all learn Russian.) Paul is much more open to compromise on taxes and spending than foreign affairs.
Funny point in the debate transcript, the moderator asked the other 3 their view on Syria, then said (something like): moving on... Rep. Paul said - um, excuse me? Moderator says 'okay, quickly'. Paul said: I'll be quick - with a one minute response. Perhaps the first time the moderator ever agreed with the rest of us: RP, we already know, without asking, your view on intervention in Syria.
-
"With the Republican presidential nomination still up in the air, the possibility of a brokered convention is looking increasingly likely. Under the party’s rules, the delegates won by Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and the others in the primaries and caucuses are obligated to vote for their assigned candidate only on the first ballot. If no candidate wins the required number of votes, the delegates can throw their support to anyone. There’s speculation that party insiders, unhappy with the current field, might float the candidacy of someone not now in the race, like New Jersey Governor Chris Christie or Jeb Bush."
Even Thomas is being talked about....
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/26/clarence-thomas-is-a-long-shot-for-president-but-his-candidacy-makes-a-lot-of-sense.html
-
"Yes, it is hard to believe that Clarence Thomas would ever be the Republican nominee. Then again, most people thought an inexperienced African-American often mistaken for a Muslim could never defeat presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton, much less be elected president"
Yes but the huge difference one is a politician and the other has never run for office or given any indication he could have any talent to do that.
-
This, primarily, focuses on the GOP presidential hopefuls. It is a good discussion about the importance of the electoral organization, not just the "attractiveness" of a candidate.
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_99/Presidential-Primary-Has-GOP-Nervous-212616-1.html?ET=rollcall:e12301:80133681a:&st=email&pos=epol
-
Politico headlines Obama approval at 53% and kicking the behinds of all Republican comers.
Rasmussen on Drudge has hime losing to most Repubs and getting less than I think 45%.
I suspect Rasmussen is closer to the truth.
To me Brock is getting more and more desperate.
We heard "class" card now "race" card on Drudge. These are desperation moves IMO.
Anyone want to wager that once Romney gets the nomination and he gets to focus he will win in November?
I'll make that bet now. How about the cost of one postage stamp?
-
Rasmussen says that both Romney and Paul are leading Obama for the first time.
This is NOT what they report, however. What they report, below all the headlines, is that "The margin of sampling error for the full sample of 1,500 Likely Voters is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence." This means a statistical tie.
Politico headlines Obama approval at 53% and kicking the behinds of all Republican comers.
Rasmussen on Drudge has hime losing to most Repubs and getting less than I think 45%.
I suspect Rasmussen is closer to the truth.
To me Brock is getting more and more desperate.
We heard "class" card now "race" card on Drudge. These are desperation moves IMO.
Anyone want to wager that once Romney gets the nomination and he gets to focus he will win in November?
I'll make that bet now. How about the cost of one postage stamp?
-
what is your analysis of the politico report?
-
I would guess one of three things:
1. Question wording.
2. One of the two polls happens to be outside of the confidence interval.
3. The universe from which the respondents were selected. For example, I will admit to looking at either since reading it originally, I think the Politico poll was taken from battleground states, or at least it was advertised that way.
-
MICHIGAN DEMS POWER SANTORUM
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on February 29, 2012
Printer-Friendly Version
Did Romney eek out a victory in Michigan? No. He actually won by a hefty margin. Did he lose blue collar voters, showing weakness in that key sector? No. He carried them quite nicely.
So why don't the results reflect this? Because the primary was invaded by Democrats who largely voted for Santorum. Had the Democrats not done so, Romney would not have won a narrow 3 point victory in Michigan but would be celebrating a 7 point comfortable victory.
According to the Fox News exit polls, 9 percent of the 1.1 million votes cast in the primary were by Democrats who voted for Santorum over Romney by 53-18. 17 percent of these would-be spoilers voted for Paul and 3 percent backed Gingrich. The remainder voted for Obama or an uncommitted slate in the Democratic primary where they belonged.
Had these Democrats not cast ballots in the Republican primary for Santorum, Romney would have been hailed as the easy winner last night.
We have to give Romney credit for an overwhelming win in Arizona and a significant sized victory in Michigan in view of these results. But, more importantly, we have to ask why these Democrats voted for Santorum.
Some of these Santorum voters were possibly pro-life Democrats who crossed party lines because they feared that Romney might go back to his pro-choice ways. But this was a most unusually large Democratic turnout when their own party did not have a contest. (Witness that 90% of the Democrats who participated voted in the Republican primary).
The turnout was, undoubtedly, deliberately orchestrated by the unions and the formidable Michigan Democratic organization in the hopes of nominating Santorum and upending Romney in his home state. It takes quite a bit of effort to turn out 100,000 Democrats to vote in the Republican primary. Why were the Democrats so intent on beating Romney and helping Santorum?
Rightly or wrongly, they - and the Obama high command - must believe that Romney would be the tougher candidate to beat in November.
The opposition has clearly and unambiguously endorsed Santorum and indicated its fear of Romney.
Shouldn't we listen to them? Isn't it important to take account of which candidate the opposition fears? Do we want to give them a Republican nominee they feel they can defeat or one of whom they are afraid?
Obviously, the Democratic chieftains believe that Santorum's position on social issues will give Obama plenty to run against in a general election. His opposition to contraception (although he does not want to make it illegal) and to amniocentesis (which he says leads to abortion) would make inviting targets for negative ads in the general election.
The Democrats want to run against Santorum.
Who are we to second guess their judgment and give them what they want?
-
George Will on Drudge is predicting Mitt can't win. Repubs should be happy to win the house and try to get control of the Senate.
I predict otherwise. Obama will lose and Mitt will win.
-
George Will on Drudge is predicting Mitt can't win. Repubs should be happy to win the house and try to get control of the Senate. I predict otherwise. Obama will lose and Mitt will win.
Bill Krystal (famous people reading the forum) makes the point that this is the big one and we who care have to do everything we can to win it. Will apparently is saying if the presidential is lost at least go out and win congress. That is not enough.
2010 was quite an election for Republicans after the country got to know Obama, Pelosi and Obamacare. Now there are five parts remaining; all are must-wins to save the republic: 1) Must win the Presidency, as Krystal points out, can't repeal Obamacare and the rest without the White House. 2) Hold the House. 3) Win the Senate, but that still is not 60 votes 4) Win the public - and that means not for the day on Nov 6 2012, but with mandate and like-minded thinking with force and leverage to get things done and repealed through a roadblocked Senate. 5) The Supreme Court. As bigdog said (something like) it is not rule by the elites because we choose who nominates and confirms them. So choose wisely!
----------------
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/will-s-wrong_633080.html
Will’s Wrong
12:05 PM, Mar 2, 2012 • By WILLIAM KRISTOL
The estimable George Will is almost ready to hoist the white flag on the 2012 presidential election. Neither Mitt Romney nor Rick Santorum, he writes in his column for this Sunday (an advance copy of which was obtained by Politico), “seems likely to be elected.” And while conservatives, Will advises, should vote for whichever is nominated, there may well “come a point when … conservatives turn their energies to a goal much more attainable than . . . electing Romney or Santorum president. It is the goal of retaining control of the House and winning control of the Senate. . . . [C]onservatives this year should have as their primary goal making sure Republicans wield all the gavels in Congress in 2013.”
After all, Will argues, if Republicans control Congress, “their committee majorities will serve as fine-mesh filters, removing President Obama’s initiatives from the stream of legislation. . . . [A] re-elected Obama — a lame duck at noon next Jan. 20 — would have a substantially reduced capacity to do harm.”
Rarely has an intelligent man been so wrong.
By every objective measure, the GOP has a reasonable chance to defeat President Obama—probably between 1-in-3 and 1-in-2. Given this opportunity, it would be crazy not to do everything one can to effectuate an outcome so devoutly to be desired. This doesn't mean falling in line early behind an inevitable nominee or suppressing criticism of the likely nominee. If some of us have tried to expand the presidential field, it's because we've been unconvinced that the current field offers us the best hope of victory. If some of us have resisted Romney inevitability, or an early Romney coronation, it's because we don't think that Romney's nomination—or at least his easy and early nomination—would increase Republican chances of winning the presidency. Others differ on these questions. But whatever differences conservatives have in March about candidates, strategy and tactics should not affect our determination in the fall, when there is a Republican nominee, to turn our energies to defeating President Obama.
Why? Obamacare. Iran. Debt. The military. The Court.
Obamacare can't be reversed from Congress. Iran can't be denied nuclear weapons by Congress. The debt crisis can't be fundamentally addressed by Congress. The military can't be protected from being hollowed out by Congress. Judges can't be appointed by Congress.
If you think the country's in decent shape, go for control of Congress. If you think it's the mid-1990s again, go for control of Congress. If you're fatalistic about American decline abroad and the end of limited, constitutional government at home, go for control of Congress. If current trends don't deeply alarm you, or if you think alarm is futile because the rot is too deep, the decline too long-standing, the problems too un-fixable—then, go for control of Congress. Try to limit the damage and slow the collapse.
But if you reject such fatalism as a failure of nerve, and such declinism as a failure of understanding—and conservatives should—then do everything you can to win the White House. Perhaps always, but certainly in 2012—there is no substitute for victory.
-
THE DANGER OF DEADLOCK
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on March 5, 2012
Printer-Friendly Version
If Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich split the remaining primaries and caucuses - even if Romney wins most of them - we will not have a nominee until the summer and may not have one until the convention in late August.
In that case, kiss our chances of beating Obama good-bye!
With a majority of the delegates to be chosen through proportional representation, Romney would have to win virtually all of the winner-take-all states and do well in the others to get the nomination before the convention in late, late, late August.
If Santorum or Gingrich upend Mitt in even a handful of key states, we will have a deadlock.
Here's how it stacks up.
• Let's assume the best case for Romney: He wins these winner-take-all states: ND (28 delegates), Vt (17), Virgin Islands (9), Guam (9), Puerto Rico (23), Illinois (69), DC (19), Md (37), Wisc (42), Ct (28), Del (17), RI (19), Ind (46), WV (31), Neb (35) losing only Pa (72) to Santorum and Ga (76) and NC (55) to Gingrich.
• And then assume that Romney "wins" these proportional representation states but has to split the vote with the other three candidates: Alaska (27), Idaho (32), Mass (41), Ohio (66), Va (49), Wyo (29), Kan (40), Haw (20), NY (95), Me (24), Ore (28), Ky (45). Assume that Romney "loses" these proportional representation states but still gets his share of the delegates: loses to Newt: Ark (36), Alab (50), Miss (40), La (46). Loses to Santorum: Okla (43), Tenn (58), Col (26), Minn (40), Mo (52).
Then, in that case, here's how the delegate total would stack up on May 22nd:
Romney = 837
Santorum = 332
Gingrich = 336
Paul = 127
With 1,144 needed to nominate a candidate. We would be well into May without a nominee.
• Then, let's assume that Santorum and Gingrich win Texas (155 by proportional representation) but Romney gets his proportional share (a third of Texas' delegates are chosen on winner take all. Assume Newt wins them). Then assume Romney and Santorum split Iowa (28) and Mitt wins the proportional representation battle in Washington State (43). Still, no majority for anyone.
It would not be until June 5th that a nominee would emerge if Romney wins the winner-take-all states of California (172), Mont (25) NJ (50), SD (28), and Utah (40) and won the proportional state of NM (23). At that point, Romney would have 1,250 delegates, about a hundred more than he would need for a majority.
Waiting until June 5th for a nominee against an incumbent president is an unacceptable risk.
But what if Romney loses just a handful of these states? It would throw the convention into deadlock. Nobody would have a first ballot majority and this internecine warfare would drag on until the convention itself.
If we are to avoid a deadlock, we have to hope one candidate or another wins them all. And that probably, at this stage, means Romney.
-
I never thought of this. It might pick off a few Jewish and perhaps Southern voters (Virginia where Obamster is reportedly ahead of all Repub candidates). I don't know how much appeal Cantor has otherwise though with say the independents who are more important to victory (In my amateurish opinion). And certainly Latinos are comprising an ever expanding block of potentially "swing" voters. Far greater numbers than Jewish voters. I wouldn't think Latinos are particularly interested in Israel.
****..Look for a Romney-Cantor GOP Ticket
..By Professor John A. Tures, LaGrange College
.PostsWebsite .By Professor John A. Tures, LaGrange College
COMMENTARY | Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor picked Mitt Romney over the weekend . In a few months, Romney will return the favor by picking Cantor as his running mate for the 2012 election. It's all part of a critical election strategy the Republicans hope to ride to the White House.
Critical elections have been identified by political scientists. These are "game changer" elections where one group switches sides. The new party, infused with the new support, wins the overwhelming majority of subsequent elections. In 1932, blacks shifted from the Republicans to Franklin Roosevelt, enabling the Democrats to win the majority of the elections until 1968. That year, Southern whites shifted from Democrats to the GOP, enabling Republicans to win so many elections by landslides until 1992.
Republicans have been looking for a similar "critical election" to go back to winning elections big. They thought they had it with Sarah Palin, but she didn't win over the female vote. But could Eric Cantor capture the Jewish vote for the GOP? Here's how it would work.
Winning The Jewish Vote: Barack Obama won 78 percent of the Jewish vote in 2008. It was the third highest total for a Democrat since 1972. Only Bill Clinton in 1992 and Al Gore in 2000 (with Joe Lieberman) won more, so the GOP has its work cut out for it. Cantor might help.
Solidifying The Religious Vote: Jews made up only 2 percent of the vote in 2008. But what if the goal wasn't just Jews but firing up Christians desperate to "protect the Holy Land" against Iran by picking a Jewish congressman?
Avoiding Charges Of Bigotry: The mudslinging is likely to get ugly in 2012. Picking a Jewish congressman (coupled with his own faith) could insulate Romney from such charges.
Appealing to Southerners: Cantor is from a region where Romney doesn't poll particularly well. Obama took Virginia, Cantor's home state (along with Florida and North Carolina). It will be impossible for the GOP to do well without retaking these Southern states.
Providing an Ideological Balance: Cantor is seen as more conservative, inoculating Romney against charges he's a moderate. Cantor is credited with pushing House Speaker John Boehner to the right during the debt ceiling debate.
Getting a Young Running Mate: If Romney wins and is re-elected, Republicans will want someone young enough to run in eight years as the standard bearer and avoid the messy primaries of this year. Cantor said he's "not open" to being a vice president, but that might change by this summer.
....@yahoonews on Twitter, become a fan on Facebook ..****
-
CCP, I agree with you about Eric Cantor, not that he will be VP but that he will be in serious consideration. Everybody's first pick seems to be Marco Rubio but that is far from certain. I don't think being a Jewish will matter, but is historic if he becomes President.
'Balancing' a ticket is not always the best strategy; it did not work with Bob Dole picking Jack Kemp or John McCain picking Sarah Palin. Palin wasn't fully ready and Kemp choked I think because he was uncomfortable answering for the views and record of his running mate.
If we eliminate Speaker Boehner from consideration, Cantor is the highest ranking member of his party currently in power. Even then, he is a complete unknown across the country, see below. I find him to be thoughtful and articulate but we never know how people rise to that kind of challenge. Putting him on the ballot would also put the record of action of the Republican House on the table for discussion, right while Pres. Obama is trying to blame a do-nothing congress.
The only Eric Cantor national approval ratings I could find:
CNN/ORC Poll. July 18-20, 2011. N=1,009 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.
Favorable 18
Unfavorable 21
Never heard of 46
Unsure 15
Pretty much meaningless numbers, a somewhat fresh face with good experience, but from a congress with 80+% overall disapproval.
-
"Putting him on the ballot would also put the record of action of the Republican House on the table for discussion, right while Pres. Obama is trying to blame a do-nothing congress."
Good point. I think he was on 60 minutes and the MSM program kindof already went after him on this from what I recall.
You know the why is Congress' approval at an all time low. I don't recall them ever asking Democrats this.
There was certainly no adoration like there is of Obama.
-
"You know the why is Congress' approval at an all time low. I don't recall them ever asking Democrats this."
If you favor either the R. agenda coming out of the House and lost in the Senate, or the Harry Reid Obama agenda with no chance of passing in the House, you disapprove of the performance in congress. Independents hate partisan bickering so that makes all three groups in disapproval of divided government.
Instead of arguing forever it would be nice if one side or the other would win the argument. Dems won the elections of 2006-2008 but not on a clear agenda (hope/change and we are not Geo. Bush). That is the challenge for Romney now. He needs to be clear about vision with all its details and win. Sneaking out a win, even a sweep of the Presidency, House and Senate is not enough. He needs clear and specific support of the people on the critical items of the agenda.
It was Tip O'Neill's House that passed the Reagan tax cuts against the leadership of the house. Sure they screwed it up in delays and compromises but they got it done:
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/30/politics/30REAG.html?pagewanted=all
Reagan’s 3-Year, 25% Cut in Tax Rate Voted by Wide Margins in the House and Senate
By EDWARD COWAN
Published: July 30, 1981
In a decisive victory for President Reagan, the House of Representatives today approved the Administration's tax cut bill.
The measure provides for three years of reductions totalling 25 percent in individual tax rates and major reductions in taxes paid by business and by oil producers.
The key vote, 238 to 195, gave Mr. Reagan a third upset victory over the Democratic House majority on fiscal issues. The President won by virtue of the same coalition of Republicans and Southern Democrats that brought him victory in May on the budget resolution and in June on the budget reconciliation bill.
-
The politics of it are interesting and I had hopes for Cantor as a voice for our cause, but I have been sorely disappointed in several interviews I have seen of him in recent months. He sounded far too "inside baseball" and sounded like he was being coopted by the process.
BTW, I see Romney is polling with 78% of the Latino vote negative for him. Santorum's performance in the FL debates seemed very strong to me re Latin American issues and could enable him to get favorable Latino attention on issues other than immigration. Newt's play, but supporting amnesty for grandma's who have been here a long time seems not to have been noticed. His numbers were even worse than Romney's.
Returning to the Jewish vote AND matters of SERIOUS import, here is Dick Morris, venturing well outside his lane as is often his wont :wink:
NETANYAHU CONTROLS OBAMA'S FATE
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on DickMorris.com on March 6, 2012
Printer-Friendly Version
If Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants to seal President Obama's fate, all he has to do is to attack Iran. It is clear from Obama's AIPAC speech that the president will continue to talk about diplomacy and sanctions for the remainder of his term and will take no military action against Iran. If Israel attacks Iran, she will achieve three things:
a. Israel will buy time by delaying the Iranian nuclear program by one to three years.
b. Those extra years will give the effective sanctions, only now being imposed, time to work.
c. The resulting increase in the price of oil - and its impact on the American economy - will doom Obama's re-election chances, assuring that a pro-Israeli Republican Administration takes power.
With a Republican in the White House and in control of Congress, Israel will be well positioned to derail permanently the Iranian nuclear program.
Obama could never recover from the run-up of oil prices that would follow an Israeli attack. His refusal to approve the Keystone Pipeline, to drill in the ANWR reserve, and to issue permits for deep sea drilling, all make him ultra-vulnerable on the gas price issue. He has no good answers on the subject.
A huge increase in gas prices at the pump will also send the world into the same kind of oil shock as happened in 1973 and 1979, each of which was followed by a global recession in reaction. Obama would not be able to be re-elected amid the tidal wave of bad economic news he would face.
How ironic that Netanyahu, therefore, really controls Obama's fate. He can't re-elect his sworn enemy (I doubt anyone can do that) but he can defeat him and likely will do so.
Netanyahu has to face the fundamental fact that Israel cannot survive another four years of an Obama presidency. Freed of the constraints that the need to get re-elected imposes, the president's anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian bias will come out in virulent form with likely lethal implications for Israel. If Bibi lets Obama get re-elected, he will be dooming the Jewish State to extinction.
All the evidence indicates that he understands his choices and will respond accordingly. At least we hope so.
-
"I had hopes for Cantor as a voice for our cause, but I have been sorely disappointed in several interviews I have seen of him in recent months. He sounded far too "inside baseball" and sounded like he was being coopted by the process."
I can't remember when I had seen him but I think I had a similar reaction. Rubio has sight of the big picture and articulates it best. It is hard to say which of the inside guys who know the legislation like Ryan or Cantor will be able to communicate big picture best with America if Rubio should either slip or decline the job. BTW Santarum fell far too far into that inside game in the last debate as well. Title XX? I was reading the debate and didn't know how to pronounce it. How many know viewers what it is and whether it is good or bad. This is a big picture / directional election. What did Rubio say - if it doesn't help create jobs, I'm not supporting it.
Yes Morris is out of his element as we all are without actual intelligence briefings, but what he says makes sense. Bombing the reactor site has risks and retaliations associated with it and may only set Iran back a couple of years. Not disrupting this project and having Pakistan / AQ AND Iran all nuclear is unthinkable.
Another war I heard is that in times of war incumbents are reelected (ex: FDR, a failed economic President). Obama may want the war.
Of course this is all cynical; they are really only thinking of the best interests of our nation.
-
If Republican poohbahs were hoping that Super Tuesday's 10 contests would settle the Republican primary contest, they woke up Wednesday disappointed. While Mitt Romney had a good night and stretched his lead among delegates, Rick Santorum did well enough to more than justify staying in the race.
The good news for Mr. Romney is that he won easily where he had to—in New England and Virginia—and went on to win narrowly the crucial showdown in Ohio. The pundits made much of the large vote for Ron Paul in Vermont and Virginia, which was no doubt a protest vote against Mr. Romney or the entire field. But the former Massachusetts Governor still gathered most of the delegates and it appeared more than 40 of 49 delegates in Virginia.
In Ohio, Mr. Romney did well with what is becoming a familiar coalition: party regulars, college grads and those making more than $100,000 a year, voters who think the economy is the most important issue, and those who think he has the best chance of defeating President Obama.
It's clear that most tea partiers and the most conservative voters still prefer another candidate, but Mr. Romney won enough of them to prevail. His pro-growth 20% tax cut and tax reform outline, unveiled before Michigan, have been important to winning over conservative skeptics who favor substance over biography. Two weeks ago he was trailing Mr. Santorum badly in Ohio, and exit polls showed Mr. Romney picking up the bulk of those who decided in the last week.
Yet Mr. Santorum also did well in Ohio because he continues to carve out pluralities among tea party supporters, cultural conservatives, younger voters, and those who didn't attend college and aren't affluent. Partly this is the result of Mr. Santorum actively targeting these voters as a kindred spirit who understands their pain and values, but it also reflects Mr. Romney's weakness among the populist precincts of the GOP.
Enlarge Image
CloseAgence France-Presse/Getty Images
Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney attends a Super Tuesday Republican primary elections evening in Boston.
.The same conservative doubts plagued Mr. Romney in Oklahoma, and especially Tennessee, where he made large media buys in the last week. Mr. Santorum won both and North Dakota.
Mr. Santorum is also scoring on the stump with his warnings about the threat to freedom posed by ObamaCare. Especially if the economy improves, this will be a crucial issue for Republicans in November because it reflects the great American fault line over the role of government. Yet the issue has bedeviled Mr. Romney's because of his refusal to distance himself from RomneyCare in Massachusetts and to say more than his cursory line that he'll "repeal ObamaCare."
Mr. Santorum hit health care hard in his remarks on Tuesday night, claiming Mr. Romney favored an individual mandate imposed from Washington even as recently as the 2009-2010 ObamaCare debate. We've long thought RomneyCare was the former Governor's great vulnerability, and he would be wise to come up with a better explanation for how his views differ from Mr. Obama's. Voters want to hear him do what Mr. Santorum does and take ObamaCare apart as policy and philosophy.
As for Newt Gingrich, he says his win in Georgia means he can fight another day. But he showed little strength anywhere else, and his overriding problem is his negative image even among Republicans. In Ohio's exit poll, 48% said they'd be dissatisfied if he were the GOP nominee. That's not an argument for electability.
His speech Tuesday night also betrayed his familiar ill-discipline as he rambled on with a history of the 2012 campaign from Iowa to Georgia. He'll have to defeat Mr. Santorum soon in more states than Georgia and outside of the South to claim to be the main alternative to Mr. Romney.
Republican elites are aching to declare this race over and take aim at Mr. Obama. The fear is that the intraparty debate is hurting the GOP brand and the image of the candidates. Some of that is inevitable in any primary campaign, but November is a long way off and the American public hasn't concluded that Mr. Obama deserves another term.
The hand-wringing is fruitless in any case. The voters are in charge and their split decision shows that Republicans still haven't settled on a standard-bearer.
============
I would add that Santorum really does not have much to say on the economy.
-
Strange to me that the media line (other than that WSJ piece) while Romney wins 6 more states is how Romney can't close it out. No offense to the others, but really it was Tim Pawlenty who couldn't close it out, and Rick Perry and Hermann Cain and Michele Bachmann and Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul and Rick Santorum, not to mention the crowd on the sidelines who didn't find the gumption to jump in at all, Christie, Daniels, Jeb Bush, Palin et al.
Did someone say winning the Presidency was supposed to be easy?
True it was a brutal campaign. And through it we learned that Mitt Romney was... faithful to his wife, successful and clean as a whistle in business, paid his taxes, gained executive experience in government, built the best organization, raised the most money, performed solid and consistent in the debates (biggest slipup was the $10,000 bet), is positioned as strong on defense, strong on border security, has a 20% across the board tax rate cut proposal (Reagan only got 25% through), and is not conservative enough for the farthest right elements in his own party. He has won in the east, the west, the south (FL) and the midwest. How could anyone position himself better for a general election?
Mitt Romney in 2012 is a far better candidate than John McCain of 2008 who only lost by 7 points to a magical figure who now must run on a record of cluelessness, damage and drift.
Santorum won 3 states that are safe for any Republican in Nov and Newt won his home state decisively.
-
Doug:
That is very well reasoned and well written.
I would add that:
a) were the opposition to Romney not divided, he would be losing;
b) he lacks the ability to go after Obamacare;
c) his wins have come by outspending his opponents-- he will not have this advantage against Baraq, quite the contrary;
d) he has patrician's guilt complex and will crumple under race baiting and class warfare attacks
-
I agree with you on his weaknesses.
"a) were the opposition to Romney not divided, he would be losing;"
But he has multiple opponents now because none of them seal the deal either. Each had an opportunity.
"b) he lacks the ability to go after Obamacare"
He is poorly positioned to make the argument but his promise to repeal it is in stark contrast to Obama's position. I don't see exactly how you repeal it or pass anything else when even in a perfect electoral storm they will still lack 60 votes in the Senate.
"c) his wins have come by outspending his opponents-- he will not have this advantage against Baraq, quite the contrary;"
This is true, but in the debates I think he was attacked the most and also super-pacs of the others mostly went after him. He will have no money advantage against Obama, but no shortage of money either.
"d) he has patrician's guilt complex and will crumple under race baiting and class warfare attacks"
Agree on the first part.
Romney is conceding that high income earners will see their deductions limited (something to appease the fairness/income inequality argument with), but went on to rather courageously cut their marginal tax rates by the same 20% as all other groups. He wants to 'preserve the progressivity' in the current tax code, which is bad but the only alternative remaining will be to exacerbate it. I have seen him Romney change course, but I have not seen him crumble - if that makes any sense.
We are not in the brainstorming time of a year or two ago trying to figure out who could make the perfect President. The selection process for Republicans is largely over unless something very new develops. The main alternative still standing, Santorum, isn't the right guy either. So we are down to electing Romney and trying to shape the actual policies through the congressional elections, or losing our country - that is my take.
Earlier when Newt was being ignored, the tea party bet the farm on Hermann Cain. I still wonder who it should have been. Perry, I had hoped - not ready, not the right guy. Very few are ready. Too bad it isn't Newt making his surge now - without errors! Almost none have clarity, vision and discipline. Newt had maybe 2 of those 3. Romney, who knows. He has the positioning to win. The hope that he can rise up out of this, win, and be a great President is all I think we have left.
-
I've never seen the class envy game played up so much by the left wing media. That's says THEY are desperate.
Yesterday some cable heads were mocking Mitt as "looking rich".
Well what does that mean?
Does he look different than John Kerry or Ted Kennedy or Kohl?
How about "broke" Nancy Pelosi?
I really don't recall any Republican candidate going back to Ford when I was old enough to know who ever really sounded like a shoe in on the campaing trail. Even Reagan was a question mark to some extent. His best speeches were given after he was President.
-
CCP, For some reason there is a difference between a Republican looking rich and a Democrat looking rich. Clinton, Obama, they call themselves fortunate. Romney, to them, did it on the backs of the poor.
Santorum is less rich but wears sweater vests. He made a living lobbying and in public office. Gingrich, ditto. Taught a college class, sold some books based on his experience and influence - like Clinton and Obama. Made some money from Freddie Mac and spent it at Tiffanys.
------------------
Here is a negative piece on Romney in a conservative publication: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/mitt-romney-santorum-gingrich/2012/03/08/id/431848 He echoes some points Crafty made, outspending Santorum 12-1 in Ohio for example to get a one point win.
Still I don't see the conclusion. There is a bigger than ever race going on right now for leader of the free world and he is the only one winning. Obama may win in the end but for now he hasn't run against anybody or won a contested vote.
"he's lost almost every Southern state" - He won the important one, Florida, or is that the East?
"Romney has done really well in blue-state primaries. But Republicans won't win these states this November. Rollins adds that Romney loses badly in many red states — ones he must carry in November." - The truly red states anyone not Obama will win. It is the divided states that determine the election. Losing badly in red states and the south? He is in a virtual tie in Alabama and Mississippi. That not bad for a 'Massachusetts moderate'.
The closing point is of much more concern: "The truth is that his policy advisers and campaign staff are filled with moderates who are out of step with the base of the Republican Party." - That IS a problem, if true. Yet he just came out with a 20% across the board marginal tax rate cut, is very strong on national security issues and to the right of Newt on border security and immigration reform. Santorum voted to the left of Bill Clinton and Al Gore on NAFTA.
The left, right, moderate model of politics is not very helpful with this Republican field.
P.S. The loser so far is Ron Paul who was quite a force at the start and hasn't won a single state, even a caucus.
The link again: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/mitt-romney-santorum-gingrich/2012/03/08/id/431848 and be sure to click on the ads.
Romney's Fuzzy Math for a Fuzzy Campaign
Thursday, 08 Mar 2012 10:00 PM
By Christopher Ruddy, Newsmax
I am continually amazed how those at the Romney campaign continue to act victorious when they have such a poor case to make about cinching the nomination. ...
-
I'm no big fan of Mittens, but it's not about finding the perfect candidate to win the nomination, it's about preventing a catastrophic 2nd term of Buraq.
Mittens is the best shot at doing so.
-
I'd like to comment on the role of Afpakia in the presidential campaign.
Most of us here have noted for several years now the incoherence of our Afpakia policy-- most certainly including the second Bush term. Most of us here have already noted the inanity and insanity Baraq of telling the enemy when we are leaving. With the brouhaha over the Koran burnings, the apologies, and now the rampage by a US soldier, is there really anyone left who thinks and calls for doubling down at this point? Is there a Jew's chance in Mecca of the YA doctrine being applied?
No.
With good reason, the Reps have sought to communicate the weakness and incoherence of Baraq's policies in this area, and the consequences of our leaving. There has also been, prepare yourself for a shock, some pandering to the Rep base. I think in particular of Romney.
So, my point is this: come the election, the Baraq is going to whip out quotes from the Rep candidate and ask "Look at this mess! Do you really want to vote for this guy to do Surge 2.0?" As JDN has noted, large majorities are fed up and weary of Afpakia-- which given the incoherence of our efforts under both Bush and Baraq is a rather rational conclusison. Thus it seems to me that the Reps have, as I warned several times a number of months ago, have lost their dominance in an area normally of great political strength for them-- foreign affairs and things military.
-
I think the uncommited swing voters are much more concerned about the surge in gas prices and the surge in food costs and the surge in unemployment and national debt under Obozo.
-
You may have noticed that Baraq, with the enthusiastic aid and comfort of the pravdas and the chattering classes is rather good as misdirecting attention.
-
You may have noticed that Baraq, with the enthusiastic aid and comfort of the pravdas and the chattering classes is rather good as misdirecting attention.
Yup, but all the chattering in the world doesn't cover up the prices paid at every grocery store and gas station visit.
-
In "As good as it gets" Jack Nicholson's character, an author, is asked by a woman admirer "how he writes women so well".
"I write as for a man, but I take out reason and responsibility" his character replies. That would seem to apply to some of the women in the propaganda piece from POTH.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/us/politics/centrist-women-tell-of-disenchantment-with-gop.html?src=recg
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/romney-failed-to-close-the-deal-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/
IMHO some insightful political advice in this one.
-
How The Race Stacks Up From Here
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on March 14, 2012
Printer-Friendly Version
Romney is on track to win the nomination when the primaries and caucuses are over on June 6th.
Currently, Romney has 498 of the 1,144 he needs to be nominated. He now has 53% of the selected delegates, a clip he has been maintaining since the start of the process. Santorum has 25%, Gingrich 15%, and Paul 7%.
CURRENT DELEGATE COUNT
Romney 498 53%
Santorum 239 25%
Gingrich 139 15%
Paul 69 7%
Romney is very likely to win the following winner-take-all primaries:
LIKELY ROMNEY WINNER TAKE ALL WINS
Puerto Rico 23
DC 19
Maryland 37
Connecticut 28
Delaware 17
Rhode Island 19
Oregon 28
Cal 172
Montana 25
NJ 50
Utah 40
458
+ 498 (current Romney)
________________________
956 TOTAL
In addition, Romney will probably win these winner take all states:
Wisconsin 42
Indiana 46
West Virginia 31
Nebraska 35
South Dakota 28
182
+ 956
___________
1,138
Finally, Romney will probably do very well in the following proportional representation states. Some, like New York and Illinois, award most of their delegates as a winner take all by Congressional District .
P.R. State Delegates / Prob Romney
New York 95 / 80
Illinois 69 / 45
Maine 24 / 20
New Mexico 23 / 15
160
+ 1,138
___________
1,298
Needed to Nominate: 1,144
So, even if Romney loses the winner take all primaries in North Carolina and Pennsylvania and gets clobbered in Texas, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, and a few other conservative states, he should win the nomination by the time the primaries are over on June 6th.
-
I saw an interesting article that said that the longer Newt stays in, the better it is for Mittens, as most Newt supports would go to Santorum rather than Mittens. If so, the Sheldon A. money spigot might stay on until Mitt is assured victory.
-
How does Santorum stack up in the polling now vs. Baraq and how does that compare to Romney?
-
How does Santorum stack up in the polling now vs. Baraq and how does that compare to Romney?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 27% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -15 (see trends).
For the fifth time in six days, Mitt Romney leads President Obama in a hypothetical general election matchup. Yesterday, the only exception, the two men were tied. See tracking history for Obama vs. all four Republican candidates.
Today’s numbers show Romney at 46% and the president at 44%. If Rick Santorum is the GOP nominee, the president is up by a point, 45% to 44%. Matchup results are updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Today’s numbers are based upon interviews completed Sunday, Monday and Tuesday before last night’s victories for Santorum in the Alabama and Mississippi primaries were reported.
-
Interesting that Santorum is close enough that he may be within the statistical margin of error!
One of my concerns about him has been that his cultural conservatism would hurt him badly with independents and women and make him a sure loser, but the data at the moment seems to say otherwise.
-
Interesting that Santorum is close enough that he may be within the statistical margin of error!
One of my concerns about him has been that his cultural conservatism would hurt him badly with independents and women and make him a sure loser, but the data at the moment seems to say otherwise.
If it's close, traditional dems voters, like the dead and illegal aliens will push Obozo over the top. Mittens, like it or not, is America's last chance.
-
"Interesting that Santorum is close enough that he may be within the statistical margin of error!"
True. Also interesting and scary is that, if the election were held today and it isn't, the difference of 3 points of margin of error polling is the difference between winning the White House, ending Obamacare, lowering tax rates, vetoing spending bills, choosing the Supreme Court nominees, Fed nominees, the entire Executive branch, etc. and losing and leaving all that to Obama and his associates from the Ayers, Alinski, Rev. Wright side of politics.
I was listening to Jay Cost or Weekly Standard yesterday who a polling result analyst formerly with Real Clear Politics. He pointed out Santorum has 2 sides like Newt. He has the perfect American story with blue collar roots and attracts lower income workers to the Republican side. Then he also puts his foot in mouth and gets off-message sometimes like his anti-JFK talk recently. In the middle of the BCP religious freedom debate RS was saying JFK should have brought his Catholic faith more into governing? Valid or not valid, it is about as focused for this election as the lunar colony proposal. We have a 16 trillion dollar debt, have 35 million people un- or under-employed, are losing our largest state, Iran going nuclear, among other problems.
Santorum carried 27% of independents in his last PA election.
-
A better measure would be the poll numbers from the swing states. A national poll doesn't tell you as much as much, since there are only a few states that are really up for grabs. This may be another election, no matter the winner, where the electoral college faces some serious derision.
-
A better measure would be the poll numbers from the swing states. A national poll doesn't tell you as much as much, since there are only a few states that are really up for grabs. This may be another election, no matter the winner, where the electoral college faces some serious derision.
True, and from memory there are multiple key states that went blue in 2008 that are now showing serious kool-aid hangovers.
-
I think you are right.
A better measure would be the poll numbers from the swing states. A national poll doesn't tell you as much as much, since there are only a few states that are really up for grabs. This may be another election, no matter the winner, where the electoral college faces some serious derision.
True, and from memory there are multiple key states that went blue in 2008 that are now showing serious kool-aid hangovers.
-
"A better measure would be the poll numbers from the swing states."
Here is a 2008 Obama electoral map. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/
Some of the swing states and red states that Obama won:
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida
Virginia, North Carolina
New jersey, New Hampshire
Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana
Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado
The R. nominee needs about 97 points out of states Obama won last time, which by my count is about 7 good sized states from that list. That is a very high bar. Really have to aim for a landslide, not to eek out a close one.
I think there is a poll showing Obama now leading in Florida. We will see. Marco Rubio (2012 VP nominee?) won Fl in 2010 by a million votes; second place was another Republican.
Ohio is also crucial. Colorado, Virginia and battleground Wisconsin will all be leading indicators. If the Republican wins the real swing states, the truly red states will already be won.
What will we need to do to win bigdog's vote?
-
Doug, my state will go for the GOP. And I won't be voting for President Obama.
-
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304450004577279583954819216.html?mod=opinion_newsreel
By KARL ROVE
Last July, President Obama's campaign announced that it had raised an average of $29 million in each of the previous three months for itself and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). I was only mildly impressed. After all, that was well below the $50 million a month needed to reach the campaign's goal of a $1 billion war chest for the 2012 race.
Seven months later, I'm even less impressed. Through January, the president has raised an average of $24 million a month for his campaign and the DNC. Next week, the Obama campaign will release its February numbers, but the president is on track to be hundreds of millions of dollars shy of his original goal.
It's not for lack of trying. Mr. Obama has already attended 103 fund-raisers, roughly one every three days since he kicked off his campaign last April (twice his predecessor's pace).
The president faces other fund-raising challenges. For one, there are only so many times any candidate can go to New York or Hollywood or San Francisco for a $1 million fund-raiser. Team Obama is running through its easy money venues quickly.
CONT.
-
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304450004577279583954819216.html?mod=opinion_newsreel
By KARL ROVE
Last July, President Obama's campaign announced that it had raised an average of $29 million in each of the previous three months for itself and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). I was only mildly impressed. After all, that was well below the $50 million a month needed to reach the campaign's goal of a $1 billion war chest for the 2012 race.
Seven months later, I'm even less impressed. Through January, the president has raised an average of $24 million a month for his campaign and the DNC. Next week, the Obama campaign will release its February numbers, but the president is on track to be hundreds of millions of dollars shy of his original goal.
It's not for lack of trying. Mr. Obama has already attended 103 fund-raisers, roughly one every three days since he kicked off his campaign last April (twice his predecessor's pace).
The president faces other fund-raising challenges. For one, there are only so many times any candidate can go to New York or Hollywood or San Francisco for a $1 million fund-raiser. Team Obama is running through its easy money venues quickly.
CONT.
I guess the "Sasha and Malia" standard falls to the wayside due to the need for Bill Maher's cash. :roll:
-
A satirical look at Romney's ability to connect with an audience.
http://www.freewoodpost.com/2012/03/13/mitt-romney-i-can-relate-to-black-people-my-ancestors-once-owned-slaves/
-
From a site that calls itself "News that's almost reliable"?
I'd like to see some confirmation of this before taking it seriously.
-
An alteration was made to the post. My apologies for the confusion/lack of information.
From a site that calls itself "News that's almost reliable"?
I'd like to see some confirmation of this before taking it seriously.
-
Whew!!!
:lol: :lol: :lol:
-
"It's not as trendy as it was to be involved in the Obama campaign"
- Barack Obama, March 2012
You don't say!
'Landslide' 2008 was a 7 point win running an error-free blank slate against and aging and confused challenger hated by his own party. The only demographic group in the country where Obama's approval has not dropped 7 points in popularity is right-ring Republicans.
I quit touting my prediction made at the height of his approval that Barack Obama will not be the nominee of his own party because the only substitute they can think of is to have Hillary run on the exact same record, policies and rhetoric.
Where is the Dem party brain trust?
-
Where is the Dem party brain trust?
You mean Marx, Alinsky and Soros?
-
"Where is the Dem party brain trust?" "You mean Marx, Alinsky and Soros?"
No, I mean the ones who should be chasing those demons out of their party. Where is the 'rising tide raises all boats', 'peace through strength', 'it is what you can do for your country' message today on their side of the aisle?
The only economic growth argument they have going, I just posted on the tax and political economic threads, is a combination of more debt, higher disincentives to produce and more assignment of blame, as if there is still room to improve on what already has been exhausted. Algae and tire pressure checks for a better tomorrow.
After this election I would assume that some real leadership will have to emerge from the dormant, pragmatic and centrist wing of that party. A lot of those people will have time on their hands...
-
"Where is the Dem party brain trust?" "You mean Marx, Alinsky and Soros?"
No, I mean the ones who should be chasing those demons out of their party. Where is the 'rising tide raises all boats', 'peace through strength', 'it is what you can do for your country' message today on their side of the aisle?
The only economic growth argument they have going, I just posted on the tax and political economic threads, is a combination of more debt, higher disincentives to produce and more assignment of blame, as if there is still room to improve on what already has been exhausted. Algae and tire pressure checks for a better tomorrow.
After this election I would assume that some real leadership will have to emerge from the dormant, pragmatic and centrist wing of that party. A lot of those people will have time on their hands...
They have been purged from positions of power, if not from the party totally by the marxists.
-
The Soros money and the "collective militant enthusiasm" (the term is from Konrad Lorenz) of liberal fascism/progressivism dominate and intimidate the remaining Dems of reasonable temperament.
-
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/rick-santorum-stokes-gop-divisions-in-run-up-to-illinois-primary-20120320
"Santorum sees opportunity in the Southern and Western areas of this blue state, the regions far from the urban and suburban enclaves of Chicagoland. He has forfeited 10 delegates up front by failing to get his allies onto some ballots, and polls show him 4 to 15 percentage points behind Romney, but even a loss could help Santorum. If he outdraws Romney among fervent conservatives and rural voters, it will give him more fodder for his argument that Romney is out of touch with the base of his party and the heartland of the country.
The former Pennsylvania senator constantly berates President Obama for trying to divide the country. But he seems to have no problem setting up an us-versus-them proposition within his own party."
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/216867-newt-wont-exit-thought-others-should
"Newt Gingrich is refusing to swallow his own medicine.
The former Speaker of the House (R-Ga.) rejects calls from Republicans to drop out of the presidential race, but he has a long history of telling other GOP White House hopefuls to do so."
-
My affections for the good Newt are a matter of record around here, and on a visceral level I can understand his frustrations at this moment, but it looks to me like the simple fact is he had a winning hand, blew it, and can't admit it.
All this is more than a little frustraing to me. Where's the well organized coherent statements of Romney or Saintorum like the following from Newt about Baraq and his energy lies and incoherence?
====================
President Obama’s Top Five Energy Whoppers
March 19, 2012
With both President Obama and his chief strategist David Axelrod attacking Newt’s $2.50 gas plan this weekend, it is worthwhile to take a look at who is really trying to sell the American people “snake oil.”
President Obama has been traveling the country making demonstrably false excuses for his failures on energy policy. To borrow a line from White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, “I won’t attribute motivations…I’ll just say that anybody who says these things doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”
“WE’RE DRILLING ALL OVER”
FALSE:
“Do not tell me that we’re not drilling. We’re drilling all over this country. I guess there are a few spots where we’re not drilling. We’re not drilling in the National Mall. We’re not drilling at your house. I guess we could try to have, like, 200 oil rigs in the middle of the Chesapeake Bay.” (March 15, 2012, Prince George’s Community College.)
TRUE:
President Obama has blocked drilling in offshore areas totaling more than 10 times the size of Texas. He has stalled progress on an estimated one trillion barrels of oil in the American West, where the federal government owns the majority of the world’s oil shale. These off-limits supplies alone give the United States some of the largest oil reserves in the world. And no one proposes drilling in the Chesapeake Bay.
“WE’RE USING 20%, WE HAVE 2%”
FALSE:
“America uses more than 20 percent of the world’s oil. If we drilled every square inch of this country — so we went to your house and we went to the National Mall and we put up those rigs everywhere — we’d still have only 2 percent of the world’s known oil reserves. Let’s say we miss something — maybe it’s 3 percent instead of 2. We’re using 20; we have 2.” (March 15, 2012, Prince George’s Community College.)
TRUE:
The President derives his “2 percent” from America’s “proven reserves,” about 20 billion barrels of oil. Proven reserves are the “quantity of energy sources estimated with reasonable certainty, from the analysis of geologic and engineering data, to be recoverable from well-established or known reservoirs with the existing equipment and under the existing operating conditions.”
The U.S. was said to have 30 billion barrels of “proven reserves” in 1980. Yet from 1980 to 2008, we produced about 75 billion barrels of oil.
No one thinks the proven reserves numbers come anywhere close to capturing our oil resources–even the U.S. government. The Energy Department estimated in 2006 that there were about 400 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil, including undiscovered resources and that does not even include oil shale. That’s 5 times the number President Obama is using. And oil shale is another 800 billion to 1 trillion barrels.
Total estimated resources exceed 1.4 trillion barrels of oil in the United States, and Goldman Sachs predicted last year that the U.S. has the potential to be the world’s largest oil-producing country by 2017. The number the President is using, about 20 billion barrels, is less than the current best estimate for the Bakken formation in North Dakota alone.
In addition, the President’s claim that “we use 20% of the world’s oil” is false and evasive. We consume 20% of the world’s oil production, not 20% of the world’s oil reserves as the President’s comparison suggests. The President is just cherry-picking numbers. The 2 and the 20 are not meaningfully related so the comparison makes no sense—it certainly doesn’t prove we’re consuming too much or that there is too little to go around.
OIL IS SOLD ON THE “WORLD MARKET”…THEREFORE PRESIDENT OBAMA’S POLICIES CAN’T INFLUENCE THE PRICE OF OIL
FALSE:
“How much oil we produce here at home, because we only have 2 percent and we use 20, that’s not going to set the price of gas worldwide, or here in the United States. Oil is bought and sold on the world market.” (March 7, 2012, North Carolina)
HE EMPHASIZES THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN:
We can’t just allow ourselves to be held hostage to the ups and downs of the world oil market. (February 23, 2012, Miami, FL)
We’re not going to, overnight, solve the problem of world oil markets. (February 23, 2012, Miami, FL)
“Gas prices and the world oil markets right now are putting a lot of pressure on families right now.” (March 15, 2012, Prince George’s Community College.)
“When prices spike on the world market, it’s like a tax, it’s like somebody is going into your pocket.” (March 15, 2012, Prince George’s Community College.)
TRUE:
President Obama and his allies have repeatedly suggested his policies can’t be blamed for high gasoline prices because oil is “bought and sold on the world market” over which he has no control. But prices on the “world market” are determined primarily by supply and demand, and the President is blocking development of substantial oil supplies offshore and in the American West, which together are several times the known reserves of Saudi Arabia. No one has claimed the President can “set” the price of oil, but his choice to close these areas affect the price significantly.
He could reverse his policies on these federal lands with the stroke of a pen. There is nothing special about the “world market” that would prevent that large increase in supply from putting downward pressure on price.
The President’s own actions have betrayed the knowledge that even marginal production changes have a significant effect on oil prices. When his administration asked Saudi Arabia to increase its own oil production, its goal was to lower prices in the U.S., and when he tapped the Strategic Reserve during the Arab Spring in 2011, he did so for the same reason. His claims to be powerless in the “world market” are just a bad excuse for the results of his anti—American-energy policies.
“TAXPAYER GIVEAWAYS” TO OIL COMPANIES
FALSE:
“What’s more, at a time when big oil companies are making more money than ever before, we’re still giving them $4 billion of your tax dollars in subsidies every year.” (President’s Weekly Address, March 17, 2012)
“I don’t think oil companies need more corporate welfare. Congress should end this taxpayer giveaway.” (President’s Weekly Address, March 3, 2012)
TRUE:
The oil industry is not subsidized. It is subject to generic tax deductions that apply to all U.S. manufacturers. What the President proposes is specifically targeting oil companies for tax increases, not ending subsides that are given specifically to the oil industry.
Under this view, the “giveaway” is that we are not taxing oil companies for the same things we do not tax anyone else. But not taxing an activity isn’t a “subsidy” or a “taxpayer giveaway”—unless you consider the income you’re allowed to keep a “subsidy,” too.
In addition, the President wants to end rules that prevent American companies from being double-taxed on energy they produce outside the United States, which would only benefit foreign competitors at the expense of American businesses.
The industry that is highly subsidized and receives “corporate welfare” under the Obama administration is the “green” energy industry—companies like Solyndra. The vast majority of energy sector tax preferences have been for renewables or energy efficiency companies. As the Congressional Budget Office recently reported, “Between 2009 and 2012, DOE provided an estimated $4.0 billion in subsidies for about $25 billion in loans.”
If the President is genuinely concerned about high gas prices, raising taxes on oil producers will cause gasoline prices to increase and will hurt consumers—whether he thinks that’s “fair” or not.
“SOLAR AND WIND” ARE SOLUTIONS TO HIGH GAS PRICES
FALSE:
If we’re going to take control of our energy future and can start avoiding these annual gas price spikes that happen every year … if we’re going to avoid being at the mercy of these world events, we’ve got to have a sustained, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy. Yes, oil and gas, but also wind and solar and nuclear and biofuels, and more. (February 23, 2012, Miami, FL)
TRUE:
If 100% of American electricity today were generated by solar and wind technologies such as the President is pushing, it would have virtually no effect on the price of gasoline. Wind and solar are methods of generating electricity which we use to power our buildings. Gasoline is the fuel for our cars. We barely use oil at all to generate electricity, meaning that converting everything to wind and solar would do nothing to decrease the consumption of oil. The only circumstance under which the technologies President Obama mentions would be an answer to high gasoline prices is if wind and solar were economically competitive sources of electricity and we drove inexpensive electric cars with capacities comparable to conventional automobiles. But today that is a distant fantasy, not a solution.
-
"All this is more than a little frustraing to me. Where's the well organized coherent statements of Romney or Saintorum"
Indeed. Romney will have to make these distinctions himself - over and over - and not let the dishonest leader in chief continue to get away with such distortions of the truth. The MSM certainly will not call out OBama. This AM CNN is showing one of the anchors making smirks and faces when speaking of Senator Brown of Mass calling for an additional opening of the immigrant gates for thousands of Irish. She was clear that this is no doubt *political* pandering and will open flood gates from every other ethnic group.
She is exactly right. The problem is CNN rarely calls out the Brockman the same way like they do Republicans.
So it is for Romney to articulate the lies falsehoods, distortions of Obama and team.
It is still early but one has to ask who is running Romney's team. This stuff is not rocket science. Why can't the ahndlers come out with scripts for the manager to study. He can memorize.
-
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2012/03/re-elected-obama-wouldnt-be-end-liberty/387856
"I yield to nobody in my conviction that Barack Obama's presidency has been a disaster for the Republic. Last week, in this space, I even suggested that some of his offenses rose to the level of impeachable "high crimes and misdemeanors."
Yet, try as I might, I can't convince myself that the 2012 election is a "hinge of history," and it's "game over" for liberty unless he's defeated. If Obama wins, the fight goes on; if he loses, don't pop the champagne corks just yet.
Consider that, since FDR, few second-term presidents have been capable of great mischief. Obama may have done most of the real damage he's capable of already."
-
Those second term presidents weren't borrowing 40% of every dollar they spent. They weren't running deficits that were 9+% of GDP.
The list of "They weren'ts" is quite long, but I will leave it to those two for now , , ,
-
"since FDR, few second-term presidents have been capable of great mischief"
He has done his mischief. He isn't capable of undoing any of it. Many people around think we don't have - 4 more years - to get turned in the right direction.
-
Very good victory speech by MR tonight. He was actually likable and articulate with humor about things that matter. If he can stay in this zone, he can beat Baraq.
Excellent concession speech by Saintorum too, quite presidential in several moments.
Newt on Hannity rationalized well.
-
Looks like about a 12 point win, Romney 47, Santorum 35%, off of a 7 to 1 money advantage with low turnout. Oh well.
As painful as the process has been, Romney is in a very nice position coming into the general election. With 4 different candidates still running, no one on the right can say they didn't have choices. With the outcome now mostly known, the battle remaining doesn't have to be so mean. The most moderate choice is winning, so independents who fear and distrust the far right can breathe a sigh of relief and have a voice on the ballot. Yet the guy is still pro-life, pro-defense, pro-energy, for spending and regulatory restraint, anti-Obamacare, and committed to cutting tax rates by 20%. As the late Wm F Buckley would say, pick the most conservative candidate who can win.
If he holds himself up as competent, ready and instills confidence, he could win and bring with him a slightly Republican House and Senate too.
Turning this country around has never been easier.
Regarding turnout, the excitement is about the choice in Nov, not about picking between the choices now.
If I were Romney right now, I would tell each remaining competitor privately that I don't care how long they stay in the race, that is their business, and that in each case, Santorum, Gingrich and Paul, that I stand to learn something from each of them and that I want a line of input open to them in the difficult process of governing.
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pf44mjSaT8&sns=fb[/youtube]
Is Mitt Romney a liar?
-
http://www.jeffturrentine.com/2012/01/why-wont-political-reporters-use-word.html
Is rachel maddow a liar?
-
Having mentally filed her as "progressive harpy", I don't spend any time watching RM, but apart from getting some of her facts wrong in BD's post, that was one helluva rant , , , and we can count on Team Baraq and his running dogs of the pravdas on picking up on the meme and feeding it with ample data.
MR is NOT a strong candidate. If he is the candidate, Baraq gets a free pass on Obamacare. If Santorum is the candidate, he can kick Obama's ass on this subject. (OTOH I think MR might do better on the economy, but RS connects well with blue collar while MR knows the guys who OWN the NASCARS)
I've been liking Santorum more and more (not digging his detour into the evils of pornography) and so was quite disappointed the other day when he apparently said that there was no difference between MR and Baraq. It seemed like he had allowed personal bitterness and self-importance get the better of him just as my man Newt had.
Then I saw his audio interview today on Neil Cavuto. His defense was strong and able.
-
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/03/23/politics-counts-the-demographic-road-ahead-for-romney/
-
"Having mentally filed her as "progressive harpy", I don't spend any time watching RM, but apart from getting some of her facts wrong in BD's post, that was one helluva rant"
Yes. Like following and responding to Krugman, she is relevant. That is as close to a story line on Mitt Romney that they will get. Note that the question of whether or not he is a better or worse liar than the President and the administration is a side-step from who has a better vision for the future. What scares them most is that it is now Mitt Romney with his various moving positions on the issues who offers the blank slate for the voter to paint on. Case in point: I am to the right of Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, and Dick Cheney too for that matter, but stand ready to cast my Presidential vote for Mitt Romney and take my chances.
Key 'lies outlined by Maddow:
'Lie' #1: [Obama inherited a recession and] ..."he made it worse". It took her to 7:18 on the tape to get to a point, any point, and that was her lead.
She points to the less than breakeven 'growth' in the economy to 'prove' him a liar. The unemployment rate went down while the workforce participation rate collapsed. In my estimation he made it worse by adding additional long-term, structural problems on top of the problems we already had and corrected none of the underlying faults. He took emergency spending levels and made them permanent. He took impending tax rate increases and made them impending again in 2 years. He took a housing correction and did everything he could to keep it from correcting. He took the automobile industry and put the rule of law and rules of limited government on its ear. He did everything he could to make energy unaffordable, then points to increased private production at the higher prices he caused as his doing. He took away my health plan when he said that no one would lose their current health plan. He put people into EPA that can regulate what we exhale and he put two people on the supreme court sure to rationalize the role of unlimited government, which will be tested starting next week. He made it worse and finally someone said so. The brilliance politically in that statement is that it begs the followup question which lewads to the unraveling of the administrations economic record.
'Lie' #2: [After he was a one term governor] he left the world of politics to go back into private business.
She points out that the he declared his candidacy for the presidency only 30 days later, not really leaving the world of politics. Interesting point with some validity, except that in terms of income, unlike Newt at Freddie Mac, Santorum as a lobbyist, and Obama as a public office holder and selling his public office fame at the bookstore, Romney was not on the public payroll in any way. He was supported by his private investments and really quite a long shot for President in 2008.
[Mass. healthcare] 'was only for our state, our circumstance'. Yes, it is a haven for liberals and they were going to have healthcare with or without Mitt Romney. But Obama could learn "a thing or two" from what we did in Massachusetts? - I can see a distinction there. She cannot? Learn a thing or two, like to do it state by state instead of against the US constitutions is a distinction. Not exactly on a par with the Commander in Chief understating in a public address on crucial economic policies the oil reserves of the United States of America by 20-fold!
[He promised to lower the deficit] but 'he doubled it'. - Clearly wrong but I see a couple of escape routes. Obvious to me that he was mis-speaking about doubling the debt not the deficit (as they all do). Obama was maintaining emergency levels of spending and expanding them for as far as the eye can see. His budgets projected out double the debt and already surpassed 8 years of Bush. If you take his full career in Washington instead of his Presidency, since taking the majority in congress and de facto leadership in the Senate he has more than doubled the deficit. The deficit was less than $300 billion when Dems including Obama took power and more than 4 times that in his Presidency, all accumulating with interest. Hardly a lie in underlying meaning even if the words were convoluted or wrong.
Maddow: 'We should take this seriously'...'Americans deserve better' ... this is "unprecedented deceit". - Oh really? The campaign season will bring out the deceit Romney will be running against, while yes, he better get his own factual act together. Besides the lies I have attributed to the President on matters crucial to our prosperity and survival, I recall the factual errors of Joe Biden in the VP debate as enough to turn any stomach and the free pass he got from the press on that as enough reason for anyone rational and informed to give up on politics.
There is nothing unprecedented about having to go back through any of these people's words and sort out the truth for yourself.
-
Kudlow sees some Reagan in the Romney plan:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/03/24/the_reagan_in_romney_113604.html
March 24, 2012
The Reagan in Romney
By Larry Kudlow
The late William F. Buckley Jr. naturally put it best when he said: "The wisest choice would be the one who would win. No sense running Mona Lisa in a beauty contest. I'd be for the most right, viable candidate who could win."
Bill Buckley's law applies to Mitt Romney today. And it's worth noting Rush Limbaugh's recent update to the dictum. After Romney's terrific Illinois victory speech Tuesday, Rush said flatly, "A conservative alternative to Romney is Romney."
As the tough primary season ventures on, Romney has clarified and evolved his views into tough conservative positions.
On economic policy, for example, he would limit the government budget to 20 percent of gross domestic product, slash $500 billion in his first term and restrain Medicaid, food stamps and other entitlement transfers before block granting them to the states. His Medicare reform is nearly identical to the Wyden-Ryan approach. He's for a true all-of-the-above energy policy that would take the regulatory handcuffs off drilling on federal lands. He would repeal Obamacare. And he has come up with a supply-side tax cut that would lower marginal rates by 20 percent across the board and drop the corporate tax to 25 percent.
Those are very conservative positions. One could seriously ask whether Romney isn't the most conservative presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan.
Yes, there is still work to be done on clarifying the difference between Romneycare and Obamacare, as well as the need for a strong King Dollar approach to monetary policy. And more tax simplification. But in broad terms, it's impossible not to think of this former businessman as conservative on the key economic issues. He's for limited government, lower tax rates, and deregulation, all with a fair amount of detail.
Columnists Dan Henninger and Jennifer Rubin have written about Romney's close relationship with conservative icon Paul Ryan. It's a point I made a while back, as I speculated a Ryan appointment as Romney's budget director.
Sen. Jim DeMint, another conservative icon, recently told reporters after meeting with the former Massachusetts governor, "What I can tell conservatives from my perspective is that I'm not only comfortable with Romney, I'm excited about the possibility of him possibly becoming our nominee."
The second half of the week was dominated by Team Romney's Etch A Sketch gaffe. But folks shouldn't let this fog out Romney's brilliant speech about economic freedom at the beginning of the week.
On the night of his big Illinois victory, Romney offered a moral exposition of the merits of economic freedom and free enterprise business. And all the while, he mockingly referred to "professor Obama," who has no clue about what makes business tick.
Romney railed against overregulation, noting that Obama's regulators would have shut down the Wright brothers for their "dust pollution." He said the Obama government "would have banned Thomas Edison's light bulb," adding, "Oh, that's right. They just did."
Romney made clear that economic freedom is the key to the American economy. He said, "The history of the world has shown that economic freedom is the only force that has consistently lifted people out of poverty." He added: "The genius of America is that we nurture these dreams and the dreamers. We honor them, and yes, we reward them."
Pause a moment on the idea of rewarding the dreamers. This is a crucial difference with Obama, who wants to penalize the dreamers. Make a bunch of money and you're gonna pay higher tax rates. It's class warfare, the 1 percent vs. the 99 percent. Tax the rich. Redistribute.
But Obama's class warfare is an assault on freedom. It's an assault on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That's a key point in this election. It may be the key point. And by acknowledging the importance of rewarding success and constitutional freedom, Romney also shows he understands the incentive model of economic growth.
In fact, Romney recently told National Review's Robert Costa that solving the budget deficit could be done in two ways -- spending reductions and pro-growth tax policies.
The Ryan budget itself, when properly priced out in dynamic terms to account for growth incentives from lower tax rates, would be balanced in 10 years with substantially lower debt-to-GDP ratios. It sounds as if Romney gets this. That by itself is worthy of the nomination.
Then Romney told us Tuesday night: "This election will be about principle. Our economic freedom will be on the ballot." He said essentially the same thing the day before during a University of Chicago speech. And for many months, he has been talking about the battle for America's soul, between Obama's big-government entitlement state and his vision of a merit-based opportunity society.
This is Reagan-like. This is Jack Kemp-like. This is Paul Ryan's American idea.
This is, in short, profoundly conservative. An election winner.
-
This is the speech both Crafty and Kudlow referred to. Excellent speech and foundation for running, winning and governing. Enjoy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vijPDdWiyw
-
That version is pure audio.
Here's one with the video too
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9tntYVDoNY&feature=related
-
Santorum takes Lousiana yesterday by 20 points. No new damage done. Next is Wisconsin home of the bruising battle of the raped taxpayers versus the all-powerful public unions and Santorum will be out-front supporting Gov. Walker fight the recall campaign. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/25/rick-santorum-scott-walker-_n_1378101.html
Independent moderate friends tell me Republicans were unwise to pick this fight. Huh? We should not fight for the will of the people over the power of the union, just pay the price? The issue is national because nearly all states plus the Feds have the same problems.
The historical justification of the labor union is that the greedy capitalist too often had too much power to dictate employment in a community. In the case of all public employee unions which use to be illegal, the greedy capitalist is the will of the people. Public employee pay and benefits have to be high enough by definition to attract good workers. If compensation is too low, those jobs go unfilled until the pay increases to market levels. The market works and the citizens have a right to decide what to pay and what to spend. Why is it more complicated than that?
Santorum's stand may cause both Obama and Romney to jump in on the issue.
-------------
Rasmussen Reports: 54% Oppose Recall of Walker (Feb 2012) http://www.ibwisconsin.com/In-Business-Wisconsin/February-2012/Rasmussen-Reports-54-Oppose-Recall-of-Walker/
President Obama leads Romney and Santorum here. [R's leading to take a Dem senate seat- all at the link.]
Fifty-four percent of Wisconsinites oppose the recall of Gov. Scott Walker, according to the most recent polling data from Rasmussen Reports.
In a phone survey of 500 likely voters, Rasmussen also said 52% at least somewhat approve of Walker’s job performance to date, while 46% at least somewhat disapprove. The findings include 40% who strongly approve and 40% who strongly disapprove.
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mFVa1YTtFU&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mFVa1YTtFU&feature=player_embedded
"Obama 2012, because you're as dumb as we think you are!"
-
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/53334
Say goodnight, Newt
March 25, 2012 by Don Surber
The Louisiana primary on Saturday put the wooden stake through the presidential campaign of Newt Gingrich. He failed to take a state and he failed to get the 25% of the vote needed to score delegates statewide. Under Republican rules, a candidate must win at least five states or territories (or D.C.) in order to have his delegates count on the first ballot. Newt’s taken two. It’s time for him to pull the plug and release his delegates. His point has been made. He can write his book and hit the lecture circuit.
Meanwhile, Rick Santorum won but it is too little too late. His failure to attract backers and organize a national campaign continues to raise doubts about what sort of president he would be. He is trying to be the Reagan in the race by portraying Mitt Romney as the Jerry Ford.
The win in Louisiana was not as big as it appears to be. The rules in divvying up the state’s 46 delegates are so complex that Santorum may have a net gain of only 5 delegates, after being crushed in Puerto Rico last Sunday 23-0 and losing Illinois 42-10. From Politico:
Santorum picked up only 10 delegates from the victory, with five going to Romney and five remaining unbound after Saturday’s vote. The Louisiana GOP will divide up the remaining 23 delegates through a caucus process in late April.
One thing to bear in mind is Romney has received 4.1 million votes, Santorum 2.8 million so it is not as if Santorum is getting screwed so much as he still has not figured out the rules. He does well when the stakes are small, but poorly when the stakes are high.
But Santorum is doing well with conservative women. Guess what? Many women like having babies and do not like abortion.
-
WSJ reports today the Romney has pulled even with Santorum in PA.
-
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-04-01/swing-states-poll/53930684/1?csp=hf
President Obama has opened the first significant lead of the 2012 campaign in the nation's dozen top battleground states, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, boosted by a huge shift of women to his side.
In the fifth Swing States survey taken since last fall, Obama leads Republican front-runner Mitt Romney 51%-42% among registered voters just a month after the president had trailed him by two percentage points.
-
I saw on FOX something about Baraq outpolling Romney by 18 points with women and Saintorum being out polled with women by a mere 16 points.
Looks like the "war on birth control" stupidity worked. Oy fg vey.
-
I saw on FOX something about Baraq outpolling Romney by 18 points with women and Saintorum being out polled with women by a mere 16 points.
Looks like the "war on birth control" stupidity worked. Oy fg vey.
Obama has nothing but emotion and demagoguery to run on. Thus Fluke and racial hatred are being delivered on cue.
-
At least a good part of it is the single mother crowd. They want the government to be the sugar daddy.
Dead beat dads don't help.
The degeneration of the family nucleus.
We can thank the liberals for this.
-
It's over.
Mitt Romney has lost the 2012 election, and he's lost it because women are deserting the GOP over its opposition to ObamaCare's contraceptive coverage mandate. That's been the press drumbeat for the last few weeks. Now the argument appears to be backed up by a new USA Today/Gallup poll of swing-state voters. It shows Barack Obama out front for the first time since the poll started last November—largely because of the 2-1 advantage he enjoys over Mr. Romney among women under age 50.
Leave it to the liberal Salon website to sum up the conventional wisdom: "This is very likely a result of the prominence that contraception and women's issues have assumed in the public debate since February, when Republicans revolted against the Obama administration's efforts to make birth control a mandatory component of health insurance coverage."
Enlarge Image
CloseGetty Images
Mitt Romney on the campaign trail, April 1.
.One problem with this explanation: The same USA Today poll reports that 63% of those surveyed say they don't even know what Mitt Romney's position on government and birth control is. For that matter, 46% say they don't know President Obama's position either.
We don't know how these numbers break down among subgroups such as unmarried women, because USA Today has not released the cross tabs. What we do know, however, suggests it is premature to conclude the Republican Party's handling of the contraception mandate has cost Mr. Romney the women's vote. Especially when women in this same poll rank government policies on birth control last on their list of electoral priorities—behind health care, gas prices, unemployment, the national debt, etc.
We also know that many of the broadest conclusions about Mr. Romney's appeal among women from this new USA Today poll have been ripped out of any context. David Paul Kuhn is chief political correspondent for RealClearPolitics and author of "The Neglected Voter: White Men and the Democratic Dilemma." In an interview on Monday he told me the argument that Mr. Romney has lost women's support over the course of the contraception debate is contradicted by the timing.
"If the heated contraceptive debate was shifting the female vote, I would expect it to have burned Republicans with women back in February, when the debate was at its climax," Mr. Kuhn says. If you look at polls pre- and post-debate, Mr. Romney's support among women is steady in a half dozen major surveys, he adds.
Then there's the assumption that all women think the same. Steve Wagner of public opinion research firm QEV Analytics has taken a private poll, also of swing-state voters, specifically on the mandate, for the Catholic Association, a nonprofit. When he broke down the numbers for women under 50, he told me that he found two striking results.
The first is that nearly half of women under 50 attend religious services weekly. The second is that a majority oppose in principle what the administration is doing.
Related Video
Columnist Bill McGurn on why Mitt Romney's support among women has tanked.
.
.When asked, for example, whether the federal government has the right to force morally objectionable coverage on religious institutions, 52% of these women say "No." An even larger percentage, 59%, say that insurance companies should handle contraceptives the way they do other drugs (instead of having to provide them free). All of which suggests that Republicans who advance a religious liberty argument when asked about the contraception mandate will find a receptive audience.
That's not to say that President Obama is wrong to look to women for new votes—especially single women. Notwithstanding the jokes about the "I Got a Crush on Obama" video that went viral during the last campaign, the Obama Girl apparently spoke for many. In 2008, Mr. Obama won women handily—and captured 70% of the single female vote.
That makes unmarried women one of the most solidly Democratic voting blocs. Given that an estimated 20 million unmarried women did not vote in the last presidential election, it also makes them a natural target for Democratic mobilization.
The question is whether free birth control will do it, especially when the USA Today poll shows it to be such a low priority. We forget today, but in the 2010 national elections women showed they cared plenty about issues such as ObamaCare and the stimulus when they went for Republicans 49% to 48%. With the economy now showing signs of getting better, that may be a harder sell in 2012, but it's a sale Mr. Romney has to make.
The good news for Mr. Romney is that his failure to elicit enthusiasm among women likely has little to do with the way he or his party have handled contraception.
The bad news for Mr. Romney is that his inability to generate much excitement among women appears related to a general inability to generate much excitement among anyone.
-
The bad news for Mr. Romney is that his inability to generate much excitement among women appears related to a general inability to generate much excitement among anyone.
The excitement is the avoidance of a catastrophic second term for Buraq.
-
"bad news for Mr. Romney is that his inability to generate much excitement among women"
Didn't Mrs. Romney say something to the effect that she is going to "unzip" Mitt?
-
Here it is..... Well it is kind of a double entendre......Even this from the Romney's.... has a double meaning :-o
ALBANY — Republican front-runner Mitt Romney just needs to unzip and show the world he’s not that stiff.
That’s the word from his wife, Ann Romney, who defended her husband Monday against criticisms that he’s too rigid - as in humorless.
“Well, you know, I guess we better unzip him and let the real Mitt Romney out because he is not,” Ann Romney said in an interview with a Baltimore radio station.
Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/mitt-romney/2012/04/03/stiff-mitt-just-needs-be-unzipped-says-his-wife#ixzz1r0GHUBNq
-
"Republican front-runner Mitt Romney just needs to unzip and show the world he’s not that stiff. That’s the word from his wife, Ann Romney"
Well, she would know , , ,
It would be hard to make this stuff up , , ,
-
Even THIS line comes out wrong :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:
-
Obama's Enthusiasm Gap
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on April 3, 2012
Printer-Friendly Version
The conventional wisdom in Washington is even more demented than usual in its confident prediction of an Obama victory. The fact is that a careful analysis of the polling suggests that he faces the likelihood that his political base will underperform in the 2012 election, voting with their feet by staying home.
An enthusiasm gap is hurting Obama's candidacy and his reelection chances.
RealClearPolitics.com helpfully lists all of the test match-ups
between Obama and Romney. Of the last 12 polls, going back to March 11, 10 tested their relative strength among registered voters. The average of these 10 polls gave Obama a 49-42 advantage, a comfortable margin of victory of 7 points. But the two polls during this period that tested likely voters -- one by Bloomberg on March 11 and one by Rasmussen on April 1 (but not an April Fools' joke) both showed a tied race. Bloomberg had it 45-45, while Rasmussen showed it deadlocked at 47 apiece.
All Democrats do better than Republicans when adults or registered voters are sampled, as opposed to likely voters. Those who tend not to vote are usually more downscale in income and education and more likely to vote Democratic. But the difference between registered voters and likely voters is rarely so large.
In the Clinton campaign of 1996, for example, the gap was rarely more than a few points.
The huge difference facing Obama based on whether the sample is of registered or likely voters -- a 7-point victory in one and a tied race in the other -- underscores the president's biggest problem: motivating his supporters to get out and vote.
Essentially, Obama's 2008 victory was based on a trio of high turnouts among African-Americans, Latinos and young people. While his ratings among blacks are still very high and he is likely to continue to get almost all of their votes, it is an open question whether he will be able to increase their turnout as dramatically as he did last time. In the election of 2008, blacks cast 14 percent of the vote, far above their usual 11 percent.
Among Hispanics, Obama is in serious trouble. While he won two-thirds of their votes in '08, Rasmussen now shows just 41 percent approving of his job as president. And among voters under 30, Obama is also unlikely to be able to replicate his '08 showing. Rasmussen has him drawing only 54 percent approval -- with only 22 percent strongly approving of his performance as president, far below the 67 percent vote share he drew among the young in '08.
Obama clearly recognizes his situation and is featuring policies meant to appease and energize his sagging base. From his intervention in the Florida shooting of an unarmed teenager to his new immigration policies and his focus on student loans, the president is trying to bridge the enthusiasm gap that threatens to doom his candidacy.
Conversely, the evidence suggests that white middle-aged and elderly voters are champing at the bit to vote to oust Obama from the Oval Office before he can inflict more damage on this country.
And all of these stats beg the fundamental question of where the undecided votes will go. A careful analysis of all the undecided votes in all the presidential elections since 1960 in which an incumbent was seeking a second term shows that 80 percent of those who were undecided in the final Gallup poll voted for the challenger even when he was losing the contest badly. While Goldwater, McGovern, Mondale, Dole and Kerry were badly defeated in their challenges to Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton and Bush, they all drew the vast bulk of the undecided vote. So when Obama gets 45 percent of the likely voters, the evidence would suggest that he is headed for a sizable defeat
-
http://atr.rollcall.com/obama-vs-romney-the-campaign-begins/
If former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney defeats President Barack Obama on Nov. 6, his road to victory might lead all the way back to the speech he delivered Friday in Appleton, Wis.
In that address, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee presented his philosophy on the economy and its relationship with the federal government as a vision. And more importantly, he provided a moral underpinning for his viewpoint that attempted to connect his ideas to average Americans. Voters might reject Romney’s vision and opt for Obama’s. The president has been quite adept at framing his policies on taxes and government spending in terms of “balance” and “fairness” for the “middle class,” and polling data has shown that voters have reacted favorably.
But for perhaps the first time in a while, Republicans are attempting to equalize the playing field. Romney in the Friday speech went beyond the clinical talking points often employed by Republicans on Capitol Hill that raising taxes on the “rich” should be rejected because they depress job creation. The ex-governor and former venture capitalist offered a moral defense for smaller government and keeping taxes low on wealthy earners — and attempted to explain why doing so is good for everyone else.
-
Anyone else notice the Democratic party reframing all Republican themes and spinning it the other way around:
1) Republicans are calling Obama a radical : The crats are calling Repubs the radicals.
2) Obama calling the Court "activist".
3) Obama spinning the "socialist" label given to him by calling Repubs social "Darwinians".
4) Republicans calling for limited government switched to essentially no government.
To me the social Darwinian comment is by far the biggest tipoff. Basically he is saying that "free market", "competition", "capitalism", is "radical" and social government manipulation and regulation is mainstream.
Obama clearly has is backwards but until Romney can better enunciate hwo this is wrong and how this is exactly the opposite as to what made this country great the crats are very adept at bribing voters with taxpayer money.
*If* it is tru that female voters (surely mostly single mothers) are willing to throw the American ideals into the garbage heap of history for their little pet gov. programs than I guess the game is over.
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/the-polls-really-show-obama-losing-big-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/#commentblock
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/the-polls-really-show-obama-losing-big-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/#commentblock
Look at Buraq's behavior recently, he's panicked.
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/how-santorum-has-helped-romney-beat-obama-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/
-
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2012/04/06/
-
NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE www.nationalreview.com PRINT
Our Contemptuous President
By Mark Steyn
April 7, 2012 4:00 A.M.
As Bob Hope and Bing Crosby observed in Road to Bali:
He gets his shirts straight from Paris
Cigarettes from the Nile
He talks like a highbrow
But he plays Chicago style . . .
I’ve no idea where President Obama gets his shirts and smokes, but he certainly talks like a highbrow, sufficiently so to persuade presidential historian Michael Beschloss to pronounce him the day after the 2008 election “the smartest president ever.” Yet, in the end, he plays Chicago style. You can take the community organizer out of Chicago, but you can’t take the Chicago out of the community organizer. Or as the Agence France-Presse headline put it, “Combative Obama Warns Supreme Court on Health Law.”
Headlines in which the executive “warns” the courts are usually the province of places like Balochistan, where powerful cabinet ministers are currently fuming at the chief justice’s determination to stop them kidnapping citizens and holding them for ransom — literally, that is, not merely figuratively, as in America. But, here as there, when Obama “warns” the Supreme Court “over health law,” it’s their health prospects he has in mind. He cautioned the justices — “an unelected group of people” — not to take the “unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”
The eunuchs of the palace media gleefully piled on: As the New York Times sees it, were the justices to take an “unprecedented” step so unprecedented there are two centuries’ worth of precedents going back to 1803, they would be fatally damaging “the Court’s legitimacy.”
All that’s unprecedented here is the spectacle of the president of the United States, while the judges are deliberating, idly swinging his tire iron and saying, “Nice little Supreme Court you got here. Shame if anything were to happen to it.”
A nation can have formal “checks and balances,” but in the end free societies depend on a certain deference to the proprieties. If you’re willing to disdain those, you can drive a coach and horses through accepted norms very easily. The bit about “a democratically elected Congress” was an especially exquisite touch given Obama’s recently professed respect for the democratic process: As he assured Vladimir Putin’s sock puppet the other day, he’ll have “more flexibility” to accommodate foreign interests after he’s got his “last election” and all that tedious democracy business out of the way. His “last election,” I hasten to add, not America’s.
Aside from his contempt for judicial review and those rube voters, what other checks and balances doesn’t he have time for? Well, he makes “recess appointments” when the Senate isn’t in recess, thus circumventing the dreary business of confirmation by that “democratically elected” legislature he likes so much. But hey, it’s only members of the National Labor Relations Board and the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, so why get hung up on constitutional niceties?
By the way, have you heard of this Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? No? Don’t worry, no big deal, it’s just a new federal agency. Because we can always use another of those, right? What’s one more acronym jostling in the ever-more-crowded alphabet soup of federal regulation? CFTC, CPSC, CNPP, and now CFPB. Not to be confused with CFPB-FM, the Inuit radio station just south of the Arctic Circle in the Nunavut village of Kugaaruk, where in 1975 the world’s all-time coldest wind chill was recorded: minus 135 degrees Fahrenheit.
Where was I? Oh, yes: the world’s all-time coldest wind chill. That’s what you’re going to be feeling at this point in an Obama second term. If you like his contempt for judicial review, parliamentary scrutiny, and representative democracy now, wait’ll you see how “flexible” he’ll get starting in January 2013. The CFPB appointment is not a small thing. Indeed, its new director, one Richard Cordray, embodies what’s gone so disastrously wrong with American government: You’ll have to be in compliance with him, but he doesn’t have to be in compliance with anybody, whether the Senate or the U.S. Constitution. As I say somewhere in my recent book, you don’t need a president-for-life if you’ve got a bureaucracy-for-life. More and more aspects of the citizen’s daily existence are regulated by rules and officials both of which are ever more disconnected from any meaningful accountability to the people’s representatives. As the president says, look for even more “flexibility” in a second term: more non-recess recess appointments, more executive orders, more bewildering innovations from the commissars of the hyper-regulatory state.
Which brings us to another aspect of government that Obama apparently finds a frightful bore: budgets. In free societies, the executive is subject to the creative tensions of popular restraint, legislative restraint, judicial restraint, and fiscal restraint. All these the president has artfully sidestepped. In the last three years, the United States has ceased to have any meaningful budgeting at the national level, with the consequence that Washington piles on roughly a trillion dollars of new debt every seven or eight months. This week, before the fawning toadies at the Associated Press luncheon, Obama attacked Congressman Paul Ryan’s plan to prevent America plunging into the debt abyss and at least keep its fingernails clawing at the clumps on the cliff edge for a couple more decades. Don’t believe him, sneered the president. “Hundreds of national parks” will close. Parts of the country will see “complete elimination of air-traffic control.” We will be unable to “combat violent crime.” Two million mothers and young children will wind up without “access to healthy food.” Anything else? You bet. The Ryan plan will doom everything everywhere — “the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food that we eat.”
“This is not conjecture,” said the president. “These are facts.”
Speaking of facts, in the last year the federal government has added the equivalent of the GDP of Canada in new debt. Who’s buying it? The Chinese? Not so much. They’ve got pretty much all the Washington IOUs they need. Sixty-one percent of debt issued by the Treasury is bought by the Federal Reserve — which is to say the left hand of the U.S. government is lending money to the right hand of the U.S. government. That’s one reason the dollar is in steep decline against every major currency. Indeed, had it not been for the French and Germans et al. inaugurating the new century by inventing a currency for an artificial jurisdiction with even less connection to economic reality (the European Union), it’s likely that the markets would have yanked the rug out from under the dollar by now.
Nonetheless, in a land where every mewling babe in the American nursery is born with a debt burden of just under $200,000, the president brags that only his party is “compassionate” to have no plan whatsoever even to attempt to do anything about this, no way, no how, not now, not ever.
Last week, the head of the General Services Administration, the federal agency that picks out the office furniture for the other federal agencies, had to resign after a bureaucrats’ junket to Vegas that included a lavish party with clowns and a $3,200 mind reader. The clowns seem surplus to requirements, but I’d love to know what that mind reader found. Obama-sized government ends nowhere good, and in his Chicago-style contempt for checks and balances he’s telling us that, if you enjoyed the first term, you ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.
-
Barone is right on the mark IMO and I think Romney will win because the miserable status quo and the record and rhetoric of Obama will go up against a plan for optimism and growth whether you personally like Romney or not. Young people will either see the distinction in 2012 like they did in 1980 and lean Republican or they will sit out unenthused by what the excitement of 2008 brought them IMO. Too bad for Obama that the lasting theme was change and that 4 years comes up so quickly.
-----------------
April 9, 2012
Can Romney Show Voters That Obama Is Out of Date?
By Michael Barone
Time for a postmortem on the race for the Republican presidential nomination.
Yes, I know Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich are still out there saying interesting things. And that Rick Santorum says it's only halftime and argues he can somehow overtake Mitt Romney by carrying his home state of Pennsylvania.
But polls there show a close race. And the idea that, if Romney falls short of a delegate majority, superdelegates will throng to a proudly unscripted, shoot-from-the-lip alternative is delusional.
The interesting questions are what the primaries and caucuses tell us about the state of the Republican Party and about Mitt Romney's chances in the general election.
In 2000, a time of apparent peace and prosperity, George W. Bush won the nomination by consolidating cultural conservatives and making inroads among the affluent. Cultural issues were then more important than economics or foreign policy.
This year, a time of economic stagnation and lingering war, Mitt Romney won the nomination by consolidating the affluent and making inroads among tea partiers. Economic issues far overshadow cultural issues.
Romney's victory margins have come from the suburbs in big metropolitan areas. Unlike Bush, he's been losing the rural and small-town counties. "Somewhat conservative" voters now personify the Republican Party.
All of which suggests that this fall Romney may run much better than recent Republican nominees in affluent Northern suburbs. They've voted increasingly Democratic over the past 20 years, turning target states into safely Democratic states. Now they may turn back again.
Additional evidence comes from the Pew Research surveys showing Democrats losing ground in the Obama years among white Catholics and Jews -- groups disproportionately concentrated in affluent Northern suburbs.
Affluent voters like articulate candidates and dislike impulsive ones. George W. Bush, despite his eloquent speeches, didn't come across as articulate. He seemed to enjoy his Texas twang and mangled sentences with happy abandon.
John McCain, more articulate, came across as impulsive, notably when he suspended his campaign amid the financial meltdown.
Through the primaries, Mitt Romney has come across as articulate if not exciting and methodical rather than impulsive.
In contrast, Barack Obama has started to flail. His know-nothing assault on the Supreme Court and his demagogic denunciation of "social Darwinism" (a phrase more common on campus than in real life) make him look like he's appealing to ignorant voters. Ditto his attacks on the rich.
Affluent voters don't like that. That's not what suburban supporters of Obama thought they were voting for in 2008.
They may not like Obama's refusal to engage the looming entitlements crisis, either. They don't admire people who act irresponsibly.
If Romney's strength among the affluent opens up a new opportunity for Republicans, his and his primary opponents' weakness among the young highlights a problem.
Under 30s were 18 percent of the electorate in 2008 and voted 66 to 32 percent for Obama.
Many are disenchanted with him now, but very few showed up in Republican contests. Only 6 to 12 percent of Republican primary voters were under 30. Leaving out Ron Paul voters, they were only 4 to 10 percent of Republican turnout.
Moreover, Romney carried under 30s only in Florida, Arizona, Massachusetts and Wisconsin.
He may owe that last result to the wholehearted endorsement of Wisconsin's Paul Ryan. The House Budget Committee chairman makes a powerful case that young people can't count on promised benefits unless entitlement programs are reformed.
There is a huge tension between the personalize-your-own-world ethos of the iPod/Facebook generation and the command-and-control, mid-20th-century welfare state programs of the Obama Democrats.
The young are stuck with disproportionate insurance premiums by Obamacare and with student loan debt that can't be discharged in bankruptcy. Some hope. Some change.
Romney needs to make the case that current policy -- what Obama has fallen back on -- is leading to a crash in which government will fail to keep its promises.
He needs to argue that his "opportunity society" means vibrant economic growth that can provide, in ways that can't be precisely predicted, opportunities in which young people can find work that draws on their special talents and interests.
Obama's policies, in contrast, treat individuals as just one cog in a very large machine, designed by supposed experts who don't seem to know what they're doing (see Obamacare, Solyndra). Their supposedly cutting-edge technology (electric cars, passenger rail) is more than a century old.
Romney, potentially strong with the affluent, needs to figure out how to get through to the young.
-
Hope and Change becomes Fear, Envy, and Bribery
http://www.dickmorris.com/what-is-obamas-strategy-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/
-
He did his best. He bows out with style:
Lead StorySantorum suspends campaign, but “we are not done fighting” to defeat Obama
By Michelle Malkin • April 10, 2012 02:01 PM
RickSantorum.com
Rick Santorum fought hard, he fought well, and he gave voice to a large contingent of grass-roots conservative activists across the country who wanted a candidate who lived the values he preached. He held Mitt Romney’s feet to the fire on health care, challenged Newt Gingrich’s green flirtations and past support for the individual mandate, and took on Ron Paul’s foreign policy extremism. His presence improved everyone else’s game — and that will serve the GOP ticket well this fall, whoever ends up on it.
Thankfully, Sen. Santorum’s daughter Bella has been released from the hospital after being admitted this weekend.
Thanks and prayers to Santorum and his family for their energy and passion and dedication to defending life, prosperity, and the American Dream. With a fraction of the money and air time, Santorum came from nowhere to become the most formidable challenger to Mitt Romney through hard work and faith.
Will update after press conference.
***
Update: Santorum addresses press in Gettysburg with wife Karen and children beside/behind him.
Bella is a “fighter,” “doing exceptionally well.” Weekend was difficult time, time for re-thinking. Recounts decision to enter the race, telling his story of the American Dream, meeting voters and hearing their stories, acknowledging volunteers, families with special needs.
Santorum talks about good times of campaign — sweater vest phenom on Twitter, visiting Minn. manufacturing plant, supporter in pick-up truck, girls who made “Game On” music video.
Miracle after miracle, this campaign was as improbable as any. This wasn’t about my voice. It was about your voices…reflecting hopes of Americans, not just fears.
“Against all odds, we won 11 states, millions of votes…wonderful people of this country who care deeply.”
Campaign is suspended, but “we are not done fighting” for our country…and will defeat Barack Obama, win on Capitol Hill.
~ For the latest breaking news, be sure to join Michelle's e-mail list ~
-
"Obama is not just Obama, he is a machine. Romney is not just Romney he is now the only defense against the Obama machine."
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/04/if-packers-couldnt-beat-lions-in-1937.html?showComment=1334162828943#c5341362258975864890
-
Early electoral map, Obama leads:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html
-
Doug, The dems know their only hope is to keep up the divide and conquer strategy (of Americans); into classes, races, ethnicities, sexes, sexual orientation, taxpayers and nontaxpayers.
Barring three things:
Some unforsefeen event
Romney screws up in some big way
Just enough of the electorate can be bribed with taxpayer money
I agree with Dick Moirris - this election will not be close.
-
It is about a tie at right now but this piece paints an optimistic picture for Romney. Romney needs to win Florida, Ohio and Virginia but if he can win those three, a good number of other tossups might also fall his way.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/romneys-bright-electoral-landscape/2012/04/15/gIQA9jcsJT_blog.html
Romney’s bright electoral landscape
By Jennifer Rubin
The electoral map reveals how perilous is President Obama’s grip on the White House. Let’s start, as RealClearPolitics does, with a base of 170 electoral votes for Mitt Romney. It’s hard to imagine that Obama could win any of even the less-red states that comprise that batch (e.g. Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, Montana). To get 100 more and seize the presidency, Romney only needs some states that routinely went Republican before the 2008 race (Nevada, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia) and needs to hold on to a few that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) managed to win (Arizona, Missouri). This gets Romney to 273.
In other words, Romney doesn’t need to win (but he might) in New Hampshire or New Mexico. He would love to, but isn’t required to, break through in states like Pennsylvania, Iowa, Wisconsin or Michigan. (The first and last would seem the most likely.)
It may come as a shock to liberals when you break it down by the only measure that matters (electoral votes), but Romney can do worse that George W. Bush did in 2004 (when he won Iowa and New Mexico) and still win the White House.
This doesn’t mean Romney will have an easy time of it, but it does suggest that Romney doesn’t need to twist and turn on policy, or throw the longball for VP to win the race. If he runs better than McCain and worse than Bush, then he’s very likely to win.
Of the states critical to Romney, it is not hard to see how important Ohio, Florida and Virginia are to his prospects. These states have a cumulative total of 60 electoral votes. Romney won all three in the primaries, and each has large urban and/or suburban areas of the type Romney has won all across the country. All three states have GOP governors. In 2010, Ohio and Florida each elected a conservative senator in part due to a backlash against Obama.
All of this leads us to a couple conclusions. First, a popular VP pick from one of them would be a smart thing indeed. Jeb Bush, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Virginia’s Gov. Bob McDonnell would qualify and please the base without turning off swing voters.
Second, if you think of some of the issues that matter in these states (trade, Cuba policy, jobs) Romney is well positioned. Virginia (in part from government-related hiring in Northern Virginia) is the only one of the three with unemployment below 7 percent. Florida’s is over 9 percent. Romney need not rethink or restyle his agenda, nor (as liberals keep arguing) move “to the center.” He simply has to communicate over and over again why his middle-of-the-road Republican policies and his background in the private sector would be better for those states and the country.
Republicans should be relieved, but not cocky, about the electoral landscape. The states most at risk will very likely be close. But Democrats’ confidence at this point seems unwarranted. It is very easy to spot Romney’s path to 270 electoral votes.
-
Obozo is very beatable, if Mittens is ready and willing to take the fight to him. So far, his team has been spot on.
As an example, this:
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/15/video-david-axelrod-makes-the-case-for-mitt-romney/
Do Americans want “an economy that produces a growing middle class and gives people a chance to get ahead and their kids a chance to get ahead?” Or do they want to continue down “the road we’re on”?
-
We need a DECISIVE win by Romney.
We need to expand the hold on the House.
We need to take the Senate.
Strategies for this sort of thing are a forte of Newt.
-
We need a DECISIVE win by Romney.
We need to expand the hold on the House.
We need to take the Senate.
Strategies for this sort of thing are a forte of Newt.
Perhaps if Newt were to quit his vanity campaign/audition for a CNN gig, he'd get a chance to work for Mittens on such things.
-
Well, recently he has said the right things about working enthusiastically for MR should he be the candidate.
-
Dick Morris posts some indicators that this is not going to be the electoral tie of 2000 that the currently vacillating polls might indicate.
"Six of eight presidents seeking reelection (since 1964) performed worse than the final Gallup poll predicted, while one finished the same (Reagan in 1984) and one gained votes (Bush in 2004). "
..."of the total of
19 points that shifted between the final poll and the election results, 17 points or 89 percent went to the challenger.
The implications of these findings are that the current polls, while seemingly close, portend a strong Republican victory. The RealClearPolitics.com average of the past eight presidential horse race polls shows Obama with a 47-44 lead over Romney. But among likely voters, in the Rasmussen survey (all others were of either registered voters or adults), the president was running behind Romney by 48-44.
But given the historical fact that the final results are almost always worse for the president and almost never better, we really need to focus on the Obama vote share rather than his lead or lack of one against Romney. If Obama is, indeed, getting 44 percent of the vote, he is likely facing, at least, an 11-point loss. If he is getting 47 percent of the vote, he is looking, at least, at a 6-point defeat. (Given the fact that six of the eight incumbent presidents not only lost the undecided, but finished lower than the pre-election survey predicted, it would be more likely that Obama’s margin of defeat would be greater than even these numbers suggest.)
There are other indications of a Republican landslide in the offing. Party identification has moved a net of eight points toward the GOP since the last election. In Senate races, there are currently eight Democratic-held seats where Republicans are now leading either the Democratic incumbent or the Democratic candidate for the open seat." http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/04/18/undecided_lean_to_insurgent_113883.html
-
GM wirtes:
"So far, his team has been spot on."
Someone(s) on the right did great with this:
I loved the recent news about OBama paying less than HIS secretary on taxes! It goes along with the proper theme of total tax reform not just taxing the rich (which the bamster does not qualify beause he makes only 3/4 of a mill), and he is a total hypocrit (as are many crats).
-
Obozo is very beatable, if Mittens is ready and willing to take the fight to him. So far, his team has been spot on.
As an example, this:
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/15/video-david-axelrod-makes-the-case-for-mitt-romney/
Do Americans want “an economy that produces a growing middle class and gives people a chance to get ahead and their kids a chance to get ahead?” Or do they want to continue down “the road we’re on”?
So, three times this week, Buraq's team has tried to lob attacks at Mittens and each time they've spiked it back in Obozo's face, the dog being the latest and best of the three. I think Mitt is serious about winning. And if he keeps it up, he will.
-
"three times this week, Buraq's team has tried to lob attacks at Mittens and each time they've spiked it back in Obozo's face, the dog being the latest and best of the three. I think Mitt is serious about winning. And if he keeps it up, he will."
People can say what they will about Romney for President but I wouldn't vote for Obama for dogcatcher.
-
"three times this week, Buraq's team has tried to lob attacks at Mittens and each time they've spiked it back in Obozo's face, the dog being the latest and best of the three. I think Mitt is serious about winning. And if he keeps it up, he will."
People can say what they will about Romney for President but I wouldn't vote for Obama for dogcatcher.
:-D
-
**What is this strange sensation? Could it possibly be some enthusiasm for a Romney candidacy? :-o
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/04/19/romney-visits-empty-factory-to-mock-obama/
Romney Visits Empty Factory to Mock Obama.
By Janet Hook
(http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-SQ784_Romney_G_20120419175731.jpg)
Mitt Romney speaks at the closed National Gypsum drywall factory in Lorain, Ohio, Thursday, April 19, 2012. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)LORAIN, Ohio — Mitt Romney, shadowing President Barack Obama on the campaign trail, went to the battleground state of Ohio to appear at a shuttered industrial warehouse to dramatize his complaints about the incumbent’s economic policies.
“It underscores the failure of this president’s policies with regard to getting the economy moving,’’ Mr. Romney said standing in a cavernous, empty warehouse festooned with a banner that read `Obama Isn’t Working.’ “If you want to know where his vision leads open your eyes.’’
-
Brought to my attention by my uncle, and worth seeing if you've not already:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/romney/search.asp
-
Brought to my attention by my uncle, and worth seeing if you've not already:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/romney/search.asp
Obama found a missing dog. It's still missing.
-
Bigdog, That is a great story and quite an example that the guy does have a core and a heart.
In the Romney dog story, he built the dog it's own windshield! In this part of the country what we might call 'garage logic' not 'silver spoo'n thinking. Dogs love sitting in the front of a boat or the back of a pickup. A family of 7 plus a dog traveling in a station wagon or that he and Ann lived in a 75/mo. apartment when first married. On the upbringing part, his dad was an executive not owner of a big company and that company made Ramblers not Mustangs or Corvettes. George Romney was a well liked Governor but a failed Presidential candidate, more like Lamar Alexander or Paul Tsongas than growing up a Kennedy.
People criticize the type of company that Romney ran but besides exercising many positive qualities there such as competence, being organized, setting priorities, making hard choices, managing staff, he had the rare personal ability to leave that work while on top. He was good at it but that dog eat dog world (pardon the expression) wasn't all that he is.
In 2008 so many of the choices including the final 2 or 3 came out of the senate, without executive experience. That is a big distinction. The senate has its own aura, great deliberations, strategy and oratory, but it alone is not the experience of running an executive branch somewhere.
Obama's executive experience was that he ran an amazing campaign in 2008, but it was centered around running away from hard choices of governance with the blank canvas speeches. That, along with the main theme of blame Bush and the Republicans worked for the election but it did not establish a roadmap for successful governing. He had no experience or ability to adapt and change course as a successful business executive is trained to do.
Back to Romney, he won't be bragging about his Mormonism but that he served in his religion and rose to such a high level is another demonstration of character. That was not something he had to do - he could have written books about himself, played golf, visited beaches around the world...
Re. GM's post `Obama Isn’t Working': Remember that McCain's refusal to take off the gloves was a key point in not getting this inexperienced opponent with his misguided direction fully vetted. Crafty had complained or pointed out that Romney was outspending these primary opponents ruthlessly and I saved a Romney piece that came to my mailbox days before our caucus viciously taking a former Speaker down to size, who in his time changed Washington and made a huge difference. Sorry to say but that willingness and ability to go critical and negative now becomes quite a strength in the general election where Barack Obama with his record is far more vulnerable than was Newt.
Romney isn't cool or hip to the (unemployed) younger generation, but if he is still projecting competence and readiness on Nov.6 he will be the next President.
-
Mtt needs to criss-cross the country and make speeches in front of every Solyndra-esque "green jobs" failure and highlight the quid-pro-quo dem money connection to each empty building.
-
On the upbringing part, his dad was an executive not owner of a big company and that company made Ramblers not Mustangs or Corvettes. George Romney was a well liked Governor but a failed Presidential candidate, more like Lamar Alexander or Paul Tsongas than growing up a Kennedy.
Huh? George Romney made almost $3,000,000 in 1968! That's not rich??? In today's dollars that means he made almost $20,000,000 dollars in 1968 alone!
"Romney became a millionaire on company stock options after he introduced a compact car as president of American Motors Corp. The figures show his adjusted gross income ranged from $661,427.68 when he was president of American Motors Corp. to a low of $78,483.85 last year. The figures indicate he paid $1,099,555.18 in taxes on an 1968 income of $2,972,923.58."
He wasn't just "an executive" of a "big company" he was President American Motors, one of the big three auto companies in America. Mitts was brought up in wealth and privilege the rest of us only dream of. That said; so what; lucky him, but let's not foolishly denigrate his wealth; he was brought up very very wealthy.
-
Wealth Mitt gave away, then went out and made his own, as opposed to our affirmative action president who depends on the graft of others.
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/mitt-romney-responds-to-obamas-silver-spoon-swipe/2012/04/19/gIQAGNrDTT_blog.html?wprss=rss_politics
After President Obama took a not-so-subtle jab at his Republican opponent Mitt Romney by saying, “unlike some people, I wasn’t born with a silver spoon in my mouth,” Romney on Thursday accused the president of “attacking people” when he should be “attacking problems.”
Romney, who amassed a fortune now estimated at as much as $250 million during a career at Bain Capital, was asked in an interview on Fox News Thursday morningto respond to Obama’s quip on the campaign trail in Ohio Wednesday afternoon.
“I’m certainly not going to apologize for my dad and his success in life,” Romney said on “Fox & Friends.” “He was born poor. He worked his way to become very successful despite the fact that he didn’t have a college degree, and one of the things he wanted to do was provide for me and for my brother and sisters.”
The former Massachusetts governor, added: “The president likes to attack fellow Americans. He’s always looking for a scapegoat, particularly those [who] have been successful like my dad, and I’m not going to rise to that,” Romney said. “This is a time to solve problems. This is not a time for us to be attacking people. We should be attacking problems.”
-
I agree; I admire his father; just don't say Mitts wasn't born and raised rich. He was in fact born with a "silver spoon in his mouth."
-
I agree; I admire his father; just don't say Mitts wasn't born and raised rich. He was in fact born with a "silver spoon in his mouth."
So was Buraq. What's your point?
-
“Really, this ‘silver spoon’ business?” Coulter said. “Are they going to do that about every Republican while simultaneously revering FDR and JFK? They really were pure silver spoon aristocrats inheriting all their money. Mitt Romney gave away all the money he inherited. He made it on his own.”
“And the silver spoon Obama got — I mean that generation, it can’t be denied, you can’t support affirmative action and then pretend it doesn’t exist. You don’t transfer from Occidental, which by his own accounts in his autobiography he mostly spent smoking pot, to a fine Ivy League university like Columbia if you’re not checking off ‘black’ on your application. So you know, the silver spoon since I’ve been alive has been an affirmative action silver spoon.”
And while she dismissed the rich-versus-poor meme some Democrats have been promoting, she did say there was another sort of class warfare occurring between those earning money from the government and those whose tax dollars are paying for it.
-
I love the silver cocaine spoon analogy. Reminds me of Ted Kennedy never being able to get away from tragic water analogies. Every cliche he used seemed to fall into it: drowning in debt, swimming upstream, head under underwater, water under the bridge, we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it, asleep at the wheel... it just never ended. Now the blew-some-coke guy tries a worn out spoon cliche on his opponent to kick off the general election. Is that all ya got? That line was Hilarious when Texas Gov Ann Richards used on Geo. W Bush - to an audience of partisan Democrats, not from a 'unifying' President crossing the country on Air Force One on official government business. Interestingly, Bush won and Richards lost; I wonder if Obama's teleprompter-writers knew that! Watch for more Freudian screwups; this campaign has its wheels falling off.
------
Thank's for the clarification on George Romney's wealth, '3 million is like 20 million now' and I agree with your conclusion: "That said; so what". For further clarification, big personal wealth now is measured in billions with a B, a starting factor 50 fold greater than 20 million. And why would you quote Pre-TAX income from those days? You show more what he did for his country more than for his family. You have friends, neighbors, acquaintances richer now than George Romney was then, right? Not exactly unimaginable wealth. Again, "so what".
Funny that you then skipped in your wealth clarification the part about the family of 7 traveling in the station wagon, or the couple's first apartment rent of 75/month - that would be nearly $350 today?! But still in the basement, lol.
Understanding wealth and how it is created comes better from Romney's environment than from demagoguing with radical professors and then organizing for welfare rights. JMHO.
-----------
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/20/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-he-didnt-inherit-money-his-parent/
Mitt Romney: "Well, he (George Romney) didn’t have as much as I think some people anticipated. And I did...inherit some funds from my dad. But I turned and gave that away to charity. In this case I gave it to a school which Brigham Young University established in his honor. ... And that’s where his inheritance ended up."
(Once again, the money by that time belonged to Mitt, but was given by Mitt in the name of his Dad. Selfless like the guy who says his "whole life is a testament [Biblical term] to American exceptionalism.)
Politifact verification:
"There's no evidence we saw that Romney's parents helped buy him a business career."
"According to a short history of the George W. Romney Institute of Public Management at BYU, the family provided an endowment in 1998, within a few years of George Romney's death."
-
Pleeeze GM, you must be kidding? I don't care if Mitts had a silver spoon or not, let's talk issues, but don't deny it and try to compare Obama's meager family wealth or upbringing.
In today's dollars Mitts Dad made almost $20,000,000 (today's dollars) in just one year (1968) alone; now that's really wealthy. And that was at a time when top executive compensation
was ridiculous low, unlike it is now. G. Romney's income would probably be much higher in today's business climate. Obama's upbringing is not even close.
As for Occidental College, it is an excellent liberal arts college here in LA; frankly quite difficult to get into. "The college is noted for its combination of rigorous academic programs, a small yet diverse student body. Occidental students have won 10 Rhodes Scholarships, 12 Truman Scholarships, 55 Watson Fellowships and, since 2003, 51 Fulbright Scholarships. The college is among the top 10 percent of liberal arts institutions whose graduates go on to earn Ph.D.s." It's a great school. I know a few graduates and I respect all of them.
As for affirmative action..... Let's look at Mitts.
Mitts had mediocre grades in High School, but for his first year in college he went to Stanford. How do you think he got accepted?
His Dad, of course.... nothing Mitts did; he was nobody in high school. GM; do you understand as President of one of the three largest automobile manufacturers in the 60's, the power
and influence, the prestige and privilege his father, therefore Mitt's family had in Detroit?
Now that's a silver spoon. A big one.
Again, I repeat; so what. I don't care. But at least get the facts straight. Mitts was born very very wealthy and privileged.
-
Pleeeze GM, you must be kidding? I don't care if Mitts had a silver spoon or not, let's talk issues, but don't deny it and try to compare Obama's meager family wealth or upbringing.
Then why do you keep bringing it up? Buraq's maternal grandmother was a bank's vice president that sent him to an elite private school in Hawaii and willed him somewhere between a quarter and half a mil. In gratitude, he called her a "typical white person". Let's see Buraq's academic records for Occidental and the other schools. Why are they a state secret?
-
Me bringing it up? Why? Because Doug tried to imply that G. Romney and therefore Mitts weren't truly wealthy; they were. It needed to be corrected. See above...
Now you reference Obama's grandmother; a bank VP? You must be kidding again. My sister in law, a wonderful woman, is a bank VP. Maybe six figures, but I doubt it. Bank VP's are a dime a dozen. Hardly equal to the President of one of the three largest automobile companies - not even in the same ballpark. Now if you said Obama's grandmother was President of Bank of America, or Chase, or Citicorp, then I would say they were wealthy. But she wasn't. She "willed him somewhere between a quarter and a half a million"? Wow! Romney's Dad made 40 times that in one year alone!!!
-
The most important factor is that Mitt grew up in a loving and intact family while Buraq's was fractured and chaotic,resulting in Buraq's deviant behavior and unbalanced personality. This is why despite his attending a expensive and elite private school in Hawaii, Buraq sought out terrorists, communists and racial hatemongers like Ayers and Wright.
-
"The most important factor is that Mitt grew up in a loving and intact family while Buraq..."
GM, that point is huge. That was a missing ingredient for Bill Clinton. For all his brilliance he acted out his deviance to embarrass the nation. Fatherless Democrats deserve a fair shot at everything including President and pursuit of happiness, but only in progressive-America is growing up in a functional home considered a BIG negative.
----------
Gotta love JDN, trying his hardest. I point out that was pre-tax income during high tax rate days is NOT what the family gets, and so he repeats it - and again. Let's try again. 3 million doesn't grow or inflate to 20 million today if government took 78% the combined top tax rate then before he got it. But in 1968 George Romney was governor of Michigan on a public servant salary. What JDN passes as a single year income is the exercising of options, investments that he made, earned and saved over a period of time, at risk, that happen to pay off due to leaving the company and shareholders (and workers) in a nice situation. Greedy capitalist.
------
Romneys Reported $3-Million Income From 1955 to 1966
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10B14FF345914728FDDAF0A94D9415B878AF1D3
Gov. George Romney of Michigan and his wife Lenore had a total income from-1955 to 1966 of nearly $3-million. Of this amount they gave $561,000 to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and another $115,000 to charity, it was disclosed yesterday.
($3 million over 12 years, pre-tax? and a large chunk went to charity. Greedy capitalist with silver spoon babies.)
------
My suggestion: Substitute the word accomplished or successful for wealthy and then see if he was around too much of it. George Romney did not work his full career as an auto executive. He was also a Governor and HUD Secretary.
The only trapping of wealth on Mitt the detractors could come up with on the Romney family was that they paid his airplane ticket to come home from Stanford. Wow... He also worked as a night security guard there so he could fly back more than they knew. Devious!
So he had less money than John Kerry. Less than the Kennedys. Higher grades than Gore or Kerry. But JDN rips Romney for his grades ("he was nobody in high school") - while his opponent won't show his. The drivel continues while the 'growth' plan is 'ask' the 'rich' to pay their 'fair share'. Strange priorities.
-----------
NY Times continued: "whenever [George Romney] felt his salary and bonus was excessively high for a year, he gave the excess back to the company... he developed a good relationship with United Automobile Workers leader Walter Reuther... AMC workers also benefited from a then-novel profit-sharing plan. Romney was one of only a few Michigan corporate chiefs to support passage and implementation of the state Fair Employment Practices Act."
Greedy capitalist.
-----------
JDN wrote further: "She "willed him [Obama] somewhere between a quarter and a half a million"? Wow! Romney's Dad made 40 times that in one year alone!!!
Actually it was 6 times that and it was exercising options earned over a 10 year period, not indicative at all of his salary. "Wow" A quarter to a half million quoted were dollars Obama got to keep. Compare that to a non-existent $20 million figure of falsely inflating a one-time gain of his Dad's, that did NOT come to his Dad or Mitt, except for a part a quarter century later that Mitt received and gave away in his father's name. Mitt was 21 and gone in the year JDN says the Romneys made the windfall. Undisguised dishonesty. Makes Obama is a pretty good fit, lol. Looking forward to more distortions and worthless discussions on non-issues from now until the election.
Meanwhile half of black teenage males unemployed under Obama: http://blackstarjournal.org/?p=660
No problem. Let's come down harder on employers.
-
Good post Doug, some nice research in there.
One would think the Gigolo John Kerry who not once but twice married women worth hundreds of millions yet dodges MA taxes on yachts by docking in RI would come in for notice and approbrium , , ,
-
Do Sasha and Malia earn JDN's scorn? Why do Buraq and Michelle insist on sending them to a very expensive private school while fighting school choice for DC's poor black students? Why not "spread the educational wealth around" and send them to Malcolm X Elementary in Anacostia?
-
I'm not "scorning" anyone....
But "nice research"; you must be kidding? Everyone is trying to be a comedian. :-) I'll try to take is slow for you'll.
Pre-tax income is a gross number; no one uses after tax income for comparisons. For ex. I make $100K you make $150K; i.e. you make 50% more than me. No inquires about our tax situation. So let's keep talking apples to apples versus throwing in oranges and grapefruits.
But just to set the record straight, rather than the fictitious 78% Doug quoted, if you do the math "The figures indicate he paid $1,099,555.18 in taxes on an 1968 income of $2,972,923.58 in 1968." I think that's about a 37% tax rate.
And what Doug seems to interchange rather conveniently is that in today's dollars George Romney made $20,000,000 in 1968. Frankly, in todays dollars he would have made a LOT more; average wages have stagnated over the past 40 years, but executive wages have skyrocket way above adjusted for inflation.
So yes, in today's dollars (that's when Obama got his inheritance) Romney made 40 times Obama's inheritance in one year is accurate.
Fact; George Romney as President of one of the largest corporations in the world made millions of dollars in today's dollars. Not to mention the perks and benefits of being
President of one of the three largest auto companies in Detroit. We can't imagine. Do you really think he or his family had a want for anything? That man was very RICH.
Sorry Doug, but facts and statistics are important.
That said, I never said he was greedy; frankly I acknowledged that George Romney and Mitts for that matter earned every penny. Good for him. George did a good job at American Motors. Plus from all accounts Mitts was raised in a loving family. Lucky him. But that does not deny the fact that Mitts was also raised in an atmosphere of extreme wealth - a silver spoon baby. And a big silver spoon at that.
Rather than deny and/or apologize for it; he can't, he should simply embrace it and say yes, my dad and I were successful; so what? Frankly I admire the family.
As for Kerry, how about McCain? Frankly, who cares.... More power to them.... Lucky guys....
-
But that does not deny the fact that Mitts was also raised in an atmosphere of extreme wealth - a silver spoon baby. And a big silver spoon at that.
And Buraq was raised in an atmosphere of chaos and anti-americanism/marxist thought. How's that working out for us? Narcissism and a bag full of daddy issues hasn't played out real well, has it?
-
I don't care that Kerry married into great wealth , , , twice. I care about the inconsistency that cares that Romney is wealthy, even though he earned it, and does not care that presidential candidate Kerry was (and is) just as wealthy even though he did not earn it.
-
I don't care that Kerry married into great wealth , , , twice. I care about the inconsistency that cares that Romney is wealthy, even though he earned it, and does not care that presidential candidate Kerry was (and is) just as wealthy even though he did not earn it.
Kerry was not just as wealthy, but don't get me wrong, he wasn't poor either. Kerry was raised in an upper middle class (father was a government lawyer; his mother a nurse although she came from a a rich family) Kerry served our country in Vietnam, for that service he was awarded several combat medals that include the Silver Star, Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts. He became an Assistant DA after graduating. Hardly equally as wealthy as Mitts, albeit he always had plenty of money. Maybe it's because he plays the bass guitar or likes cycling (which I now like) that he is so popular with the rich women? :-) Being a Senator doesn't hurt; McCain probably used the same lines. By the way, Kerry did sign a prenup with Ms. Heinz.
I do think George Romney did a superb job at American Motors. Nothing to apologize for, he earned his money and didn't flaunt it although like any manufacturing there were some union issues. Mitts however at Bain and I do admire Mitts' ability, is a little different. That business is a holdover from the robber baron business. Mitts has accumulated 250 million dollars; and given a lot away (taken a tax deduction) but mostly to the Mormon Church (nice, but not the same as the Red Cross) There is no pride in building the business; it's all about the money. No one matters except the partners and investors. Basically it's $%^& the employees. Now Doug might argue that such destruction is good, I don't know, but it doesn't sell very well to the general public. It all seems a bit greedy; like Gordon Gekko. I think in the coming election we will see more of Bain Capital and the thousands of employees that were fired.
-
Kerry
served betrayed our country in Vietnam, for that service he was awarded several combat medals that include the Silver Star, Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts and the gratitude of the Vietnamese communists.
Fixed it for you.
http://www.swiftvets.com/staticpages/index.php?page=Fitreps
Analysis of John Kerry's Fitness Reports
.
Context
John Kerry's campaign representatives quote a few words from one of his best Navy fitness reports to support their misleading claim that Kerry's military evaluations were those of a top-flight officer. They carefully ignore the existence of several other reports that range from mediocre to substandard, thereby presenting an inaccurate picture of Kerry's service record.
There are also gaps in the documentation made public to date by the Kerry campaign, where no fitness reports are provided at all. Here we present an analysis of the available record.
An Introduction to Navy Fitness Reports
Navy officer fitness reports ("FITREPs") are of vital importance. Selection boards use them to promote the officer. Assignment officers use them to “sell” the officer into his or her next assignment. Only truly outstanding officers get the best jobs (or “billets”). Officers with adverse or spotty records are unsalable for anything but the most backwater assignments.
To read and understand FITREPs correctly, there are several crucial things to understand.
Dings and RAPs
First and foremost, a FITREP is a relative picture. You are not reading absolutes. If an officer is graded, say, as “outstanding,” it is meaningful only if he is ranked ahead of his contemporaries and the rest of the FITREP contains no glaring negatives.
Second, what matters most are marks or grades above and especially below the norm. Marks below the norm may fall under a very positive word (e.g., “excellent”) and appear positive to the casual reader, but no matter: any mark to the right of the norm is a strong, clear sign to both promotion boards and assignment officers (e.g., “detailers”) that there is a performance shortfall. A mark to the right is a “ding.” You don’t want a ding in your FITREP.
Third, what is not said in the narrative section is just as important as what is said. The truly superlative officer should be “RAPped,” meaning "Recommended for accelerated promotion." If Block 21 says only "Recommended for promotion" this is faint praise. It means that the officer should be considered for promotion along with the rest of his year group (all those commissioned in a given fiscal year constitute a “year group”). In the context of other marks and remarks, a “Recommended for promotion” mark means that the officer may just be average, called a “pack player.”
NOTE: An officer “Not Recommended for Promotion” is an officer in deep trouble. In a combat zone, failure to recommend for promotion may be indicative of problems in conduct, not just performance.
Key: Would His Commander Want Him to Command?
Fourth, if the officer is an Unrestricted Line Officer, he or she is in line for operational command (of a ship, an aviation squadron, etc.). Thus, one the most important marks on a FITREP for a line officer is “desirability for command,” referred to in the shorthand of selection boards and detailers as “command.” Thus, for a seagoing officer, a “ding in command” is big trouble. Likewise with the skill of “seamanship and ship handling”: a ship-driver “dinged in ship handling” is in big trouble.
As a footnote, line officers must win qualification as a Officer of the Deck for formation steaming [“OOD(F)”] that officer who stands watch on the bridge and is responsible for ship movement (and, frankly, everything that happens on that ship) while “formation steaming” or steaming in company with other ships. Officers must first qualify as OOD while in port [OOD(P) and subsequently for independent steaming [OOD(I)]. The quicker the climb to OOD(F) the better.
Also, Unrestricted Line Officers aboard ships (now called “Surface Warfare Officers”) must strive to be recommended for Navy Destroyer School which prepares the junior officer for his pivotal tour as a Lieutenant or Lieutenant (j.g.) -- a department head tour aboard a destroyer. A recommendation in a FITREP for Destroyer School is meaningful, however, if and only if the officer has qualified as OOD(F). The CO must qualify the officer as OOD for in-formation steaming; otherwise a Destroyer School recommendation is empty.
Thus, for the junior officer aboard ship, the number one performance goal is: qualify as OOD(F) and get recommended for Destroyer School. The unwritten rule is, don’t leave your first ship without the OOD(F) qualification.
Language and Other Signals
Fifth, FITREP language tends to be positive for officers who perform at a reasonably satisfactory level. That way, the FITREP tends to be a motivational tool to keep the officer on the right performance track. Thus, when COs feel the need to convey a signal to selection boards and detailers about performance that is lackluster, they will use code words. “Potential” is one of the key negative code words. Genuinely excellent officers should be performing; if they merely demonstrate “potential,” even “great potential,” this is read as a clear signal from the Commanding Officer that they are not performing.
Another signal is “trend of performance.” Unless it’s a “first report,” all good officers should be marked as “improving,” never “consistent” and certainly not “declining.”
Still another signal, particularly for line officers, is the broad categories of content in the narrative. A line officer’s FITREP should be glowing in praise of his or her ship handling and leadership abilities. Selection boards want to know how this officer performs on the bridge, not in some significantly less important collateral duty (e.g., public affairs officer). A CO who emphasizes performance in collateral duties is signaling that there is something lacking on the bridge.
Sixth, there can be no gaps. There must be one continuous thread of fitness reports in an officer’s jacket.
Seventh, it’s the operational tours that count. As long as the officer passes the school and stays out trouble, FITREPs from school commands don’t matter much.
Eighth, selection boards and detailers will examine the way the Commanding Officer grades his or her officers. Some of their considerations:
o They are looking for “good break-outs,” reports that clearly identify top-performers (called “water-walkers”) and distinguish them from “pack-plus” officers (above average performers) or “pack” officers (average). When a CO writes a “gift” FITREP (ranks everyone as top performers), boards and detailers tend to discount such “easy graders” and will look to a subsequent report for a clearer performance picture from another CO.
o Glowing, end-of-tour FITREPs are often viewed as “swan song” FITREPs (the officer is usually ranked 1 of 1) and don’t matter nearly as much as in-tour FITREPs when the officer is ranked with his or her peers. (Of course, if an officer is smacked in an end-of-tour report, you can be assured that boards sit up and pay close attention.)
What Do the Kerry FITREPs Really Say?
Knowing the above, what do the FITREPs selectively released by the Kerry campaign say about John Kerry as a junior officer in the U.S. Navy?
Kerry’s FITREPs are awash in dings, and some of the reports border on the adverse, particularly his combat FITREPs. The FITREPs convey significant performance problems and suggest problems in conduct, so much so that it is surprising that the campaign chose to release them. This may suggest that the FITREPs held from public view are even more adverse.
In what would customarily be an opportunity for a glowing “swan song” FITREP, the Commanding Officer of USS Gridley (DLG-21) tacitly blasts Kerry on his departure for Swift Boat duty by ranking him significantly below the norm in desirability for virtually every Navy assignment possible -– command, staff, whatever. He is a ship handler who is dinged in ship handling. He is in line for command, but his CO doesn’t want him near the bridge. He is slammed in all performance areas –- most notably and significantly in initiative and reliability. The “nice” narrative emphasizes performance in collateral duties, but in the grades and marks, the CO is telling the selection board and detailer loud and clear that this officer is lazy, unreliable and not suited for command. 3 SEP 68 (W.E. HARPER).
Another “swan song” opportunity is lost when Kerry departs a brief tour of duty as an Aide. Kerry is dinged in staff desirability, management and military bearing by Rear Admiral Walter Schlech (2 MAR 70 Schlech) while Kerry served as Schlech’s Aide. The Admiral makes considerable mention in the narrative section about Kerry’s ambition to run for Congress, and no doubt the glowing words were meant as a parting gift to someone who might become a member of Congress. The narrative notwithstanding, any detailer or selection board would consider the FITREP a bad one. Had Kerry remained in the Navy, it would be difficult to “sell” him to a new Aide assignment when his last boss, an Admiral, had dinged him in precisely those attributes indispensable for Aides.
The real performance problems are evidenced in FITREPs for his operational tours.
Because it is a FITREP that only covers about a month, LCDR Grant Hibbard’s first FITREP on Kerry should simply be marked “not observed” all the way down the line -– no grades, marks or narrative. Significantly, LCDR Hibbard chooses otherwise. Hibbard detects a personal behavior problem – a conduct problem – and smacks him for it in the report. He also dings Kerry on initiative and cooperation, just like his last CO in Gridley. 17 DEC 68 (HIBBARD).
In his FITREP for his combat tour as Officer in Charge of a SWIFT Boat -– arguably the most important FITREP among those released by the Kerry campaign –- Kerry is not dinged but slammed in command, seamanship and ship handling and in all major leadership traits (28 JAN 69 ELLIOTT). To Kerry and perhaps to other junior officers, it is an okay FITREP. To detailers and selection boards, it is a negative fitness report that borders on the adverse. LCDR Elliott ranks him well below the norm in traits essential for command: force, industry, analytical ability, judgment and more.
The PCF squadron commander, LCDR Elliott has 15 officers in his command, and his report (28 JAN 69) offers an excellent breakout. Elliott ranks his officers in two groups, the top and the bottom, and Elliott ranks Kerry among the top group. Or does he? Just like Hibbard, Elliott “red flags” Kerry in conduct by downgrading him significantly in judgment and personal behavior. When viewed in the context of the total FITREP, it is very clear to a detailer or selection board that Kerry probably ranks 7 of 15. He’s a “pack player” at best, but this is a worrisome FITREP to detailers and selection boards, because the significant flaws Elliott finds are in two critical areas: leadership traits and personal conduct. Moreover, because personal conduct issues have been raised by past commanders, detailers and selection boards would certainly conclude that the officer has exhibited major flaws in leadership and conduct over a sustained period of time that limit both his promotability and his salability to positions of responsibility. None of Kerry's evaluators had access to his previous FITREPS -- his commanders observed the same flaws independently.
-
http://horse.he.net/~swiftpow/index.php?topic=WarCrimes
John Kerry's Phony War Crimes Charges
.
.
On June 6, 1971, John Kerry described the work of the Swift boats to the Washington Star as follows:
"We established an American presence in most cases by showing the flag and firing at sampans and villages along the banks. Those were our instructions, but they seemed so out of line that we finally began to go ashore, against our orders, and investigate the villages that were supposed to be our targets. We discovered we were butchering a lot of innocent people, and morale became so low among the officers on those 'swift boats' that we were called back to Saigon for special instructions from Gen. Abrams. He told us we were doing the right thing. He said our efforts would help win the war in the long run. That's when I realized I could never remain silent about the realities of the war in Vietnam."
What John Kerry told the Washington Star was a lie.
Contrary to Kerry's claim, our consistent policy was to take every precaution to avoid harming civilians. On many occasions we did this at the cost of suffering additional casualties ourselves. We have interviewed hundreds of veterans who served on the Swift Boats or supported them, and there is simply no justification for Kerry's statement. Several members of our organization addressed the issue of atrocities during our May 4 press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.
John Kerry also completely misrepresented our meeting with General Abrams and Admiral Zumwalt. Far from being a pep talk for officers distressed by their butchery of civilians, the purpose of this conference with the two highest-ranking American officers in Vietnam was to announce a new Swift boat mission: to drive the Vietcong out of the Ca Mau Peninsula. The goal of Operation SeaLords was to dominate the rivers in this area, and to eventually establish a permanent presence in the Cua Lon River, an effort later named Operation SeaFloat. This was to be done publicly, with the full participation of the media, to negate the claim of North Vietnamese negotiator Lee Duc Tho that Henry Kissinger could not legitimately represent South Vietnam because the U.S. did not control these areas.
We succeeded in that mission. We returned to Anthoi and drove the Vietcong out of the region, and soon the North Vietnamese and Vietcong representatives in Paris returned to the negotiating tables.
----------
As its dominant tactic in their battle against the war, the antiwar movement successfully demonized Vietnam veterans by calling a series of "tribunals" or hearings into war crimes. But... they were packed with pretenders and liars -- historian Guenter Lewy, writing in "America in Vietnam"
John Kerry's lies about the activities of the Swift boats were part of a larger pattern of deception. As a leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), Kerry testified before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on April 22, 1971, telling the Senators and a national audience that American troops "...had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam..." and accused the U.S. military of committing war crimes "on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."
Kerry's charges were based on a VVAW conference called the "Winter Soldier Investigation" -- a leftist propaganda event funded primarily by Jane Fonda. None of the Winter Soldier "witnesses" Kerry cited were willing to sign affadavits, and their gruesome stories lacked the names, dates and places that would allow their claims to be tested. Few were willing to cooperate with military investigators. The Naval Investigative Service found that several of the veterans said to have given statements at Winter Soldier were in fact imposters using the name of real veterans.
False testimony and exaggerations were primary characteristics of the war crimes disinformation campaign, and also of the VVAW itself. Executive Secretary Al Hubbard, for example, claimed to have been an Air Force Captain wounded in Vietnam piloting a transport plane. In fact, Hubbard had been a staff sergeant who was not a pilot and who was never assigned to Vietnam.
John Kerry and the VVAW worked closely with America's wartime enemies, arranged multiple meetings with the North Vietnamese and Vietcong leadership, and consistently supported their positions. Kerry and his radical comrades also played a key role in defining the false, damaging image of Vietnam veterans as psychologically disabled alcoholics and addicts, haunted by the crimes they had been forced to commit in a "racist" war.
Detailed information about the anti-war activities of John Kerry and the VVAW can be found at WinterSoldier.com.
-
Why do dems hate our country so much?
http://www.wintersoldier.com/staticpages/index.php?page=puppets
John Kerry and the VVAW: Hanoi's American Puppets?
Newly discovered documents link Vietnam Veterans Against the War to Vietnamese communists
Two recently discovered documents captured from the Vietnamese communists during the Vietnam War strongly support the contention that a close link existed between the Hanoi regime and the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) while John Kerry served as the group's leading national spokesman.
The Circular: International Coordination of Antiwar Propaganda
The first document is a 1971 "Circular" distributed by the Vietnamese communists within Vietnam. It discusses strategies to coordinate their national propaganda effort with their orchestration of the activities of sympathetic counterparts in the American anti-war movement. Specifically, the document notes that the Vietcong and North Vietnamese delegations to the Paris Peace talks were being used as the communications link to direct the activities of anti-war activists meeting with them in Paris. To quote from the document:
The spontaneous antiwar movements in the US have received assistance and guidance from the friendly ((VC/NVN)) delegations at the Paris Peace Talks.
-- Circular on Antiwar Movements in the US. The reference to "VC" indicates the Vietcong; "NVN" is the North Vietnamese government.
This sentence is particularly important in light of John Kerry's admission that he met with leaders of both communist delegations to the Paris Peace Talks in June 1970, including Madame Binh, foreign minister of the Provisional Revolutionary Government (PRG) of South Vietnam, also known as the Vietcong. FBI files record that Kerry returned to Paris to meet with the North Vietnamese delegation in August of 1971, and planned a third trip in November.
Prior to the discovery of the Circular, there was no direct evidence that Hanoi was actually steering the U.S. antiwar movement's activities by conveying Hanoi's goals and wishes to movement leaders during their frequent visits to Paris, though many investigators had assumed that to be the case. Further analysis of this document supports the contention that Madame Binh used her Paris meeting with John Kerry to instruct him on how he and the VVAW might best serve as Hanoi's surrogates in the United States. In the spring and summer of 1971, a key strategy of Hanoi was to advance what was known as Madame Binh's Seven Point Peace Plan.
The plan was cleverly constructed to force President Nixon to set a date to end the Vietnam War and withdraw American troops. According to the 7-Point Peace Plan of Madame Binh, the only barrier to Hanoi setting a date to release American Prisoners of War was President Nixon's unwillingness to set a specific date for military withdrawal. Of course, accepting the full terms of the 7-Point Peace Plan would have amounted to an American capitulation, a virtual surrender that included the payment of reparations to the Vietnam communists as an admission that America was the wrongful aggressor in an immoral war.
A section of the Circular titled "PREPARATION FOR THE FALL ((1971)) ANTIWAR MOVEMENT" makes clear the importance the Vietnamese Communists placed on advancing Madame Binh's 7-Point Peace Plan within the United States:
The seven-point peace proposal ((of the SVN Provisional Revolutionary Government)) not only solved problems concerning the release of US prisoners but also motivated the people of all walks of life and even relatives of US pilots detained in NVN to participate in the antiwar movement.
-- Circular on Antiwar Movements in the US. "SVN" indicates the South Vietnam Provisional Revolutionary Government, i.e., the Vietcong. "NVN" refers to North Vietnam.
And again, highlighting how the Vietnamese communists viewed the activities of the US antiwar movement, US politics, and politics in South Vietnam as interconnected; all to be targeted by Madame Binh's 7-Point Peace Plan:
The Nixon-Thieu clique is very embarrassed because the seven-point peace proposal is supported by the SVN people's (( political struggle)) movement and the antiwar movements in the US. Therefore, all local areas, units, and branches must widely disseminate the seven-point peace proposal, step up the people's ((political struggle)) movements both in cities and rural areas, taking advantage of disturbances and dissensions in the enemy's forthcoming (RVN) Congressional and Presidential elections. They must coordinate more successfully with the antiwar movements in the US so as to isolate the Nixon-Thieu clique.
-- Circular on Antiwar Movements in the US. "RVN" refers to the Republic of Vietnam, the government in South Vietnam supported by the US.
POW Families: Targets of the Vietnamese Communists
Late in 1970, a defecting Vietcong organizer described a communist plan to use Vietcong sympathizers in the US to recruit family members of American POWs held captive in North Vietnam. The following summary of his interview was provided to the House Foreign Affairs Committee:
The Viet Cong plan to continue their efforts to win worldwide opinion to their side and to solicit as much material support for the VC struggle as possible from other countries in order to create a favorable climate for the VC at the Paris Peace Conference.
The Viet Cong will continue to promote domestic unrest against the war in the United States in order to speed withdrawal of US troops and create pressure for an end to the war.
Efforts will be directed toward the US soldier in Vietnam to demand that they be returned to the US and be reunited with their families and wives.
The VC will strive to create anti-draft and anti-war attitudes in the US by organizing VC sympathizers in the US to contact families with sons in Vietnam and urge them to call their sons home. Also VC sympathizers in the US will be organized to distribute anti-draft leaflets to students and young people.
On February 1, 1971, at their Winter Soldier Investigation in Detroit, the VVAW released a statement by Virginia Warner, mother of American POW Jim Warner, urging President Nixon to "end the war so the prisoners of war can come home." Jim Warner has accused John Kerry of exploiting his mother's fears to obtain this statement.
On July 22, 1971, John Kerry held a press conference in Washington, DC, to call upon President Nixon to accept Madame Binh's 7-Point Peace Plan. Kerry surrounded himself at the press conference with POW wives, parents and sisters who had been recruited to promote his message. The event was reported in The New York Times of July 23, 1971 and the communist Daily World of July 24, 1971. Each article included a photograph of Kerry surrounded by POW family members.
Kerry's use of POW families directly advanced the North Vietnamese communist agenda as described by enemy defectors and in the newly discovered Circular, which suggests that Madame Binh had recommended the same course of action to antiwar activists meeting with her in Paris.
[Note: A number of POW families were contacted by a "liason" group headed by Cora Weiss, the daughter of Communist Party financier Samuel Rubin, with offers to provide mail and information about their husbands if the families agreed to publicly denounce the war. Most POW family members refused to cooperate with this extortion, even when promised better treatment for their husbands or sons in Hanoi. Four angry POW wives protested at Kerry's July press conference, one of whom accused Kerry of "constantly using our own suffering and grief" to advance his political ambitions.]
The Directive: Supporting the US Domestic Insurgency
The second document, captured by US military forces in South Vietnam on May 12, 1972, is a communist Directive designed to motivate discussions within Vietnam about promoting the ongoing antiwar activities in the United States. The fifth paragraph of this document makes clear that the Vietnamese communists were utilizing for their propaganda purposes the activities of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. The protest described as occurring from April 19 through April 22, 1971 coincides directly with the dates of Dewey Canyon III, the Washington, DC, protest led by John Kerry, during which John Kerry's testimony before Senator Fulbright's Foreign Relations Committee was a televised centerpiece. The description of the protest activities in the Directive even include the "return their medals" ceremony in which John Kerry and other VVAW members threw their medals and/or ribbons toward the steps of the US Capitol, with several shouting threats of violence against their government as they did so.
The Connection: The People's Committee for Peace and Justice
Another key discussion in the documents reveals the degree to which the Vietnamese communists were working with and through the PCPJ (People's Coalition for Peace and Justice. The Circular, immediately after disclosing how the communist delegations to the Paris Peace talks were being used to guide the US antiwar movement, stresses the importance of the PCPJ to these efforts:
Of the US antiwar movements, the two most important ones are: The PCPJ ((the People's Committee for Peace and Justice)) and the NPAC ((National Peace Action Committee)). These two movements have gathered much strength and staged many demonstrations. The PCPJ is the most important. It maintains relations with us.
-- Circular on Antiwar Movements in the US (emphasis added).
The House Internal Security Committee in its 1971 Annual Report described the PCPJ as an organization strongly controlled by US communists: "There is no question but what members of the Communist Party have provided a very strong degree of influence, even a guiding influence, in the evolution and formation of policies of the Peoples' Coalition for Peace and Justice."
Recently released FBI surveillance reports establish a strong link between John Kerry, Al Hubbard, the VVAW, the PCPJ, and their trips to Paris to meet with Madame Binh. As discussed in Unfit for Command, Hubbard, the Executive Secretary of the VVAW and a hard-line radical with ties to the Black Panthers and the PCPJ, had directly recruited John Kerry into the VVAW's Executive Committee, bypassing the organization's election process. Al Hubbard's own claim to have been a transport pilot wounded in combat was discredited when the Department of Defense released documents demonstrating that, though Hubbard had been in the Air Force, he was neither a pilot nor an officer, had never served in Vietnam and had never been in combat. John Kerry shared the stage with Al Hubbard during the Dewey Canyon III protest in Washington, D.C., and he appeared together with Hubbard on NBC's Meet the Press on April 18, 1971. Hubbard also signed the People's Peace Treaty, a PCPJ document that reiterated the positions of North Vietnam and the Vietcong, on behalf of the VVAW.
An FBI field surveillance report stamped November 11, 1971 reported that the FBI had learned at the Regional VVAW Convention in Norman Oklahoma, on November 5-7, 1971, that John Kerry and Al Hubbard were planning to travel to Paris later in the month to engage in talks with the Vietnamese communist peace delegations. While this document is heavily redacted, other FBI reports make it clear that the Communist Party of the USA was paying for Al Hubbard's trips to Paris.
IT IS NOTED THAT THE "COMMUNIST PARTY" REFERRED IN RETEL IS PROBABLY THE COMMUNIST PARTY, USA, BECAUSE AL HUBBARD IS A MEMBER OF COORDINATING OF PEOPLES COALITION FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE (PCPJ), AS ARE GIL GREEN, MEMBER OF NATIONAL COMMITTEE, COMMUNIST PARTY, USA AND JARVIS TYNER, NATIONAL DIRECTOR, YOUNG WORKERS LIBERATION LEAGUE. HUBBARD, GREEN AND TYNER HAVE ATTENDED SAME NATIONAL MEETINGS OF PCPJ.
-- Federal Bureau of Investigations, Field Surveillance Report, filed November 11, 1971. A copy of this report was air-mailed to the Boston FBI office in reference to John Kerry.
An FBI field surveillance report dated November 24, 1971 details Al Hubbard's presentation to a VVAW meeting of the Executive and Steering committees in Kansas City, Missouri, during the weekend of November 12-15, 1971 -- the same meeting at which the VVAW considered, then rejected a plan to assassinate several pro-war US Senators. John Kerry is listed as present. Once again, Al Hubbard made clear the communist coordination involved in his recent trip to Paris:
[BLACK OUT] advised that Hubbard gave the following information regarding his Paris trip:
Two foreign groups, which are Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV) and Peoples Republic Government (PRG) (phonetic), invited representatives of the VVAW, Communist Party USA (CP USA), and a Left Wing group in Paris, to attend meeting of the above inviting groups in Paris. Hubbard advised he was elected to represent the VVAW. An unknown male was invited to represent the CP USA and an unknown individual was elected to represent the Left Wing group from Paris. He advised at the meeting that his trip was financed by CP USA.
-- Federal Bureau of Investigations, Field Surveillance Report, filed November 24, 1971.
A letter written by Al Hubbard on April 20, 1971 leaves no doubt about the strong coordination between the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and the People's Coalition for Peace and Justice. Addressed from the offices of the VVAW in Washington, D.C., the letter is an appeal to VVAW members to provide assistance to the PCPJ. It discusses several ways in which the two organizations have worked closely together:
This is an appeal for help for the Peoples Coalition for Peace and Justice. Over the past months the Peoples Coalition has supported the Vietnam Vets Against the War in many ways. The Coalition has made office space available at no charge, and permitted the use of all necessary office equipment such as mimeograph machines, stencil-making machines, folders and typewriters. They have loaned us cars, bullhorns, and public address equipment. Their staff has taken messages for us and joined fraternally in building our progress. Now we can return this support.
Saturday, April 24, the Coalition needs help collecting money and selling buttons at the great march and rally. Collectors and sellers must be energetic and determined. Theree will be security problems in taking large amounts of money to banks. The Coalition needs people power, hundreds of workers.
I earnestly hope that you will come forward to support our friends in this emergency.
-- Letter signed by Al Hubbard, addressed from the Vietnam Veterans Against the War office at Room 900, 1029 Vermont Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C., dated April 20, 1971. Found in the House Internal Security Committee subject files, Washington, D.C.
Two days after the letter was written, John Kerry gave his famous testimony to Senator Fulbright's Foreign Relations Committee in which he likened the American military in Vietnam to the army of Ghengis Khan. The march and rally for which Hubbard was recruiting VVAW assistance was the PCPJ's massive April 24 demonstration in Washington, which immediately followed the VVAW's week-long Dewey Canyon III protest. The communist Daily world reported on April 27 that "Tributes were paid to the special role of the Vietnam Veterans" at the PCPJ rally, and went on to quote at length from John Kerry's speech at that event.
Willing Partners: the VVAW and the Vietnamese Communists
Other examples of the VVAW's advocacy of Vietnamese communist positions during the period of John Kerry's leadership abound. The group issued a proclamation in February 1971 calling for mass civil disobedience and military mutiny if American forces entered Laos. After the war, North Vietnamese military leaders acknowledged that one of their greatest fears was that America would move significant forces into Laos to interdict the Ho Chi Minh Trail. The VVAW's eagerness to comply with the wishes of the Vietnamese communists even extended to its choice of nomenclature. The VVAW's Executive Committee stated in a July 1971 meeting that the terms "Vietcong" and "North Vietnamese" were not to be used in VVAW press releases and communications. Instead, "PRG (Provisional Revolutionary Government)" and "DRV (Democratic Republic of Vietnam)"... "are to be used by us to reflect our acceptance of their designations." And the VVAW's unremitting insistence that American forces were mass-murdering Vietnamese civilians perfectly echoed the primary propaganda theme put forth by the Vietnamese communists, their international communist allies, and their Soviet sponsors.
Conclusion
The newly uncovered documents help clarify the relationship of the North Vietnamese, the Vietcong, the PCPJ, the Communist Party of the USA, and John Kerry's VVAW. They indicate that these organizations worked closely together, using the Paris Peace Talks as a central point of communication, to employ the strategy and tactics devised by the Vietnamese communists to achieve their primary objective: the defeat of the United States of America in Vietnam.
-- by Jerome R. Corsi and Scott Swett
----------
[Note 1: On October 22, 2004, Swift Veterans and POWs for Truth researchers Troy Jenkins and Tom Wyld located the two Vietnamese communist documents referenced above in the archives of the Vietnam Center at Texas Tech University, in the Douglas Pike Collection. Douglas Pike was a leading authority on the Vietnam War who collected over 2 million pages of original documents now archived at the Vietnam Center. James Reckner, Ph.D., Director of the Vietnam Center at Texas Tech, verifies that the documents in the Pike collection are original and authentic. The Circular and the Directive are listed as items numbered 2150901039b and 2150901041 respectively.]
[Note 2: The authors wish to thank Max Friedman for making available two additional documents, first, Al Hubbard's April 20, 1971 letter to the VVAW membership. The full citation is: National Peace Action Coalition (NPAC) and Peoples Coalition for Peace & Justice (PCPJ) Part I, hearings before the Committee on Internal Security, House of Representatives, 92nd Congress, First Session, May 18-21, 1971, p. 1796. The second document, "Extracts from an interview with a Viet Cong returnee" comes from the American Prisoners of War in Southeast Asia 1971 hearings before the Subcommittee on National Security Policy and Scientific Development, House Foreign Affairs Committee, 92nd Congress First Congress, March 23-25, 30-31, April 1, 6 & 20, 1971, Testimony of Max P. Friedman, pg 299.]
-
"Pre-tax income is a ..."
It is an amount of money that is not yours. Not yours to hold, to spend, to invest, and not to falsely inflate and compare with a real number - like it grew over the next several decades when it can't because they that isn't the amount George Romney started with. It didn't and you know that. Drivel on.
"rather than the fictitious 78% Doug quoted, if you do the math "The figures indicate he paid $1,099,555.18 in taxes on an 1968 income of $2,972,923.58 in 1968." I think that's about a 37% tax rate."
No I said 78% was the top combined rate federal plus Michigan in that year and YOU said he earned in a single year. Why lie? Now you say he paid 37% which means it was largely LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS which are NOT made in a single year. (Was 37% the combined tax rate or federal only? Source?) If he did NOT earn it in a single year and you say REPEATEDLY AD NAUSEUM that he did, which is it? And why lie? Why post on things you don't know or care about? Why make attacks against the person "silver spoon". What you said he made in a single year was earned over a period of 1954-1968 which is 15 years, at great risk and with great faith is his own accomplishments to leave it invested in the company all that time. That said, who the f*ck cares. That was GEORGE Romney taking EARNED gains after Mitt left the home. George is dead FYI, not running for President in 2012 (Do you understand that?) and his estate has been properly executed. Mitt born with a silver spoon? He was born in 1947 before ANY of this and George started with nothing. George was NOT head of AMC when Mitt was born. They had good money later. Very good money. They had ENOUGH money. No one said he grew up poor or undernourished. They did not live like they had obscene wealth which is no crime either; it just wasn't the case. (Wikipedia: "The Big Three, when used in relation to the automotive industry, most generally refers to the three major American automotive companies: Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler." Show me Rambler in there, lol.)
"And what Doug seems to interchange rather conveniently is that in today's dollars George Romney made $20,000,000 in 1968."
After 3 times told that was false, post it again. I recognize the pattern. What a blockhead.
"So yes, in today's dollars (that's when Obama got his inheritance) Romney made 40 times Obama's inheritance in one year is accurate."
Just can't get off of a G*d D*mned lie. An inheritance in that amount isn't taxed and the 20 million is. The comparison is false. A lie. Plus you are comparing what one of the candidates actually received versus a what dead former Governor NEVER received by a factor of 10, AFTER his children were grown. Please give some indication you are smarter than that. ANYTHING!
"That man [GEORGE ROMNEY] was very RICH." - SO WHAT! He is also very DEAD. And running for NOTHNG.
"Sorry Doug,..." For what? Wasting my time. Pissing me off. Bringing down the discussion. Lies. What are you sorry for when you just keep doing it.
We are stuck on stupid discussing his father's salary and tax rate as if we were uncovering unbelievable wrongdoing of his son when in fact everything went very well and nothing wrong is even alleged. Everyone should have a career like George Romney. But still, who cares.
Digging out info for this worthless argument keeps exposing more success and virtue in the Romney family. George Romney was a moderate Republican and quite an honorable. Barack Senior was a polygamist (irony) who left his kid unsupported on an island. One built up an American auto company. The other advised a poor country on how to stay poor. The abandoned kid writes a book for his own profit (makes $20 million in one year, tomorrow's dollars) to honor an absent parent. The one who inherited from his Dad gave the money to something his Dad would have liked. How far do you want to go with this? When you finish your hate speech you ought to go back and admit GEORGE ROMNEY is the type of Republican that YOU might have supported.
-
NO LIES Doug; but I am sorry you are not able to grasp the numbers; I'll try again and dumb it down for you.
Pre tax income is the bogy. Look at the annual top paid executives, sports figures, etc. in Forbes or Fortune. ONLY gross pay is reported; I don't know
what anyone's personal tax bracket is; it depends upon a lot of variables. But for comparison purposes, EVERYONE (except maybe you) compares
total pay including stock options and other sources or income. This isn't the tax thread where we are discussing taxes.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottdecarlo/2012/04/04/americas-highest-paid-ceos/
And yes Doug, in ONE YEAR, 1968, George Romney's total pay was nearly $3,000,000. According to his tax return, he paid 37%. No lie Doug; just FACT.
And yes Doug, $3,000,000 total income in 1968 is equal to approximately $20,000,000 now. I'm not a blockhead; just factual. But you seem to have a problem
with facts when they don't go your way or someone is not willing to twist them to suit you.
As for the inheritance issue, well we are back to the facts again. Obama got maybe $500,000 in inheritance; George Romney in one year total pay was nearly $20,000,000 in comparable dollars. According to my calculator, that 40:1. Let's not look at the tax issues; just total money Doug. In FACT, Obama's wealth and upbringing cannot compare to the wealth of the Romney's.
Although you finally seem to agree that George Romney was very RICH. Yeah he's dead, but his wealth is what supported Mitts. It was his money that paid for Mitt's silver spoon.
No lie Doug; again just FACT. Gosh those facts are pesky and irritating to you, aren't they? Mitts was raised with a Silver Spoon. That is the issue of this thread. Just accept it;
he was born with a Silver Spoon, he was raised rich and privileged, and we can move on. But that means you have to accept facts; something kinda tough for you it seems.
As for George Romney, if you took the time to read what I wrote I said I admired him. As for "hate speech"; well who do I hate? You seem to "hate" Obama; but I have no hatred towards any of the Romneys. I said,
"That said, I never said he was greedy; frankly I acknowledged that George Romney and Mitts for that matter earned every penny. Good for him. George did a good job at American Motors. Plus from all accounts Mitts was raised in a loving family. Lucky him. But that does not deny the fact that Mitts was also raised in an atmosphere of extreme wealth - a silver spoon baby. And a big silver spoon at that."
-
And then Mitt went out and made his own money and stood on his own two feet. Buraq on the other hand glided on affirmative action and Chicago graft and now in his first real job, has failed miserably.
-
This has been interesting but I would like to suggest that we leave last word to Doug and move on.
-
"leave last word to Doug" - Thanks for the offer Crafty but it has all been said.
-
Excerpt from Paul Mirengoff, a founder of Powerline back from a one year absence:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/04/the-state-of-the-race-what-might-change.php
"Oddly, it may be Obama, the incumbent, whose image changes significantly. Polls show that his personal popularity is what’s keeping him afloat. Voters don’t very much like his policies and his results, but they continue to like him.
The reasons are pretty straightforward. First, he made a great first impression, and such impressions tend to last. Second, people want to like their president. Third, people want to like the first black president.
As his presidency has faltered, though, Obama has become increasingly irritable and negative. It’s unlikely that many voters have noticed because few follow the day-to-day utterances of the president.
But the electorate pays attention during the final months of the campaign, and especially during the presidential debates. If they see the whiney, defensive, and nasty side of Obama, he will pay a price.
In theory, Obama should be able to avoid this pitfall. His surrogates can do the attack dog thing, while he takes the high road. As for the debates, history shows that the sitting president is allowed one bad debate, especially if it’s the first one. So Obama just needs to keep his inner nasty partisan in check for a few hours.
But Obama’s arrogance works against him here. This is the man who famously proclaimed himself a better speechwriter than his speechwriters, a better political director than his political director, etc.
Presumably, he also considers himself a better attack dog than his attack dogs. If Obama continues to sense that his presidency may be slipping away, he is unlikely to leave to others the dirty work he feels is needed to preserve it.
The adverse consequences of such self-indulgence may well be more than marginal."
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CZ-4gnNz0vc[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CZ-4gnNz0vc
If you like your failed president, you can keep your failed president.
-
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/04/20/its-on-romney-campaign-takes-on-fisker-over-federal-loans/
It’s On: Romney Campaign Takes on Fisker Over Federal Loans
Stick with me to the end on this, and if you’re worried that Mitt Romney’s campaign will be too weak to take on Obama’s you’ll leave happy. Well, unless you’re an Obama fan.
On Wednesday, Romney spokesman Ryan Williams ripped Obama over government backed loans to so-called green companies, singling out Fisker.
“President Obama’s failed investments in companies like Solyndra, Fisker and Ener1 are a constant reminder to the American people that this president does not understand how the economy works, does not understand the appropriate role for government and does not have any ideas to get America working again,” Romney spokesman Ryan Williams said Wednesday.
Fisker is the car company that got one of the rushed DoE loans, only have its hideously expensive electric Karma die on the driveway when Consumer Reports tried to road test it. Fisker is laying people off left and right and faces the prospect of bankruptcy.
Fisker was not happy to get called out by the Romney camp, at all.
But Ray Lane, the former Oracle executive who chairs Fisker’s board, took exception after a Romney spokesman said the Fisker loan was an example like the bankrupt solar panel maker Solyndra of a failed investment by President Barack Obama. In an email to The News Journal in Wilmington, Del., Lane said Romney’s political attacks had kept the Energy Department from striking a new deal with Fisker: “Irony is Romney doesn’t understand he’s the problem and he’s lumping a company that did $100m in q1 with a company that’s bankrupt.”
This is the part where one might expect the Romney camp to wobble. But there was to be no wobbling on this day. Instead, Williams fired back a match-winning tweet today:
(http://pjmedia.com/tatler/files/2012/04/ryanwilliams-fisker-tweet.jpg)
Well played.
-
http://www.naturalnews.com/034630_Ron_Paul_democrats_liberals.html
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhXGkeMdOJs&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhXGkeMdOJs&feature=player_embedded
Cool don't pay your bills....
-
GENDER GAP IS SMALLER
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on April 24, 2012
The Democratic PR machine has convinced the mainstream media that the Republicans
have so alienated American women that a huge gender gap is looming that will propel
Obama into a second term in the White House.
The data show how fatuous this claim is. Rasmussen's polling -- the best, because he
samples likely voters -- shows Romney running 12 points better among men than among
women. But in the presidential election of 2008, Obama actually did carry women by
12 points more than men (he won women by 13 points and men by 1 point). So there is,
indeed, no growth in the gender gap.
In fact, the gender gap is smaller now than it has been in recent history. In 2004,
2000 and 1996, the gender gap was larger than it is in the Rasmussen poll -- and in
the election of 2000 it was much larger.
Gender gap in recent 
presidential elections
Year/percent by which women voted Democrat more than men:
1996: 15 points
2000: 22 points
2004: 14 points
2008: 12 points
Current Rasmussen poll: 12 points
So, at the start of the Romney campaign, he is running better among women than Dole
did or Bush did in either of his national races.
The Democrats hope that by duping their always-susceptible mainstream media allies,
they can spread propaganda about the gender gap in the hopes of provoking one by
reporting one. But the fact is that Romney's defeat of Santorum in the GOP primaries
has established a basis for women trusting Romney not to go overboard on social
issues.
In a real sense, the Democratic campaign strategy has never adjusted to the fact
that Romney is the nominee, not Santorum or Gingrich. With the contraception issue
and the Pennsylvania senator's unique views on separation of church and state, the
Democrats were eager to run against Santorum. And with the legacy of Gingrich's
government shutdown hanging over his head, they wanted to run against Newt. But it
is not going to happen. The Democrats will find it is futile to paint Romney as
anti-woman or to bill him as a Neanderthal extremist who will subject needy people
to what one commentator called a "reign of terror" with budget cuts. It just doesn't
fit with Romney.
Instead, Romney's campaign has skillfully spoken of the vastly disproportionate job
loss among women during the Obama administration. Ninety-two percent of the
employment losses in his three disastrous years have been in jobs held by women. One
reason for the artificially low unemployment rate we now see is that more than 20
million people have left the labor force since Obama took office. A great many of
these are women who have elected to accept a lower income, discontinue daycare and
stay at home with their children once they have lost their jobs. It will not fail to
dawn on these mothers that Obama took away their choice by subjecting them to
ruinous economic policies.
In 1996, the Dole campaign never got used to the fact that it was opposing the Bill
Clinton who signed welfare reform, set the budget on a track to balance and cut
capital gains taxes. Instead, it wanted to run against the old version of Clinton --
the liberal big spender who had lost the election of 1994 to Gingrich's forces.
Similarly, the Obama campaign has never made the pivot from facing Santorum or
Gingrich to opposing Romney.
Its rhetoric about the savage Tea Party right is just obsolete and it can't let go
of it. To do so would be to require it to do the one thing it cannot possibly afford
to: run on Obama's record.
-
GM already posted this (http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=2112.msg62157#msg62157)
A very important video now gone viral...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CZ-4gnNz0vc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc&hd=1
Spread it around. Every voter should see it!
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc&hd=1[/youtube]
If I wanted America to fail …
To follow, not lead; to suffer, not prosper; to despair, not dream.
I would start with energy.
I’d cut off America’s supply of cheap, abundant energy. I couldn’t take it by force. So, I’d make Americans feel guilty for using the energy that heats their homes, fuels their cars, runs their businesses, and powers their economy.
I’d make cheap energy expensive, so that expensive energy would seem cheap.
I would empower unelected bureaucrats to all-but-outlaw America’s most abundant sources of energy. And after banning its use in America, I’d make it illegal for American companies to ship it overseas.
If I wanted America to fail …
I’d use our schools to teach one generation of Americans that our factories and our cars will cause a new Ice Age, and I’d muster a straight face so I could teach the next generation that they’re causing Global Warming.
And when it’s cold out, I’d call it Climate Change instead.
I’d imply that America’s cities and factories could run on wind power and wishes. I’d teach children how to ignore the hypocrisy of condemning logging, mining and farming — while having roofs over their heads, heat in their homes and food on their tables. I would never teach children that the free market is the only force in human history to uplift the poor, establish the middle class and create lasting prosperity.
Instead, I’d demonize prosperity itself, so that they will not miss what they will never have.
If I wanted America to fail …
I would create countless new regulations and seldom cancel old ones. They would be so complicated that only bureaucrats, lawyers and lobbyists could understand them. That way small businesses with big ideas wouldn’t stand a chance – and I would never have to worry about another Thomas Edison, Henry Ford or Steve Jobs.
I would ridicule as “Flat Earthers” those who urge us to lower energy costs by increasing supply. And when the evangelists of commonsense try to remind people about the law of supply and demand, I’d enlist a sympathetic media to drown them out.
If I wanted America to fail …
I would empower unaccountable bureaucracies seated in a distant capitol to bully Americans out of their dreams and their property rights. I’d send federal agents to raid guitar factories for using the wrong kind of wood; I’d force homeowners to tear down the homes they built on their own land.
I’d make it almost impossible for farmers to farm, miners to mine, loggers to log, and builders to build.
And because I don’t believe in free markets, I’d invent false ones. I’d devise fictitious products—like carbon credits—and trade them in imaginary markets. I’d convince people that this would create jobs and be good for the economy.
If I wanted America to fail … For every concern, I’d invent a crisis; and for every crisis, I’d invent the cause; Like shutting down entire industries and killing tens of thousands of jobs in the name of saving spotted owls. And when everyone learned the stunning irony that the owls were victims of their larger cousins and not people, it would already be decades too late.
If I wanted America to fail … I’d make it easier to stop commerce than start it – easier to kill jobs than create them – more fashionable to resent success than to seek it. When industries seek to create jobs, I’d file lawsuits to stop them. And then I’d make taxpayers pay for my lawyers.
If I wanted America to fail … I would transform the environmental agenda from a document of conservation to an economic suicide pact. I would concede entire industries to our economic rivals by imposing regulations that cost trillions. I would celebrate those who preach environmental austerity in public while indulging a lavish lifestyle in private. I’d convince Americans that Europe has it right, and America has it wrong.
If I wanted America to fail … I would prey on the goodness and decency of ordinary Americans. I would only need to convince them … that all of this is for the greater good. If I wanted America to fail, I suppose I wouldn’t change a thing.
-
Mr. President, Do you remember when the country rallied around you in hope of a better tomorrow? That was hilarious. It's hard to be funny with the President of the United States right next to you, but somehow, day after day, Joe Biden manages to do it.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/video/video-jimmy-kimmel-rips-on-obama-secret-service/article2417168/
-
Kimmel also harkened back to the Etch-A-Sketch label with which Romney was recently hit, saying that he saw the former Massachusetts governor as more of a game of Twister.
“One hand on red, one hand on blue and both hands on green,” Kimmel said.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-aims-at-romney-gop-during-correspondents-dinner-20120428,0,7051892.story
-
Kimmel continued: 'there's a term for Presidents like that... though probably not two terms.'
-
You gotta love Obama's line. "it's nice to be here in the vast Hilton ballroom. Or as Mitt Romney would
call it, a fixer-upper."
-
You gotta love Obama's line. "it's nice to be here in the vast Hilton ballroom. Or as Mitt Romney would
call it, a fixer-upper."
And Obama's terrorist friend Bill Ayers would call it a target.
-
You gotta love Obama's line. "it's nice to be here in the vast Hilton ballroom. Or as Mitt Romney would
call it, a fixer-upper."
And Obama's terrorist friend Bill Ayers would call it a target.
GM; other than you, does anyone really care about Bill Ayers? I'll answer for you; it's, "No, no one cares." :roll:
-
You gotta love Obama's line. "it's nice to be here in the vast Hilton ballroom. Or as Mitt Romney would
call it, a fixer-upper."
And Obama's terrorist friend Bill Ayers would call it a target.
GM; other than you, does anyone really care about Bill Ayers? I'll answer for you; it's, "No, no one cares." :roll:
Anyone with a sense of right and wrong cares, that obviously counts you out. Amoral leftist scumbag that you are.
-
as Mitt Romney would call it, a fixer-upper.
And Obama's terrorist friend Bill Ayers would call it a target.
Very funny, if it wasn't true. JDN doesn't care about ties to known, unrepentant terrorists? Because Ayers and the Mrs who kicked off Obama's career won't blow it up with their buddies in there.
It is the government in Washington, not the 5-star hotel, that Gov. Romney is calling a fixer-upper.
The comedian's point was that it is a fancy place. So who paid for the event so closely following the lavish government partying scandals?
-
"Amoral leftist scumbag that you are." Wow!
:-D :-D :-D
But I seem to have company. Probably 98% of America doesn't seem to care either. Only the wacko and fringe keep bringing it up.
Oh that's right, you are a Birther too. On other forums I suppose you write about how we should all run for our lives because Martians landing too?
No doubt you've seen them? :-o :-o :-o
___
Doug, for that line, the "comedian" was Obama. :-) He was referring to Romney's opulent houses. As for the cost of of the dinner, I assume the White House Corespondent's Association paid for the dinner.
http://whca.net/
-
But I seem to have company. Probably 98% of America doesn't seem to care either. Only the wacko and fringe keep bringing it up.
Oh, good statistic. As smart as every other bogus talking point you mindlessly parrot.
-
Oh that's right, you are a Birther too.
No stupid, I argued against that from the first time it was raised here, but it's quite clear you are very, very stupid.
-
He was referring to Romney's opulent houses.
Compared to recent wealthy Dem candidates (Heinz-Kerry) for the same office? No. Does his opponent have a frugal or median style abode in contrast? No. (million and a half plus a gangster yard) Opulent? Yes. Our nation was opulent - - - prior to Nov 2006.
-
The "gangster yard" and $1.5 million dollar house of Obama is worth less than 10% of only one of Romney's many weekend vacation houses. That's $20+ million for a vacation house.
Now THAT'S OPULENT!
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2011/08/large-things-that-could-fit-inside-mitt-romneys-new-house
Mitt Romney main and biggest house is in Belmont MA. Mitt Romney also has a home in Wolfeboro NH, one in La Jolla CA, and one in Park City UT
http://www.celebrityhousepictures.com/mitt-romney.php
Now that's what I call an opulent lifestyle even in post Nov. 2006
-
As opposed to the opulent lifestyle Buraq and Moochelle enjoy from Chicago Graft and public money? Hmmmm. Maybe someone who doesn't have ties to felons and terrorists and is good with his own finances would be a nice change.
-
Yes, blah, blah. What is the functional difference between flushing a million dollar toilet and a zillion dollar one. A tenfold difference, lol. Even Obama defines both lifestyles as the 1%, labeled and categorized, whereas I would call each of them the family home, unjudged by me except for the gangster origins of the one. Still no comparison to Kerry, Edwards, Gore or the Kennedys because that is different. Still even a preference for the gangster money versus the earned.
There is nothing to argue about in terms of how to move the country forward when we share no values or desired direction for the country in common. We are running against the if-I-wanted-America-to-fail braintrust and they are a clever bunch.
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aR1ekUSfyU&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aR1ekUSfyU&feature=player_embedded
-
Kerry, Gore, Edwards, or Kennedy aren't running for President this year. I suppose FDR was rich too, but he's not running for President this year either. Neither is George Washington or Herbert Hoover.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampbarrett/2012/01/24/how-romney-would-rank-among-the-richest-u-s-presidents/
Speaking of facts, although you tried to equate the two, Romney's life style is OPULENT compared to Obama. Imagine Romney's 4 houses, one being not even your main house, but your occasional weekend vacation house that costs $20+ million.... He was born with a silver spoon, thereafter he earned millions upon millions of dollars. He's filthy rich. That said, so what? He earned it. Good for him. But to say he empathizes with the poor or even the middle class is hogwash. Our last so called businessman President was Herbert Hoover. A rich man too, but....
As for the "gangster money" or implying that Obama did something wrong, or saying that he has improper ties to Ayers is popular among the radical right wing, but it's no more true than those Martians landing in MN. It get's rather old being repeated without any facts time after time. I prefer to stick to the facts, not the right/left wing blog rumor mill. Or we will be back to the Martians again?
-
Romey spends his own money, Obama spends the PUBLIC's money for his and Moochelle's opulent lifestyle.
Is it time for her next luxury vacation yet?
-
As for the "gangster money" or implying that Obama did something wrong, or saying that he has improper ties to Ayers is popular among the radical right wing, but it's no more true than those Martians landing in MN.
Please be so kind as to explain what sort of ties, if any Obama had to Ayers.
-
As for the "gangster money" or implying that Obama did something wrong, or saying that he has improper ties to Ayers is popular among the radical right wing, but it's no more true than those Martians landing in MN.
Please be so kind as to explain what sort of ties, if any Obama had to Ayers.
I really don't know, nor care. This has been looked at over and over again with nothing of substance to arise. No doubt they are acquaintances, but at that level, who isn't in Chicago or any big city?
The only hard facts that have come out so far are the $200 contribution by Ayers to the Obama re-election fund, and their joint membership of the eight-person Woods Fund Board. Obama spokesman Bill Burton noted in a statement that Ayers was a professor of education at the University of Illinois and a former aide to Mayor Richard M. Daley, and continued:
Senator Obama strongly condemns the violent actions of the Weathermen group, as he does all acts of violence. But he was an eight-year-old child when Ayers and the Weathermen were active, and any attempt to connect Obama with events of almost forty years ago is ridiculous.
Whatever his past, Ayers is now a respected member of the Chicago intelligentsia, and still a member of the Woods Fund Board. The president of the Woods Fund, Deborah Harrington, said he had been selected for the board because of his solid academic credentials and "passion for social justice."
"This whole connection is a stretch," Harrington told me. "Barack was very well known in Chicago, and a highly respected legislator. It would be difficult to find people round here who never volunteered or contributed money to one of his campaigns."
-
Don't look at the President's presidency, his policies, his results.
The thing about your hatred of Romney, JDN, "filthy rich" "OPULENT" "silver spoon" etc is that it sheds light only on you; it tells us nothing about him or how he would govern.
Why would a loving family man want to be rich? So he is beholden to no one, so he can take care of his own, without anyone else's help, so he can go on to other activities etc. You fail to show a negative in it and amazingly keep saying "so what" to your own arguments!
Did Mitt Romney spend more on housing than he paid to the government? Did he spend more on housing than he gave to charity? Did he spend more on housing than the federal affordability guideline of spending roughly one third of your income on housing? No. No. And no. He spent more than you - that's about all we know. You link a picture but I've seen nice places before; I enjoy knowing successful people. Is 6 hours on his bed better than the 8-9 hours of deep sleep I got last night. I doubt it. He doesn't have to fix his own toilet flapper if it leaks but neither do my tenants. It looks like he gives his neighbors greenery and privacy out their door and windows. Unless he plays music too loud, there is not much at the Romney compound to complain about. How many workmen made how many dollars building his homes, to help pay for their own? He has a tennis court but also he has a wife, 5 sons, 5 daughter in laws and 15 grandchildren. I would have gone with at least 2 courts in his situation but it looks like they preferred to keep the trees and were a little cramped for space.
What kind of house SHOULD he live in? Should he have stopped making money when he had enough. Actually he is one of the few who did; that did not slow the hatred. When he is on the west coast, should he have to stay in hotels, cut rate hotels, if he can afford his own place? Should we have laws restricting second home ownership or second home size, further killing that market? If so, who does that hurt most? Or is this NOT about POLICY in the first place?
When we figure out what JDN really hates, maybe we could have a thread about that and stop muddling up the important political threads. There's going to be an important election this year. Someone should make a coherent argument why we should stay on the same course or else we should change course.
FIVE tries at the martian joke and still no one knows what JDN is talking about. Someone other than me should tell JDN we don't hear those voices.
-------------
"Whatever his past, Ayers is now a respected member of the Chicago intelligentsia ... solid academic credentials and "passion for social justice.""
Whatever his past, you wanted Osama bin Laden dead or in the Islamist intelligentsia?
-------------
"Barack was very well known in Chicago, and a highly respected legislator."
His signature piece was the right to kill babies AFTER they pop out the womb alive. Or as they say on the left: a "passion for social justice."
-------------
What you JDN don't see or won't admit here is that we have been moving America in their direction every minute since the election of Nov 2006 and everything has gotten worse. It got worse for the rich. It got worse for the poor. It got worse for working people and it got worse for people looking for work. The prospects for the future from the unborn to the college seniors got worse. We all share ONE economy. It is not us vs. them; it is "we the people". It is policies for growth versus policies for decline. But saying they offer policies for decline doesn't sell, so again and again it is 'hey, look at this other shiny object - over here!' Romney's dog, Romney's wife, Romney's religion, Romney's house, Romney's other house.
With a slight correction in the CPI calculation, we are at 0.00% growth, equal to John Belushi's seven year GPA in Animal House. 0% growth at the bottom of the cliff AFTER FIVE TRILLION IN NEW DEBT. Obama's previous budget failed in a Dem Senate by a vote of 99-0. They asked his latest budget chief when this new budget balanced. He stuttered like seeing Obama trying to explain to the rest of America why he liked Rev. Wright's sermons. The answer for our economy repairing under their policies is never.
We grow out of this after we vote out these losers and their policies. Not one minute sooner.
-
Don't look at the President's presidency, his policies, his results.
The thing about your hatred of Romney, JDN, "filthy rich" "OPULENT" "silver spoon" etc is that it sheds light only on you; it tells us nothing about him or how he would govern.
Doug, I have no hatred of Romney. Frankly, I might even vote for him although I do wish he would quit pandering to the right. But his background is relevant; it does shed some light on how he would govern and his understanding of the problems of the average guy.
Did Mitt Romney spend more on housing than he paid to the government? Did he spend more on housing than he gave to charity? Did he spend more on housing than the federal affordability guideline of spending roughly one third of your income on housing? No. No. And no. He spent more than you - that's about all we know.
But facts are important. Yes, he did/is spending more money on housing than he is paying to the government. His La Jolla vacation house alone is $20million+. And some of that is even tax deductible although for the life of me I cannot figure out why a second home mortgage should be tax deductible.
When we figure out what JDN really hates, maybe we could have a thread about that and stop muddling up the important political threads. There's going to be an important election this year. Someone should make a coherent argument why we should stay on the same course or else we should change course.
I agree; but JDN doesn't hate anyone, but some on this forum truly hate Obama. That is what muddles up important threads.
-
I really don't know, nor care.
That captures your ignorance and amoral nature perfectly.
Whatever his past, Ayers is now a respected member of the Chicago intelligentsia, and still a member of the Woods Fund Board.
And an unrepentant terrorist. The fact that he is a respected member of what is called the "Chicago intelligencia" demonstrates how deep rooted evil and corruption is to the fabric of Chicago and the left.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/167989/bill-ayers-unrepentant-lying-terrorist/andy-mccarthy
Bill Ayers: Unrepentant LYING Terrorist
By Andrew C. McCarthy
August 27, 2008 8:46 A.M.
In that Fox interview that Rich linked to, Ayers preposterously claimed that he and his fellow Weather Underground terrorists did not really intend to harm any people — the fact that no one was killed in their 20 or so bombings was, he said, “by design”; they only wanted to cause property damage:
Between October 1969 and September 1973, the Weather Underground claimed credit for some twenty bombings across the country, in which no one was harmed — save the three cell members who perished in a Greenwich Village townhouse in March 1970, when one of their creations detonated prematurely. Ayers claimed the fact that no other individuals were killed as a result of the Weathermen’s actions was “by design.”
In his autobiography, Fugitive Days: A Memoir, Ayers recalled, he posed the question: “How far are you willing to take that step into what I consider the abyss of violence? And we really never did, except for that moment in the townhouse.… I actually think destroying property in the face of that kind of catastrophe is so — restrained. And I don’t see it as a big deal.
Right.
First of all, “that moment in the townhouse” he’s talking about happened in 1970. Three of his confederates, including his then girlfriend Diana Oughton, were accidentally killed when the explosive they were building to Ayers specifications (Ayers was a bomb designer) went off during construction. As noted in Ayers’ Discover the Networks profile, the explosive had been a nail bomb. Back when Ayers was being more honest about his intentions, he admitted that the purpose of that bomb had been to murder United States soldiers:
That bomb had been intended for detonation at a dance that was to be attended by army soldiers at Fort Dix, New Jersey. Hundreds of lives could have been lost had the plan been successfully executed. Ayers attested that the bomb would have done serious damage, “tearing through windows and walls and, yes, people too.”
In fact, Ayers was a founder of the Weatherman terror group and he defined its purpose as carrying out murder. Again, from Discover the Networks:
Characterizing Weatherman as “an American Red Army,” Ayers summed up the organization’s ideology as follows: “Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, Kill your parents.”
Now he wants you to think they just wanted to break a few dishes. But in his book Fugitive Days, in which he boasts that he “participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972,” he says of the day that he bombed the Pentagon: “Everything was absolutely ideal. … The sky was blue. The birds were singing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them.”
And he wasn’t singular. As I noted back in April in this article about Obama’s motley collection of radical friends, at the Weatherman “War Council” meeting in 1969, Ayers’ fellow terrorist and now-wife, Bernadine Dohrn, famously gushed over the barbaric Manson Family murders of the pregnant actress Sharon Tate, coffee heiress Abigail Folger, and three others: “Dig it! First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victim’s stomach! Wild!” And as Jonah recalled yesterday, “In appreciation, her Weather Underground cell made a threefingered ‘fork’ gesture its official salute.” They weren’t talking about scratching up the wall-paper.
A Weatherman affiliate group which called itself “the Family” colluded with the Black Liberation Army in the 1981 Brinks robbery in which two police officers and an armed guard were murdered. (Obama would like people to believe all this terrorist activity ended in 1969 when he was eight years old. In fact, it continued well into the eighties.) Afterwards, like Ayers and Dohrn, their friend and fellow terrorist Susan Rosenberg became a fugitive.
On November 29, 1984, Rosenberg and a co-conspirator, Timothy Blunk, were finally apprehended in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. At the time, they were actively planning an unspeakable bombing campaign that would have put at risk the lives of countless innocent people. They also possessed twelve assorted guns (including an Uzi 9 mm. semi-automatic rifle and an Ithaca twelve-gauge shotgun with its barrel sawed off), nearly 200 sticks of dynamite, more than 100 sticks of DuPont Trovex (a high explosive), a wide array of blasting agents and caps, batteries, and switches for explosive devices. Arrayed in disguises and offering multiple false identities to arresting officers, the pair also maintained hundreds of false identification documents, including FBI and DEA badges.
When she was sentenced to 58 years’ imprisonment in 1985, the only remorse Rosenberg expressed was over the fact that she and Blunk had allowed themselves to be captured rather than fighting it out with the police. Bernadine Dohrn was jailed for contempt when she refused to testify against Rosenberg. Not to worry, though. On his last day in office, the last Democrat president, Bill Clinton, pardoned Rosenberg — commuting her 58-year sentence to time-served.
These savages wanted to kill massively. That they killed only a few people owes to our luck and their incompetence, not design. They and the Democrat politicians who now befriend and serve them can rationalize that all they want. But those are the facts.
-
The examples I gave were of hate speech. The qualifier meaning 'lots of' in front of rich is not "filthy". Silver spoon is phrase about hatred, not about utensils. That you would hate and vote for him shows contradiction and nonsense. Given the disapprovals of both sides of congress, maybe hate is what people want to feel. If it informs you about how he will govern, inform us what you found out instead of the same repetition.
Housing cost is a per month or per year measure. You compare a one time investment that likely does not go down in value at all and say it is larger than a per year tax expense? You are not that stupid... GM, is he?
The feeling I and others hold toward President Obama is about how he IS governing us. I hate it, not him. I wish him private sector success, just like George McGovern who turned on a dime after he started in business and fought the red tape. Obama's association with these radicals told us in advance how he would govern. These terrorists were not free market advocates. ( The words you have expressed toward Gov. Romney are about ad hominem hatred - against the person. Did you oppose his health care plan, his tax plan more moderate than Huntsman's, his moderate view on climate change? No. His person.
Does one have to be poor to understand growth economics?
A different view is that to study poverty is to study nothing because poverty is the absence of something, not a quality in itself. Like studying particles in a vacuum. They aren't there. I don't want someone experience at being destitute. I want someone who knows the way out. If one accepts that wealth is good, one can study the conditions conducive to it growing and spreading it, not taking it. You in at least one side of your posting do not admit or accept that wealth is good. Without that acceptance, growing it or spreading it is of no value.
When I meet successful people I am overwhelmed with curiosity, not envy or hatred. The amount of wealth alone tells me NOTHING about how they will govern. Especially true for Romney for the reasons you suggest. He sort of grew up wealthy but his family started with nothing, made most of it after he grew up and he made his fortune on his own with of course the advantage that he was close kin with an important man.
Billy Carter beer brand, Neal Bush of Siverado S&L, Hugh Rodham of pardon fame, and Obama's aunt on food stamps all also came out of close kin with important people. It is an advantage of great potential but not determinative of your future. Nor any indication of how you will govern.
Romney is now the blank slate that Obama once was. Paint what you like on his canvas. Obama is inescapably tied to his record. He painted all over our canvas and people are finding it ugly.
-
GM; write what you will about Ayers. The problem is no connection of any note has ever been shown between Obama and Ayers. See above post for further details.
As for Doug, since when did the expression "Silver spoon" become a phrase about hatred, not about utensils. A "silver spoon" means you were raised rich. So what?
I have quite a few friends who were raised rich. Good for them; I surely don't hate them. In my fraternity house in college I got what was called the "silver spoon award".
It was a joke; it's given to the poorest pledge; that was me. I'm not complaining; my parents were great.
As for housing cost, Romney did pay more for his house in one year than he paid for taxes. Further, he got a mortgage deduction for his $20million dollar beach house.
I'm not that stupid and I don't think you are. As for GM, he has been talking stupid for a while so I don't know. He should stick to looking for Islamics behind every tree.
I too agree when I meet successful people I am curious; I don't have envy (maybe a little envy, but not jealousy) and definitely not hatred. So what is your point? I also agree
Romney's business success says something positive. Frankly, he governorship says something positive; I wish he would quit moving to the right to appease the right wing.
"I don't want someone experience at being destitute. I want someone who knows the way out." I agree, but Romney was never there (being destitute) so how can he find his way out of somewhere where he has never been? That is my point, although it is not a deal breaker by any means.
As for the relatives, brother's sisters aunts are different than being a son or daughter.
I agree Obama is mostly tied to his record. How it is interpreted is another matter. Not all find it ugly. It will be a close race. But Romney is not a blank slate; for better or worse, he has a business career and a governorship. And he has flip flopped like a hooked fish on deck. Too bad; the Romney as governor didn't sound all bad.
Further, while we can agree to disagree, may I suggest we try to be civil?
-
GM; write what you will about Ayers. The problem is no connection of any note has ever been shown between Obama and Ayers.
http://townhall.com/columnists/hughhewitt/2008/04/17/airing_the_ayers-obama_connection/page/full/
Before we comment on the significance of Barack Obama's connection to William Ayers, the domestic terrorist from the '60s Weatherman Underground, let's get the facts of the connection out.
On February, 22 Ben Smith of Politico.com wrote this introduction to his story on the Obama-Ayers relationship:
In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district’s influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.
While Ayers and Dohrn may be thought of in Hyde Park as local activists, they’re better known nationally as two of the most notorious — and unrepentant — figures from the violent fringe of the 1960s anti-war movement.
Now, as Obama runs for president, what two guests recall as an unremarkable gathering on the road to a minor elected office stands as a symbol of how swiftly he has risen from a man in the Hyde Park left to one closing in fast on the Democratic nomination for president.
“I can remember being one of a small group of people who came to Bill Ayers’ house to learn that Alice Palmer was stepping down from the senate and running for Congress,” said Dr. Quentin Young, a prominent Chicago physician and advocate for single-payer health care, of the informal gathering at the home of Ayers and his wife, Dohrn. “[Palmer] identified [Obama] as her successor.”
Obama and Palmer “were both there,” he said.
Three days earlier, the New York Sun had reported some additional details:
As an Illinois state senator in 2001, Mr. Obama accepted a $200 contribution from William Ayers, a founding member of the group that bombed the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon during the 1970s.
Mr. Ayers wrote a memoir, "Fugitive Days," published in 2001, and on the day of the September 11 terrorist attacks, he was quoted by the New York Times as saying: "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough."
He and Mr. Obama served together on the nine-member board of the Woods Fund, a Chicago nonprofit, for three years beginning in 1999, and they have also appeared jointly on two academic panels, one in 1997 and another in 2001. Mr. Ayers, who was never convicted in the Weather Underground bombings, is now a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
So we have at least a political friendship that began in 1995, and they became professional colleagues in 1999.
More details will certainly emerge if the MSM decides that the Democratic front-runner's association with a terrorist matters to voters.
And that is how the issue should be framed. William Ayers was a terrorist, and as of a few years ago, --if we believe the New York Times-- an unrepentant terrorist.
Does it matter? On Wednesday night, Obama made the case that it didn't in this exchange with George Stephanopoulos:
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator, if you get the nomination, you'll have to -- (applause) -- (inaudible).
I want to give Senator Clinton a chance to respond, but first a follow-up on this issue, the general theme of patriotism in your relationships. A gentleman named William Ayers, he was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol and other buildings. He's never apologized for that. And in fact, on 9/11 he was quoted in The New York Times saying, "I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough."
An early organizing meeting for your state senate campaign was held at his house, and your campaign has said you are friendly. Can you explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?
SEN. OBAMA: George, but this is an example of what I'm talking about.
This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.
And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense, George.
The fact is, is that I'm also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions.
Do I need to apologize for Mr. Coburn's statements? Because I certainly don't agree with those either.
So this kind of game, in which anybody who I know, regardless of how flimsy the relationship is, is somehow -- somehow their ideas could be attributed to me -- I think the American people are smarter than that. They're not going to suggest somehow that that is reflective of my views, because it obviously isn't.
Hillary Clinton wasn't buying Obama's attempt to dodge the implications of Obama's freindship with a terrorist. Here's what she added:
SEN. CLINTON: Well, I think that is a fair general statement, but I also believe that Senator Obama served on a board with Mr. Ayers for a period of time, the Woods Foundation, which was a paid directorship position.
And if I'm not mistaken, that relationship with Mr. Ayers on this board continued after 9/11 and after his reported comments, which were deeply hurtful to people in New York, and I would hope to every American, because they were published on 9/11 and he said that he was just sorry they hadn't done more. And what they did was set bombs and in some instances people died. So it is -- you know, I think it is, again, an issue that people will be asking about. And I have no doubt -- I know Senator Obama's a good man and I respect him greatly but I think that this is an issue that certainly the Republicans will be raising.
That's where the issue sits as we head into the last lap in the Keystone State full of bitter, gun-toting, illegal-immigrant hating Jesus freaks. But it is too bad that neither Stephanopoulos or Charles Gibson followed up on the subject of the significance of Ayers.
One of the key questions for a president is where do you draw your team from? Who are your friends? What and who influenced you?
We know that indicted and in-the-dock now Tony Rezko influenced Barack Obama --Rezko is Obama's mentor and financier, enabling the not-yet-wealthy Obamas to buy a house.
We know Jeremiah Wright was Obama's mentor and pastor influenced Obama, and despite the many attempts by Obama to rewrite his own history, the friendship between Obama and Wright is deep and significant.
-
GM; move on; you've got nothing....
Of course they were friendly; important people are "friendly" with each other here in LA too. As they are in almost all cities in America.
The ONLY fact you have is "As an Illinois state senator in 2001, Mr. Obama accepted a $200 contribution from William Ayers, a founding member of the group that bombed the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon during the 1970s."
WOW a $200.00 donation. I bet that would change Obama's opinion. :? :? :?
"He and Mr. Obama served together on the nine-member board of the Woods Fund, a Chicago nonprofit, for three years beginning in 1999, and they have also appeared jointly on two academic panels, one in 1997 and another in 2001. Mr. Ayers, who was never convicted in the Weather Underground bombings, is now a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago." :? :? :?
WOW someone who was never convicted, is now a full and respected professor at the University of Illinois, is an acquaintance of an Illinois Senator. Shocking! :? :? :?
Time to move on GM; no one, except you thinks there any story here except in your vivid imagination. Innuendo and BS. But when a police officer is arrested you always
want the facts. :-o :-o :-o A bit of hypocrisy?
-
WOW someone who was never convicted but admitted to his crimes, is now a
full and respected professor at the University of Illinois, unrepentant terrorist is an acquaintance of an Illinois Senator started the political career of a sitting president. Shocking!
Fixed it for you.
-
(http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20080505AyersFlag.jpg)
So, would Mr. Ayers do it all again, he is asked? ''I don't want to discount the possibility,'' he said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/11/books/no-regrets-for-love-explosives-memoir-sorts-war-protester-talks-life-with.html
-
I love it; you fix/change it, because no one else will believe your BS. If you don't like the FACTS, that doesn't stop you, you just change them. NO FACTS: but I think you like to make you own reality. Living in a bunker, you are delusional. Again, like finding Islamics behind every tree. It is rather shocking isn't it. Only when Police Officers commit heinous crimes do you argue, "well he hasn't been convicted yet". What a joke. Kinda pathetic. :-o :-o :-o
-
The facts are as plain as day to anyone not as stupid as you.
-
So, did Bill Ayers do more damage to America as a terrorist, or by starting Obama's political career?
-
The facts are as plain as day to anyone not as stupid as you.
GM; you must live in a cave; no light, no day. "Starting Obama's political career". What a joke. There are NO FACTS except a $200.00 contribution. WOW. I wouldn't do $%%& for $200.00 much less would someone as successful as Obama. Nor would that "start my career" at anything.
Hardly worthy of bringing up, but then that's all you got. Kinda sad huh? Should I start calling your Don Quixote? It fits, for more than one reason. :-D
-
"Starting Obama's political career".
Right here, stupid.
In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district’s influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.
While Ayers and Dohrn may be thought of in Hyde Park as local activists, they’re better known nationally as two of the most notorious — and unrepentant — figures from the violent fringe of the 1960s anti-war movement.
Now, as Obama runs for president, what two guests recall as an unremarkable gathering on the road to a minor elected office stands as a symbol of how swiftly he has risen from a man in the Hyde Park left to one closing in fast on the Democratic nomination for president.
“I can remember being one of a small group of people who came to Bill Ayers’ house to learn that Alice Palmer was stepping down from the senate and running for Congress,” said Dr. Quentin Young, a prominent Chicago physician and advocate for single-payer health care, of the informal gathering at the home of Ayers and his wife, Dohrn. “[Palmer] identified [Obama] as her successor.”
Obama and Palmer “were both there,” he said.
-
"In my fraternity house in college I got what was called the "silver spoon award". It was a joke; it's given to the poorest pledge; that was me. "
Silver spoon funny for poor kid but you weren't joking and maybe we aregetting at the root of your hate. Yours was an attack on the person and you keep defending it and expanding on it. I gave you synonyms to fix that, he was raised to be successful.
"As for housing cost, Romney did pay more for his house in one year than he paid for taxes. Further, he got a mortgage deduction for his $20million dollar beach house."
You say rich beyond comprehension, successful to a fault, and in the next sentence say he had to borrow to buy his second house. No he didn't. You say it 3 times and don't link it. Rich people don't need to borrow, they lend. There is no issue about Romney taking inappropriate deductions. It is still just an attack against the person, the Latin that is ad hominem. Be civil. Stop doing that.
You miss the main point anyway. If he pays 20 million for bricklaying, electrical, plumbing, roof installations, cabinet work, counters, custom closets, nice windows put in etc. WHO BENEFITED FROM THAT?? He is out the $20 million though got his money's worth so he is about even, but the bricklayers, framers, sheetrockers, cabinet makers, the guys that paint the lines on the tennis court, etc. - collectively they are up about $20 million, getting their bills paid and hopefully putting their kids through college. While the best perhaps were busy on this house other workers won bids on other projects etc and the other businesses in the area all benefit fromthe chain of events coming from a major new construction site. What is the downside of this? For all you obsess on it you just won't say what is wrong. What is wrong with good, healthy, private, consensual, adult, hard earned economic activity to liberals? What is wrong with having a beach house? Using it or having the freedom to not use it. I just don't see the problem and you won't say what it is. Because if HE owns it someone else doesn't? So no one should?? You just keep ripping it like we all already know how bad it is. But I don't hate rich people or resent successful people. We don't all attack and divide. Our side doesn't hate poor people, we want them to have the opportunity to earn whatever they want. We want people set financially or at least able to pay their bills. Rich means one more person we don't have to support. It's not filthy.
Who was it, I forget, who said "don't covet your neighbor's house"?
The President's job is not to individually counsel food stamp recipients on how to pay electric bills without money and to know from experience how it feels. He or she IMO is supposed to (among other things) set with congress our public policies so that every American has the best conditions conducive to long term economic growth and prosperity that are possible. It was the 'liberal' party that used to say "a rising tide lifts all boats". Anybody remember THAT? http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=9455#axzz1taeRBye3
Finally, yes, be civil. Parroting hate speech is hate speech. Don't do it. Do you think the us vs. them, divide-America line is okay because everyone you know is doing it? In a we-the-people country, somebody is going to call you on it.
-
I am deeply exhausted, and frankly, physically sick (taking antibiotics, have a cold, immune system quite run down) and my internal clock is badly confused. It is now 0400 (a.k.a. 1300 where I was for the last three weeks).
I had no internet connection the last three days.
I REALLY hate coming home to a disaster of a thread like this.
Personal antipathies are getting quite out of hand.
At the moment I am not sure what to say except that I'd like to ask everyone to have a conversation with the man in the mirror about not going down this road no matter what someone else might say.
-
SEALs slam Obama for using them as 'ammunition' in bid to take credit for bin Laden killing during election campaign
By Toby Harnden
PUBLISHED: 18:35 EST, 30 April 2012 | UPDATED: 10:42 EST, 1 May 2012
Comments (623) Share
Serving and former US Navy SEALs have slammed President Barack Obama for taking the credit for killing Osama bin Laden and accused him of using Special Forces operators as ‘ammunition’ for his re-election campaign.
The SEALs spoke out to MailOnline after the Obama campaign released an ad entitled ‘One Chance’.
In it President Bill Clinton is featured saying that Mr Obama took ‘the harder and the more honourable path’ in ordering that bin Laden be killed. The words ‘Which path would Mitt Romney have taken?’ are then displayed.
Besides the ad, the White House is marking the first anniversary of the SEAL Team Six raid that killed bin Laden inside his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan with a series of briefings and an NBC interview in the Situation Room designed to highlight the ‘gutsy call’ made by the President.
Scroll down for video
Taking credit: President Obama has used bin Laden's death as a campaign tool
Mr Obama used a news conference today to trumpet his personal role and imply that his Republican opponent Mr Romney, who in 2008 expressed reservations about the wisdom of sending troops into Pakistan, would have let bin Laden live.
‘I said that I'd go after bin Laden if we had a clear shot at him, and I did,’ Mr Obama said. ‘If there are others who have said one thing and now suggest they'd do something else, then I'd go ahead and let them explain it.’
Ryan Zinke, a former Commander in the US Navy who spent 23 years as a SEAL and led a SEAL Team 6 assault unit, said: ‘The decision was a no brainer. I applaud him for making it but I would not overly pat myself on the back for making the right call.
‘I think every president would have done the same. He is justified in saying it was his decision but the preparation, the sacrifice - it was a broader team effort.’
Mr Zinke, who is now a Republican state senator in Montana, added that MR Obama was exploiting bin Laden’s death for his re-election bid. ‘The President and his administration are positioning him as a war president using the SEALs as ammunition. It was predictable.’
Target: Bin Laden, pictured in his compound in Pakistan, was killed a year ago
Mission: Senior figures gathered to watch Navy SEALs invade the compound
Mr Obama has faced criticism even from allies about his decision to make a campaign ad about the bin Laden raid. Arianna Huffington, an outspoken liberal who runs the left-leaning Huffington Post website, roundly condemned it.
She told CBS: ‘We should celebrate the fact that they did such a great job. It's one thing to have an NBC special from the Situation Room... all that to me is perfectly legitimate, but to turn it into a campaign ad is one of the most despicable things you can do.’
Campaigning in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Mr Romney responded to a shouted question by a reporter by saying: ‘Even Jimmy Carter would have given that order.’
A serving SEAL Team member said: ‘Obama wasn’t in the field, at risk, carrying a gun. As president, at every turn he should be thanking the guys who put their lives on the line to do this. He does so in his official speeches because he speechwriters are smart.
‘But the more he tries to take the credit for it, the more the ground operators are saying, “Come on, man!” It really didn’t matter who was president. At the end of the day, they were going to go.’
Chris Kyle, a former SEAL sniper with 160 confirmed and another 95 unconfirmed kills to his credit, said: ‘The operation itself was great and the nation felt immense pride. It was great that we did it.
‘But bin Laden was just a figurehead. The war on terror continues. Taking him out didn’t really change anything as far as the war on terror is concerned and using it as a political attack is a cheap shot.
‘In years to come there is going to be information that will come out that Obama was not the man who made the call. He can say he did and the people who really know what happened are inside the Pentagon, are in the military and the military isn’t allowed to speak out against the commander- in-chief so his secret is safe.’
Rival: Mr Obama has questioned whether Mitt Romney would have done the same
Senior military figures have said that Admiral William McRaven, a former SEAL who was then head of Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) made the decision to take bin Laden out. Tactical decisions were delegated even further down the chain of command.
Mr Kyle added: ‘He's trying to say that Romney wouldn't have made the same call? Anyone who is patriotic to this country would have made that exact call, Democrat or Republican. Obama is taking more credit than he is due but it's going to get him some pretty good mileage.’
A former intelligence official who was serving in the US government when bin Laden was killed said that the Obama administration knew about the al-Qaeda leader’s whereabouts in October 2010 but delayed taking action and risked letting him escape.
‘In the end, Obama was forced to make a decision and do it. He knew that if he didn’t do it the political risks in not taking action were huge. Mitt Romney would have made the call but he would have made it earlier – as would George W. Bush.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2137636/Osama-bin-Laden-death-SEALs-slam-Obama-using-ammunition-bid-credit.html#ixzz1tecvPh0
-
re. Seals Slam Obama: Why, is there something wrong with "spiking the football"?
Obama managed to piss off David Brooks and Arrianna Huffington, his own allies, with his only accomplishment.
Brooks: "Last week, the Obama campaign ran a cheap-shot ad on the death of Osama bin Laden. Part of the ad was Bill Clinton effectively talking about the decision to kill the terrorist. But, in the middle, the Obama people threw in a low-minded attack on Romney. The slam made Clinton look small, it made Obama look small, it turned a moment of genuine accomplishment into a political ploy..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/opinion/brooks-warfare-or-courtship-in-2012.html?_r=1&ref=davidbrooks
Huffingtom: "this line of attack -- that a combination of an opponent's lack of patriotism and low machismo makes him a national security threat, and therefore unelectable -- is particularly "despicable" ..."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/osama-attack-ad_b_1468027.html
Ouch!
-
Ouch! Maybe I should add some exclamation points.
That pretty well sums it up. In the heat of a political race, people make stupid mistakes. And that was pretty stupid.
I commend Obama for what he did, he did have a choice, and he is the commander in chief, but there is absolutely no reason to criticize Romney. Romney IMHO seems honorable,
intelligent, patriotic, and as a side note, quite reasonable. However, IMHO his appeasement of the right wing to win the primaries may be his downfall. Others may disagree... :-)
I hope, although I doubt it, that this race will try to maintain the high side....
-
I agree that there are going to be mistakes in the heat of battle. But this one is a doozy. It is a not an ad hoc remark or hot mic moment but a highly planned out ad, timed with the anniversary of the greatest operation in recent times, utilizing the celebrity status of a former President, and orchestrated with the followup from the Vice President. The powers of incumbency and the powers of having a huge campaign war chest ran amok. Wrong to spike the football came right from the President, not the opponents, and it had to do with not inciting more attacks on Americans, not politics at home.
Of course Obama deserves credit for the OBL kill, just like Nixon does for approving the landing of the first man on the moon.
The campaign is pairing the magnificent performance of our special operations with a gotcha attempt on Romney quote, vague and clipped, where he said he wouldn't move heaven and earth to get one man.
The Romney point in 2008 I think was to remember there are other metrics in the war on terror of how we are doing like not having our cities and planes blown up He was saying don't publicly build up the international importance of getting this one man. Not saying don't kill him.
There were too many "I"s in the original Obama announcement. He didn't get it that it was enough that he was the one got to make the amazing announcement to the country and to the world. The political bump was there but relatively small and short lived. If another 3 week bump was possible, they needed it in Oct, not April.
Soon they will be saying Romney's foreign intervention policies will be too aggressive and dangerous. He is too willing to go after targets like this and prosecute a war on terror when we should be pulling away. (The Mission was Accomplished.)
President Obama's foreign policy record is cheapened by the bravato. Republicans will certainly criticize his record and he could have said in rebuttal, 'hey, I got us out of 2 wars and killed Osama bin Laden'. Instead it looks more like two surrenders and a no-brainer.
This attack made it through the highest levels of the campaign, which means the idea came from someone with so much pull that no adviser could say it was ill-advised. Most likely came fromthe President himself, or the first lady?
The other explanation is that the idea was pushed forward by Bill Clinton, a political genius, but in intentional sabotage. Funny how he is right in the middle of it - while his wife is leaving the administration, not going to the convention. No one is that cynical. :wink:
-
"The other explanation is that the idea was pushed forward by Bill Clinton, a political genius, but in intentional sabotage. Funny how he is right in the middle of it - while his wife is leaving the administration, not going to the convention. No one is that cynical."
Who says Sec. State Clinton is leaving the adminstration? She can't go to the convention, because the SecSt is meant to be a non-partisan position, and it is inappropriate to attend.
-
"Who says Sec. State Clinton is leaving the administration?"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/16/hillary-clinton-obama-cabinet_n_836635.html
Hillary Clinton Would Not Serve Second Term In Obama Cabinet
I did not mean to say sooner than that, just that she won't be staying on.
"She can't go to the convention, because the SecSt is meant to be a non-partisan position, and it is inappropriate to attend."
That is a good point of clarification. Some outlets ran it to mean more than that.
The idea that foreign policy is meant to be non-partisan has a sad element of humor and nostalgia to it, while her husband stars in a highly partisan campaign commercial - about foreign policy - running right now.
-
This may be sematics, but there is a difference, to me at leat, between leaving the adminstration and not continuing for a second term (if that occurs).
"The idea that foreign policy is meant to be non-partisan has a sad element of humor and nostalgia to it, while her husband stars in a highly partisan campaign commercial - about foreign policy - running right now."
Agreed.
"Some outlets ran it to mean more than that."
Some outlets don't know what the hell they are talking about. See below.
“Given her current position, she will not be attending, consistent with her not engaging in any political activity whatsoever,” Philippe Reines, spokesman for the Secretary of State, told The Charlotte Observer, which reports that ethical guidelines and federal statutes preclude Clinton, and some cabinets from participating in anything partisan.
Of course, Secretaries of States not attending political gatherings has been the rule (Reines can't even remember any from the modern era who have attended)...." (from http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/04/hillary-has-better-things-do-attend-democratic-convention/50896/)
-
"Some outlets don't know what the hell they are talking about."
As lamented on Media Issues, I very much regret the need to get so much of my information from biased right wing sources, and I very much appreciate that this format makes it possible to get misinformation cleared up very quickly.
Your distinction of not staying a second term versus that I wrote 'leaving' is quite valid. Most cabinet members I'm sure serve no more than one term. It does not mean a rift or anything like that. She has been 100% loyal in her position. More dedicated to her job than her boss has been to his. (MHO)
It's just that with the Clintons there is some history that precedes her service in this capacity.
-
In April, the percentage of adults working or looking for work fell to the lowest level in more than 30 years.
http://www.npr.org/2012/05/04/152007639/unemployment-dips-to-8-1-percent-fewer-jobs-added
Number of people on food stamps has doubled. And they were only trying to attack the rich.
Milbank and Maddow called Romney a liar for how he characterized this recovery. Watching and waiting for a retraction and apology.
End this nightmare.
-
Mitt Romney's campaign says it has many routes to the 270 votes needed for victory in the Electoral College this fall. But almost all of them rely on a difficult feat: Winning at least six states that went for President Barack Obama in 2008.
Spot Mr. Romney the five biggest swing states the Democrat won four years ago—Florida, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina and Indiana—and the Republican still wouldn't be guaranteed the White House. To win, he would need to also carry at least one other state that went to Mr. Obama four years ago.
That makes Mr. Romney's path to the White House narrow and perilous, while Mr. Obama has multiple routes to victory, including several that don't require him to win either Florida or Ohio, the most important battlegrounds of past elections.
Voting history and recent polling data show that Mr. Obama can count on a floor of close to 230 electoral votes from wins in the traditional Democratic strongholds that include California and the West Coast, plus New York and the Northeast. The base for Republican candidates is about 190 electoral votes from the Deep South, the Plains, some of the Mountain West and the big prize of Texas.
That math is in the background as the candidates lay out their campaign schedules. Mr. Obama will speak on student loans Friday in Virginia and then hold his first campaign rallies Saturday in Virginia and Ohio. Victories in those two states would all but assure his return to the White House, even if he lost all other swing states—defined as those that moved between the parties in recent presidential elections.
Mr. Romney spent Wednesday and Thursday in Virginia, and he plans a return visit next week.
Romney political director Rich Beeson says the GOP candidate has a range of ways to win. Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio and Indiana "are states that Republicans have won in the past, and not the far-too-distant past," he said. "It's not like we have to go out and win a Maryland." He offered a long list of states that could put Mr. Romney over the top when added to those five states.
But a stumble by Mr. Romney in Florida—whose 29 electoral votes make it the top prize among swing states—could stop him in his tracks, even if he won every other battleground in the country. The only way he could win without Florida is if he picked up a big state that hasn't gone Republican in years, such as Pennsylvania or Michigan.
A loss in Ohio wouldn't eliminate Mr. Romney but likely would leave him little margin for error. He would have to deprive Mr. Obama of wins in almost all other swing states. Losing Virginia along with Ohio, for example, would cost Mr. Romney the election. So would losing Ohio, Colorado and almost any other swing state.
For Mr. Obama, there is no single state that, if lost, would sound a similar death knell.
Electoral Advantage
See how states' electoral college votes have been cast since 1992.
View Interactive
..Campaign Finance
Compare the candidates' fund raising.
.Poll Tracker
WSJ's guide to the latest political polls
. More photos and interactive graphics
."It is always difficult to beat an incumbent, but it's all the more difficult to beat a Democratic incumbent who put so many traditionally Republican states into play last time," said Christian Ferry, who served as deputy campaign manager for Sen. John McCain, the 2008 Republican nominee.
For its part, the Obama camp says it has at least five distinct routes to re-election, including ones that envision losing both Florida and Ohio.
Both camps are putting huge weight on Virginia, a state that demographic forces—especially Northern Virginia's burgeoning suburbs—have made all the riper for Democrats. A combination of new Hispanic voters and the growth of politically competitive suburbs near Washington have changed the state's complexion in recent years. A Washington Post poll released Thursday found Mr. Obama leading Mr. Romney in Virginia among registered voters, 51% to 44%.
"Virginia is looking like the new Ohio, and Obama right now appears to be pretty strong there," said Patrick Ruffini, a Republican strategist who worked on the Bush campaign in 2004.
The Romney camp was cheered Thursday by poll numbers showing the former Massachusetts governor locked in a statistical dead heat with Mr. Obama in both Florida and Ohio.
The polls, released by Quinnipiac University, also highlighted Mr. Obama's challenges. A plurality in both states, for instance, said he didn't deserve to be re-elected.
For Mr. Romney, nothing would improve his prospects more than a big win in the industrial heartland. He plans to campaign in Pennsylvania Friday, even though his aides say they regard the state as a long shot. A Quinnipiac poll released Thursday found Mr. Obama eight points ahead of his rival.
A likelier upset candidate, the Romney camp says, might be Michigan, where Mr. Romney grew up and his father served four terms as governor. But the government-assisted turnaround of General Motors and Chrysler, which Mr. Romney opposed, could make a win there tougher.
With the election still six months off, Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, says much will still hinge on the state of the economy in the fall.
"If the economy is grim, even states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin could come into play" for the Romney campaign, Mr. Sabato said. "If the economy looks to be improving, then the path for Romney will be truly narrow."
-
I know 2008 is the starting point for all the analysts, but this year has no similarity.
Mitt Romney needs to defeat Barack Obama in the national election. On issues, competence and direction, he needs to do that by more than a sliver of a point. If he does, he will win Florida and Ohio. Indiana by double digits and win North Carolina easily. The latest Virginia poll shows Obama leading but also shows him running better with independents than he carried them in 2008. That is not likely in Nov. Twice as many say we are on the wrong track. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/05/whats-up-in-virginia.php
In the scenario in the piece, they say Romney would have to switch those 5 AND get one more. But if he switches those 5 states, he most certainly will carry New Hampshire and win. Also possible are Iowa, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Michigan, Colorado, Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
In a squeaker, who knows, but if Romney wins nationwide by a couple of points or more, the electoral victory will be convincing. My scenario has him beating Obama by a nearly 2:1 margin in the electoral college. That is more likely than Obama all the he did in 2008.
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/rebuttal-to-obamas-gm-ad/
He misses utterly the point that bankruptcy laws would have meant reorganization, not disappearance!
-
Yes. In bankruptcy the last thing they do is close the cash register. The immediate change is that the bankruptcy judge becomes the de facto CEO and CFO deciding what bills get paid in what amounts. They reorganize, not close the town. They don't come in and put boots on all the tires or shut down all operations.
They might let people go at the top and at the bottom, but jobs are mostly secure at the level where the work gets done. Products or plants that have no hope of ever paying their own way get dropped, but under what alternative would that not be so.
GM was mainly a healthcare company that also made and sold some cars. http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/11/crippling-burden-of-legacy-costs-gm-is.html
Obama took charge, injected taxpayer money selectively into the industry, meaning unequal treatment under the law, bypassed bankruptcy code and procedure, installed his own management and rearranged the ownership and debt hierarchy according to political expedience instead.
The authority to make such a move is contained in Article ___ of the constitution.
Now they call it the model for what they can do for the rest of the economy in a second term.
-
While I don't necessarily agree with how GM's bankruptcy was handled, heavy handed yes. Legal? Also Yes. Constitutional. Yep; the Courts said so. In spite of objections to the contrary.
Actually, in most cases a Trustee is appointed by the Court; the Judge is not the day to day CEO/CFO albeit the Judge does have quite a bit of power.
In most cases, GM excepted :-) Secured Creditors get paid first. However, keeping the business going is not a priority nor is keeping employees on the payroll. There would have been massive layoffs, and realistically GM probably would have their closed their doors; some parts/divisions being sold to pay off Creditors. Probably sold to foreign corporations.
A few suffered in exchange for the greater good. Hundreds of thousands of jobs were saved especially if you look downstream at suppliers, etc.
As for the Medical Benefits, those too are contractually guaranteed, albeit unsecured just like most account payables. I'm not sure why we pick on the worker's retirement plan. It was bargained in good faith. For example, I offer to pay you $50K per year. Or I offer to pay you $40K per year, but I will will pay the difference to you when you retire in pension and medical benefits. Actuarially, let's say they are the same. Why penalize, why criticize the employee who went for option two in good faith? Doesn't he deserve the same respect as the employee in option number one? Should you ask more money back paid to employees years ago?
-
I can see that this can take us rather far afield here, for I question and/or contest a number of points there so l lets see if we can keep this to just a few posts:
"Legal? Also Yes. Constitutional. Yep; the Courts said so."
Any citations on this?
-
I can see that this can take us rather far afield here, for I question and/or contest a number of points there so l lets see if we can keep this to just a few posts:
"Legal? Also Yes. Constitutional. Yep; the Courts said so."
Any citations on this?
I unfortunately have to work today and am running out the door, but the fact that if it wasn't challenged (the sophisticated well backed secure bond holders had every reason to vociferously challenge) although I'm sure it was challenged in the Courts, the secure creditors never won, an ipso facto indication that it was legal. If it was truly "illegal" or could be proven to be illegal, the bond holders simply would have continued to fight; a LOT of money was at stake.
I'm not the attorney in the group. However, I do remember lots of people complaining, but the Courts permitting Obama's plan. Ergo......
-
So then, your assertion that "the Courts said so" is not true?
Very bad form JDN.
As for your newly proferred rationale, while not devoid of logic, my understanding is that the secured bondholders faced non-legal repercussions from the executive branch, or was it that Congress passed come quasi-bill of attainder? Anyone have anything on this? BD?
-
While I will of course defer to BD, it seems the Courts did rule on this matter. The fact is that the bondholders did object to Chrysler and GM; a stay was issued, but the next day denied by the Supreme Court.
Unsurprisingly, when evaluating whether to grant GM’s motion to sell substantially all of its assets through § 363(b), in a sale virtually identical to Chrysler’s, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York cited to the Second Circuit in Chrysler. The court in the GM case stated that stare decisis required it to follow the law articulated by the bankruptcy court and upheld by the Second Circuit in Chrysler. Likewise, in August, the same court followed the Second Circuit’s Chrysler opinion in approving a § 363 sale of substantially all of the assets of an auto parts maker. These two cases both dealt with debtors who were part of the faltering U.S. auto industry.
Therefore, IMHO, I don't think my opinion is "bad form." My logic follows; if the bondholders could of in any legal way obtained a ruling in their favor, they would have done so. Too much money was at stake. But they were not able to obtain a favorable ruling from the Court. Ergo, it was "legal"; the bondholders lost out.
"More than a million jobs were saved; probably the state of Michigan was saved"; something had to be done.
I will however defer to BD of course.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/business/06auto.html
http://www.law.emory.edu/fileadmin/journals/bdj/27/27.1/David.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/opinion/delusions-about-the-detroit-bailout.html
http://www.4-traders.com/SUPREME-RES-LTD-COM-NPV-231205/news/SUPREME-RES-LTD-COM-NPV-Supreme-Court-clears-path-for-Chrysler-sale-13194169/
-
"fact that if it wasn't challenged"
I missed the "if" in this due to haste, and the effects of jet lag and the final stages of a nasty flu on my focus. My bad, and I withdraw the "bad form" comment.
I will say though, without knowing more, that a denial of a stay is a question quite separate from a ruling on the merits, so without more your assertion that the courts have ruled on the merits remains unsubstantiated here.
-
Thank you.
The court did rule; however the Supreme Court on appeal chose not to hear the case.
I defer to BD and you on legal matters, but as a layman it is my understanding that when the Supreme Court declines to hear a particular case,
indirectly they are validating the lower court's (Second Circuit) ruling. Perhaps that is a simplification, but...
-
I was say yes it is a simplification. Without knowledge of the question presented and its procedural posture IMO it is incorrect to make the asssertion that you seek to make.
-
I was say yes it is a simplification. Without knowledge of the question presented and its procedural posture IMO it is incorrect to make the asssertion that you seek to make.
OK; thank you. If you or BD have time one day, I would appreciate a brief education on the subject or a reference to a good summary.
-
I was say yes it is a simplification. Without knowledge of the question presented and its procedural posture IMO it is incorrect to make the asssertion that you seek to make.
OK; thank you. If you or BD have time one day, I would appreciate a brief education on the subject or a reference to a good summary.
This will need to be short because of time constraints. Crafty is right. There are many reasons that the SCOTUS may (not) hear a case, and it should not be assumed that not hearing a case is implicit approval.
First, the Court has rules about the types of cases it hears. The paperwork required is very exact, with some exceptions, most notably in forma pauperis appeals. If the paperwork fails to meet requirements of font, staple placement, etc. then the appeal won't be heard.
Second, Rule Ten designates that conflict between circuits should be afforded a higher likelihood of review. (See http://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2010RulesoftheCourt.pdf for details related to points 1 and 2.)
Third, there are many reasons why the Court may not feel that it has the necessary jurisdiction. These include: lack of standing of the petitioners; mootness; the case may not be "ripe"; it could be considered a political question; and a few others. The court may not feel that there is a case or controversy, which, of course, is required to hear the case according to Article III.
Fourth, the Court may be waiting for the "right" case. There is evidence that the USSC waited for Loving v. VA for example, in an effort to minimize a negative reaction to its decision.
Fifth, the Court employs the "Rule of Four," meaning that four justices must want to hear the case. There is some evidence that the decision, by an individual justice, of whether or not to hear a case may have some strategy in the vote.
Sixth, remember that 9000-10000 cases are appealled annually and that about 70 are heard. The USSC is pretty picky.
Does this help?
-
Does this help?
YES; sincerely; thank you for your time and effort, frankly, given your time constraints, your thorough answer.
The primary reason I like this forum is that I learn a lot; often thanks to you. Another example is GM who doesn't always agree with me :-) but I have
and hope to learn a lot from him especially about the middle east. We don't have have to agree, but it's always good to learn.
Again, my sincere thank you!
ps I didn't doubt Crafty was right, I just wanted to hear the logic.
-
Ditto, thanks Bigdog. I was thinking of the numbers constraint, hearing 70 cases out of 10,000, but also that this might not be the 'right' case in the sense of emergency actions versus how long a case would take in the Court.
------------------
Marco Rubio interviewed by Chris Wallace, always worth a listen IMO. Put him on the ticket and you would have a 16 year plan for prosperity. It struck me that a son of Cuban immigrants will be a quick study on the oppressors in China.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/05/06/rubio_obama_a_typical_washington_politician_that_is_very_sad_to_watch.html
-
A superb interview by Rubio on several levels-- amongst them how to talk about Baraq in a way that people who voted for him can change their minds without having to admit they were wrong. Great ability to state the case in pithy bullet points that communicate will with regular people. Very deft on the children of illegals. Much more. Romney should be taking notes.
-
They let him on Meet the Press and he calls Romney 'President Romney' http://www.theblaze.com/stories/gaffe-prone-biden-strikes-again-calls-mitt-president-romney-and-obama-president-clinton/, Obama 'President Clinton' and opens the door on gay marriage to a media circus ahead of any announced policy change. Meanwhile, they leave him out of the highest campaign planning meetings.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/05/us/politics/at-sunday-meetings-team-obama-prepares-for-a-tough-fight.html?_r=2&ref=politics
This one was an innocent slip up (or two or three), but I especially like the way he slows down and repeats for emphasis his false facts as he did several times in his debate against Sarah Palin.
In January of this year he told the San Francisco 49er fans: “the Giants are on their way to the Super Bowl.”
http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2012/01/biden-botches-49ers-rally-cry
Anybody remember FDR reassuring us on television in 1929 after the stock market crash...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hrQABAlo8g
At a 'stump' speech in 2008 Biden told wheelchair bound State Senator to stand up and be honored.
"Stand up Chuck, We wanna see ya." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2mzbuRgnI4
Dunkin Donuts? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM19YOqs7hU&feature=related
"The first mainstream African American who is articulate, bright and clean... that's a storybook, man."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgIFV7jXBFQ
-
"WE were the problem" in Iran.
The elevator in Joe Biden's brain does not go to all the floors.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/05/08/biden_on_iran_we_were_the_problem.html
-
They let him on Meet the Press and he calls Romney 'President Romney' http://www.theblaze.com/stories/gaffe-prone-biden-strikes-again-calls-mitt-president-romney-and-obama-president-clinton/, Obama 'President Clinton' and opens the door on gay marriage to a media circus ahead of any announced policy change. Meanwhile, they leave him out of the highest campaign planning meetings.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/05/us/politics/at-sunday-meetings-team-obama-prepares-for-a-tough-fight.html?_r=2&ref=politics
This one was an innocent slip up (or two or three), but I especially like the way he slows down and repeats for emphasis his false facts as he did several times in his debate against Sarah Palin.
"Biden isn't the vital player. That's still Obama. But Biden happily plays the "fool" while consistently outmaneuvering those who think the bigger story can be found in his malaprops and exasperating candor."
http://nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/biden-with-the-assist-veep-again-dumb-like-a-fox-20120510
-
I will grant that some of his slips are intentional and on some he jumps the gun to make himself relevant, like getting out front on gay marriage. Experts say the VP makes about a 1% difference, if that. Biden with Obama is perhaps a 0% factor for the reason posted, Obama is the vital player. But Biden will be out there with cameras on him everyday of this campaign with all the risks that poses.
'Dumb like a fox' is generous. Take this answer: 'Part of what a leader does...is demonstrate he or she knows what their talkin' about...when the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on television...' FDR wasn't President until 3 years later, there wasn't any television and the lessons of the Great Depression are crucially relevant today. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBl7jrD1GzU So Katie Couric, famous for bringing down Sarah Palin, let this pass without comment. (I wonder what she reads?) His soft treatment by the main press might end suddenly and it might not. A person that high up willing to talk on camera about what they don't know is a risk you would think this campaign machine would fear more than anything, even a jobs report.
Yes he plays key roles behind the scenes (scary), but as I see it, Joe Biden as VP was front and center the first indicator that the new administration would not be governing from above the clouds.
The braintrust of the campaign keeps Biden out of the planning meetings, but keeping Joe out of the loop has its own risks. They send him handlers I'm sure but he doesn't let himself be held to a script. He is especially open and loose when things feel like they are going well.
For Republicans, there is an unfairness to it all that with the knowledge that their own next gaffe (Sarah Palin afraid to say she mostly reads hunting magazines?) will bring down their whole public existence, while this guy knows less, puts his foot all the way in and people laugh and say that's just old Joe.
He is a heartbeat away and he was this President's first 'Presidential' decision. Biden is not the problem; he is a symptom of the problem. This administration hires, tolerates and governs with incompetence. (JMHO, it is only what independent voters think that counts.) The second term offered up will be the same players(?) doing the same things, getting different results.
Under the Biden-isn't-vital theory they also leave themselves with no new leader groomed to follow Pres. Obama, win or lose in 2012.
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/a-romney-landslide/
A Romney Landslide
By Dick Morris on May 9, 2012
Published on TheHill.com on May 8, 2012
If the election were held today, Mitt Romney would win by a landslide.
The published polls reflect a close race for two reasons:
1. They poll only registered voters, not likely voters. Rasmussen is the only pollster who tests likely voters, and his latest tracking poll has Romney ahead by 48-43.
2. As discussed in previous columns, a study of the undecided voters in the past eight elections in which incumbents sought a second term as president reveals that only Bush-43 gained any of the undecided vote. Johnson in ’64, Nixon in ’72, Ford in ’76, Carter in ’80, Reagan in ’84, Bush in ’92 and Clinton in ’96 all failed to pick up a single undecided vote.
So when polls show President Obama at 45 percent of the vote, they are really reflecting a likely 55-45 Romney victory, at the very least.
Gallup has amassed over 150,000 interviews over all of 2011 and compared them with a like number in 2010. It finds that Obama has a better than 50 percent job approval in only 10 states and the District of Columbia. And his approval has dropped in almost every single state. Even in California, it has fallen from 55 percent in 2010 to
50.5 percent in 2011.
Over the period of May 4-6, I completed a poll of 400 likely voters in Michigan and found Romney leading by 45-43! And Michigan is one of the most pro-Democrat of the swing states.
I also found that Obama’s personal favorability, which has usually run about 10 to 20 points higher than his job approval, is now equal to his job rating. In Michigan, his personal favorability among likely voters is 47-47, while his job rating is 50-48. Romney’s favorability is 49-42.
Obama’s crashing personal favorability reflects the backlash from his recent speeches. In substance, their focus on class warfare and their bombastic, demagogic style are not playing well with the voters. They do not seem in the least presidential.
Nor does his message of attacking Big Oil seem constructive. Voters all distrust Big Oil and would rather see them get punished, but they do not see in repealing their tax breaks a way of lowering prices at the pump or of increasing the supply of oil.
Obama’s trip to Afghanistan looks like grandstanding, and his insinuation that Romney would never have launched the strike looks like a low partisan blow.
Obama cannot summon the commitment he got in 2008 by negatives or partisanship. It was precisely to change the “toxic” atmosphere in Washington that he was elected. To fan it now is not the way to regain the affection of those who have turned on him.
If the election were held today, Obama would lose by at least 10 points and would carry only about a dozen states with fewer than 150 electoral votes.
And the Republicans would keep their Senate seats in Arizona, Texas and Nevada while picking up seats in Virginia, Florida, Indiana, Nebraska, North Dakota, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Missouri and Montana. The GOP will also have good shots at victory in the Senate races in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and — if Chris Shays wins the primary — Connecticut. Only in Maine are their fortunes likely to dim.
The journalists in the mainstream media, who are not politicians and have never run campaigns, do not realize what is happening. The Democrats, as delusional in 2012 as they were in 2010, are too much into their own euphoria to realize it. But America is sharply and totally rejecting Obama and all he stands for and embracing Romney as a good alternative. While few are saying these words, they are the truth.
-
second post:
Concerning Biden, remember when he was selected an important piece of the logic was that with his background on the Foreign Relations Committee, he would provide some back up substance to Obama's incredibly thin resume. It is in this context that one of his most flagrantly-ignored-by-the-pravdas gaffes occurred during the debate with Palin. I forget the exact details but concerning Lebanon he gave credit to the French for going in and accomplishing something and NONE OF IT EVER HAPPENED. :roll: :roll: :roll:
-
A great catch by Crafty:
..."one of his most flagrantly-ignored-by-the-pravdas gaffes occurred during the debate with Palin"...
----------
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/vice-presidential-debate.html
"When we kicked -- along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, "Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don't know -- if you don't, Hezbollah will control it."
- Yes, and it seems it was mostly right wing sites pointing out the 'mother of all gaffes' out of this foreign policy expert. Factcheck.org skipped it entirely (shocked).
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/03/mother-of-all-gaffes/ Details below some other issues from that debate
All eyes were looking for Palin to display ignorance in that debate. She survived but came across mostly as repetitive with her handler scripted talking points. Joe had a near endless supply of false facts as I saw it, mostly regarding economic matters. My observation was that every time that Biden slowed down and repeated himself for emphasis, which happened several times, he was wrong on his facts.
------------
From other sites that covered the debate:
Biden said five times that McCain’s tax plan would give oil companies a "$4 billion tax cut." - He was referring to McCain’s plan to cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent — for ALL corporations, not just oil companies. (Extremely misleading! And a corp tax rate cut would have helped the recovery. Still not done.)
Biden said: McCain voted on the same way on the budget resolution as Obama did.
Biden said: Under Obama people will not pay more taxes than they did under Reagan.
Biden said: It would take at least ten years to get any oil from new production.
Biden said: The “Use of Force” resolution was NOT a war resolution / authorization for war.
Biden said: McCain voted the same way Obama did with funding the troops.
Biden said: The United States spends more in three weeks in Iraq as we have in the past seven years in Afghanistan.
Biden said: That Article I of the Constitution refers to the Executive branch.
Biden said there is a windfall profits tax in Alaska.
Biden said: McCain opposed President Clinton on Bosnia.
“We don’t call it redistribution we call that ‘fairness’.” – Joe Biden (True, that's what you call redistribution.)
-------------------------
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/03/mother-of-all-gaffes/
http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2008/10/03/and-now-for-something-completely-insane-the-mother-of-all-biden-gaffes/
Of course, no one “threw Hezb’allah out of Lebanon.” They have been there all along as the expert above notes. The Lebanese people threw the Syrians out of Lebanon, with no help from liberal Democrats like Biden and Obama, but with a great big behind the scenes lift from France and the US. It was we who put the bug in King Abdullah’s ear to lobby the Syrians to get while the going was good as the French worked directly on Baby Assad. The combination worked wonderfully and the Syrians left in a hurry – after a couple of million Lebanese took to the streets in a breathtaking show of defiance to tyranny and love of freedom.
Joe Biden – or any rational human being on this planet anyway – never recommended that NATO be dispatched to “fill the vacuum.” It is a lie. If it had been proposed. Colin Powell would have been laughed out of the room – something we should do to Biden at this point because he compounded his gaffe by evidently believing that not having NATO as a buffer between Israel and Hezb’allah – an absolute impossibility mind you – led to the ascension of Hezb’allah in Lebanon as a political power.
Where has Biden been for the last 20 years – at least since the Taif Accords were signed in 1989 which gave Hezb’allah a free hand in the southern part of the country and then pressuring the Lebanese government to formally designate them as “the resistance” to Israel? Hezb’allah’s rise is directly related to Iran’s funding of their proxy to the tune of around $250 million a year.
I cannot recall anyone seriously suggesting that NATO occupy the sub-Litani region of Lebanon. NATO already found itself stretched to meet its commitments in Afghanistan, although Germany and Italy did find troops to contribute to the beefed-up presence in UNIFIL, the same multinational force that had sat idle while Hezbollah armed itself after the Israeli withdrawal from the region a few years ago — and then turned around and did the same thing after the Israeli withdrawal in 2006.
Some people assumed that Biden meant that the US and France kicked Syria out of Lebanon, but Michael Totten — who has spent considerable time in Lebanon — doesn’t buy that explanation, either:
And did Biden and Senator Barack Obama really say NATO troops should be sent into Lebanon? When did they say that? Why would they say that? They certainly didn’t say it because NATO needed to prevent Hezbollah from returning–since Hezbollah never went anywhere.
I tried to chalk this one up as just the latest of Biden’s colorful gaffes. Did he mean to say “we kicked Syria out of Lebanon?” But that wouldn’t make any more sense. First of all, the Lebanese kicked Syria out of Lebanon. Not the United States, and not France. But he clearly meant to say Hezbollah, not Syria, because he correctly notes just a few sentences later that Hezbollah is part of Lebanon’s government. He wasn’t talking about Syria. He was talking about Hezbollah all the way through, at the beginning, in the middle, and at the end of his outlandish assertion.
-
Doug: Good teamwork providing the actual details-- thank you.
=========
This from the WSJ makes sense to me:
"The Obama endorsement also guarantees that the media will not allow Mr. Romney to go anywhere without being interrogated on this subject. The Republican could do worse than to say he supports the Defense of Marriage Act that President Bill Clinton signed less than two months before the 1996 Presidential election, adding that he believes the issue ought to be resolved democratically by the states. That has left New York and five other states plus the District of Columbia to sanction gay marriage, while North Carolina on Tuesday went in the opposite direction.
"This has the advantage of not turning gay rights into another abortion debate, whose pre-emption by the Supreme Court in 1973 has produced little but cultural discord for four decades. This time, let's put a divisive social issue with sincerely held personal beliefs where such matters can be settled by consensus over time—in the state legislatures."
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/rebuttal-to-obamas-big-oil-smear-on-romney/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=signup
-
Going back to the Dick Morris post of yesterday:
"If the election were held today, Obama would lose by at least 10 points and would carry only about a dozen states with fewer than 150 electoral votes."
He is partly on to something and partly overplaying the hand IMO.
Most of the other analysts starts with the perfect storm electoral map of 2008. When every factor was perfectly in his favor (in 2008) he won by only 7 points. This will be nothing like 2008; the issues and circumstances today and likely in November are more like 2010 when Republicans won by the same margin of about 7 points. That was a mid-term and this is a Presidential election,so my best guess is that Romney can win by half that margin, 3-4 points nationwide, assuming conditions like today, which would sweep enough swing states for the electoral margin to be quite convincing and bring the house and a narrow win in the senate as well.
This will be a national election on the candidates, the issues and the record. President Obama at some point is going to run out of shiny objects like gay marriage and Romney's wild teenage years to spotlight and it will all come back to the record and that age-old question:
Are you better off now than you were six trillion dollars ago?
If Romney wins by 1-2%, he takes the electoral college with maybe no states to spare and perhaps a 50-50 senate. If the margin is less than a point for either one of them, then the electoral count is a crapshoot with our future hanging in the balance.
If Obama wins a squeaker which I think is his only possibility, then the tiebreaker for a 50-50 senate goes to the Dem VP. Every issue in that scenario will go just as smoothly as last summer's debt ceiling negotiations. (
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/226823-biden-apologized-to-obama-after-gay-marriage-comments
"Vice President Biden offered a hearty apology to President Obama on Wednesday, hours before the president was forced to announce his belief that same-sex marriages should be legal.
Sources familiar with the apology confirm to The Hill that Biden apologized a few hours before Obama appeared in a hastily scheduled interview on ABC to announce his shift on the controversial issue."
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-treads-lightly-on-gay-marriage-issue/2012/05/10/gIQAk4LtGU_story.html
"Some of Romney’s biggest financial backers — including Lewis M. Eisenberg, a former Republican National Committee finance chairman, and hedge fund managers Paul Singer and Daniel S. Loeb — have become public advocates for gay marriage, as have other Romney supporters, including former vice president Dick Cheney and former ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton.
Behind the scenes, influential donors and top strategists are counseling Republican candidates to avoid hot rhetoric or stigmatizing gay people, fearing a potential backlash from voters, who, polling suggests, are fast growing more open to gay marriage."
-
Republicans including Romney on the gay question need to articulate how life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is a guarantee fully open to all. That to me does not lead to where women sue women over paternity in a gender-free society. http://abcnews.go.com/US/colorado-lesbian-mom-wendy-alfredsen-granted-paternity-custody/story?id=16280117#.T60r_dmIhdg
-
Although I oppose gay marriage, from a handicapping point of view I must say that it looks like over time the trend seems to be for it.
It might have been a safe out for MR to say leave it to the states (as BO has done by the way?) but whoops, he has called for a Constitutional amendment.
Given the ongoing societal separation of marriage and reproduction and that gay adoption and test tube babies seem to be already established, is blocking gay marriage really addressing lesbian paternity suits?
-
While I too have difficulty accepting gay marriage, what's wrong with a Civil Union? Some, even of this site, have proposed civil unions, on a state by state basis, as a reasonable compromise. Yet Romney even opposes that.
I have a hard time figuring out what Romney's position truly is on the issues. I wish he would quit pandering to the right.
"Mr. Romney’s feelings about gay rights have evolved, but in the opposite direction: During his campaign for the Senate in 1994, Mr. Romney vowed to seek “full equality” for gays and lesbians, in a letter to the Log Cabin Republicans of Massachusetts.
In that letter he argued that he was more supportive of gay rights than his Democratic opponent at the time, Senator Edward M. Kennedy."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/us/politics/romney-reaffirms-opposition-to-marriage-or-similar-for-gay-couples.html
-
My point about BO's position of leaving it to the States is correctly undercut by this piece noting that failure of the BO DOJ to defend DOMA:
===============
The Foundation
"Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics." --John Adams
Government & Politics
A 'Gutsy Call' on Same-Sex Marriage
No surprise, but Obama backs same-sex marriage
"I think same-sex couples should be able to get married," Barack Obama told ABC News Wednesday. Media lemmings and Democrats -- but we repeat ourselves -- fawned over this "evolution" in Obama's thought on the subject, calling his statement brave, principled and, as The New York Times put it, "strong national leadership." That this was a "gutsy call" could not be further from the truth.
The only thing one could construe as "brave" about Obama's predictable cave is that he came out of the closet the day after North Carolina voters approved, 61-39, a constitutional amendment affirming marriage as being between one man and one woman. Now 30 states have similar amendments. Coincidentally, Democrats will hold their national convention in North Carolina, a state Obama hopes to carry once again. Obviously, he thinks his base needed this cause to rally around him for re-election, which is, after all, the point of everything he does. He certainly didn't waste any time fundraising off his flip-flop.
Forward!
The president's hand was forced when Joe Biden opened his trap Sunday, saying he is "absolutely comfortable" with same-sex marriage. Still, Obama swears he "had already made a decision that we were going to take this position before the election and before the convention." He said Biden "probably got out a little bit over his skis," but insisted, "all's well that ends well."
Obama's true position on the subject has always been known, despite his effort to eat his wedding cake and have it too. "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages," Obama said ... in 1996 when he was running for Illinois state senate. When he ran for U.S. Senate in 2004 and president in 2008, his view was that "marriage is between a man and a woman." Then in 2010, he belatedly declared that his views were "evolving." In other words, his position always has been a political charade. As evidence, we submit his latest campaign ad, which slams Romney as "backwards on equality" -- a place Obama found himself just 24 hours earlier.
Obama would be correct with his newfound federalism to call marriage an issue for states to decide -- if indeed the government has anyrole -- but that too is a charade. After all, his Justice Department has refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which leaves the matter to the states. (That bill passed both houses of Congress with large majorities before being signed into law in 1996 by Bill Clinton.) And if the Supreme Court discovers same-sex marriage to be a constitutional right under some obscure penumbra, no one doubts that Obama will celebrate.
For presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney, this is the latest in a string of Obama's orchestrated distractions, but who can blame the president for not wanting to talk about the dismal economy? He would much rather talk about a phony "war on women," dogs on car roofs and same-sex marriage than 324,000 women leaving the labor force in the last two months alone, or the fact that one in three young Americans is underemployed. To be sure, Obama admitted, "Sometimes I forget" the magnitude of the recession. Small wonder.
Romney took on the marriage issue anyway, saying, "My view is that marriage itself is a relationship between a man and a woman," and insisted, "I have the same view I've had since, well, since running for office." Yet he also expressed frustration with reporters who aren't asking about "issues of significance."
We won't go so far as to call the issue a distraction, though it's of far lesser import in this election than the economy or the size of the federal government. Marriage is the building block of family and society, and to redefine it so drastically is to undermine its integrity. All people have inherent dignity and worth -- no one here is engaging in what the Left derides as "gay bashing" -- but words and institutions have meanings, and it's important that we maintain them. It's a shame that some would use the issue as nothing more than a campaign fundraiser.
Just how brave was Obama? And who should decide the issue?
This Week's 'Alpha Jackass' Award
On how same-sex marriage squares with the Obamas as "practicing Christians," he said, "- bviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others, but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it's also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated." Never mind the rest of the Bible.
On the military, Obama opined that his rationale came from "when I think about those Soldiers or Airmen or Marines or Sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage."
The military fights on his behalf? On the contrary, the military fights for the nation, and they do it far too well to serve as political pawns for Obama's craven attempts to rally his base.
=================================
Who is Keith Judd? He's federal prison inmate Number 11593-051 at the Beaumont Federal Correctional Institution in Beaumont, Texas, where he's serving a 210-month sentence for extortion. Earlier this week, however, he was also a Democrat presidential candidate in the West Virginia primary, and he managed 40 percent of the vote and won 10 counties against the sitting president. In fact, his share of the vote was so large that he's entitled to at least one delegate at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte later this year. Democrats quickly attributed the result to racism, but it could have a lot more to do with Obama's anti-coal policies. In all fairness, though, Obama was at a serious disadvantage. What would you rather defend -- a felony conviction or Obama's record on the economy?
===========================
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/family-of-romneys-alleged-bully-victim-speaks-out-the-portrayal-of-john-is-factually-incorrect/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romneys-prep-school-classmates-recall-pranks-but-also-troubling-incidents/2012/05/10/gIQA3WOKFU_print.html
-
On Drudge is the latest Rasmussen poll showing Romney ahead with likely voters 7 points.
Just my hunch but by Monday a left wing poll will be announced by the AP that shows it either a "statistical dead heat" or Obama still ahead.
Russmussen of course could be wrong but I believe they have been the most accurate in the last elections.
-
What was the confidence interval? Many are +/- 3.5%, which would make this a statistical dead heat no matter who did the polling. And, is this national or swing state? That matters too!
On Drudge is the latest Rasmussen poll showing Romney ahead with likely voters 7 points.
Just my hunch but by Monday a left wing poll will be announced by the AP that shows it either a "statistical dead heat" or Obama still ahead.
Russmussen of course could be wrong but I believe they have been the most accurate in the last elections.
-
A comment on polling, polls list what they call their 'margin of error' which is the statistical error of projecting the results of a limited random sample onto the entire population. IMO, that is only one of the categories of errors contained in the various polls. For example, gay marriage consistently polls better than it votes. People tell a pollster what they think sounds better or more tolerant and then vote on a harder line. That same phenomenon may or may not be true for whether they say they still support or approve our very likable first President of color versus how harshly they will judge him in the privacy of the polling booth.
Another areas of potential error is whether or not it is completely random as to who the pollsters can't reach or who, like me, refuse to talk to them.
It only takes 1 or 2 out of a hundred difference (or less) to swing a national election.
--------------------
A swing state, conservative columnist answers to the cradle to grave 'Julia' campaign piece symbolizing the government centric philosophy of the Obama administration. He references Iowahawk facetious parady on Julia (http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2012/05/julias-circle-of-life.html) but makes serious points to follow:
"Up to now we’ve put a high value on self-sufficiency, while acknowledging the need for a safety net for support in old age or temporarily, when life deals a bad hand. Julia, by contrast, is supported at virtually every step with subsidies of various sorts...[Obama’s] larger goal [is] to fundamentally change the relationship between Americans and their government."
http://www.kansascity.com/2012/05/12/3606608/the-life-of-julia-or-life-without.html
The ‘Life of Julia,’ or life without aspiration
By E. THOMAS McCLANAHAN
The Kansas City Star
The right-wing blogosphere has been having a fine time with the “The Life of Julia,” the Obama campaign’s attempt to show, through a series of USA Today-style illustrations, how the policies of President Obama come to the aid of women at every important moment in their lives.
At 3, we see little Julia enrolled in a Head Start program. At 17, she’s in a Race to the Top high school. Later she has surgery and receives free birth control, thanks to Obamacare.
The story goes on: She has a career as a web designer, gets a Small Business Administration loan, then “decides” to have a child and names him Zachary. Zachary is apparently begotten by immaculate conception, since Julia never marries and no one else appears in the story.
“The Life of Julia” details the cradle-to-grave attention this supposed Everywoman receives from the caring people in the government. Thanks to Obama, she enjoys a comfortable retirement. Because of that, she can volunteer at a community garden.
The illustrations also show how Republican Mitt Romney would blight this story of placid contentment. Forget Head Start. Under Romney, that program would be cratered by budget cuts. Race to the Top? Ditto. And on and on, until the nation’s crops are burned by Republicans, the fields sown with salt and all the small furry animals are eaten by free-market fanatics.
I couldn’t resist. “The Life of Julia” has spawned parodies everywhere, but the topper is the sendoff at Iowahawk.typepad.com. A sample: At age 3 under President Obama, “Julia is enrolled in a Great Leap program where she will learn critical community organizing and obedience skills....”
Under Mitt Romney, poor little Julia “will be marched to a Mormon polygamy camp in Utah where Paul Ryan will torture her with boring Republican math mumbo jumbo.” And so on.
Parody aside, I’m at a loss to understand how this drab story could galvanize support for Obama’s re-election. Who could identify with Julia? She never finds love. Until Zachary arrives, she’s alone in the world. She claims no real accomplishments. Throughout, she remains passive. She stays within the channel laid down for her by the government. I wondered if they left out the story of her lobotomy.
“The Life of Julia” reveals much about its originators and the man on whose behalf it was created. Here we see the sterile vision of a certain kind of hard-left liberal, who apparently views the American citizen as a submissive, isolated entity — docile and disconnected from extended family or the web of groups and associations that make up a healthy civil society.
Omitted is any mention of the cost of Julia’s benefits, how they will be financed or, more to the point, how this vision, translated into policy, will change our notion of who we are as Americans.
Up to now we’ve put a high value on self-sufficiency, while acknowledging the need for a safety net for support in old age or temporarily, when life deals a bad hand. Julia, by contrast, is supported at virtually every step with subsidies of various sorts.
In Obama’s first address to Congress, he outlined a radically ambitious legislative program that made it clear his larger goal was to fundamentally change the relationship between Americans and their government.
One of the major underlying issues in this year’s election is to what extent we will, as Arthur Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute put it, continue to value “earned success,” or slide into “learned helplessness.”
-
"“earned success,” or slide into “learned helplessness.”"
Methinks that a catchy and pithy phrase worth remembering , , ,
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/obamas-terrible-week-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/
-
"“earned success,” or slide into “learned helplessness.”"
Methinks that a catchy and pithy phrase worth remembering , , ,
Yes. That pretty much nails it. We spend a lot of money teaching helplessness, then judge the programs by how many recipients they can attract.
http://www.myfreedompost.com/2012/03/obama-marketing-food-stamps-with-your.html Watch the ad!
-
Food stamps is meant to be a temporary helping mechanism. Nothing the FOX "report" argued otherwise. The rules were relaxed because of the increased average unemployment and subsequent, hopefully short term, poverty rates. People bitch about Obama's job creation attempts, and then bitch about people not having jobs. Complain about healthcare and then complain about a ad designed to get people to recognize that with foodstamps they can make healthy choices in the short term that will keep them out of the ER and doctors' offices in the longterm. That was NOT a good story.
As a side note, you can't "watch" the ad because it is a radio spot. The images you see are FOX's visual representation coinciding with the words.
-
Bigdog, Okay it was a radio ad; I stand corrected on that. For the rest, I strenuously disagree.
"Food stamps is meant to be a temporary helping mechanism. Nothing the FOX "report" argued otherwise."
The food stamp ad argues healthy and fun, not temporary or even for people in need. For many, it is a way of life. The ad implies that. "You use it too?" "Yes I do!" "Ha ha ha!" "Hoo Hoo Hoo!"
"The rules were relaxed because of the increased average unemployment and subsequent, hopefully short term, poverty rates."
This was a man-made crisis. We didn't get hit by a flood or volcano. Part of the cause of private sector collapse is the toll that public sector transfer payments spending puts on every aspect of the productive economy. That burden for me is greater than the family cost of food, shelter, clothing, transportation and healthcare combined - by far. The burden is so heavy that 47% of the people need some kind of assistance - in the richest country in earth's history.
"People bitch about Obama's job creation attempts, and then bitch about people not having jobs."
Yes, we bitch. These were not job creation attempts in any way I can recognize. Shovel ready job is now a laugh out loud line in any circle. Of every way that I know to increase the rate of private sector job creation, President Obama did none of them and moved us in the opposite direction on most. If you disagree, then what would you say was the catalyst for the financial collapse with its resulting job losses, and why is the workforce participation rate still falling after all these fiscal and monetary (pretend) stimuli? The chart is the BLS worforce participation rate from http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000 Workforce falloff coincides almost perfectly with emergency federal dollars spent.
(http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_LNS11300000_2002_2012_all_period_M04_data.gif)
"Complain about healthcare and then complain about a ad designed to get people to recognize that with foodstamps they can make healthy choices in the short term that will keep them out of the ER and doctors' offices in the longterm."
I complain about who pays for healthcare because third party pay screwed up the natural forces of market based cost restraint - for everyone.
"...with foodstamps they can make healthy choices in the short term that will keep them out of the ER and doctors' offices in the longterm?" - Looking forward to the link on that!
Here's the link for food stamps and health: The largest nutritional problem in the United States causing healthcare issues today is obesity. Obesity is positively correlated with food stamps. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12840184
Food for the hungry might be the best social spending program possible, but why is it federal? Why is it government? Would not closer to home be a better place to know the people, the needs, the costs? My county has a budget of $1649528239/yr. My state has a budget of $33793000000 /biennium. What do they do that is more important than helping to feed people in the community who have no other source of food? Charitable giving in the US is $290890000000. What do they have that is more pressing than feeding the hungry. If food for needy wasn't already paid at the federal level, charities would receive even more IMO. If further away is better for funding, why not do the whole world via the UN instead of advertising for recipients who don't even know they need help.
As an inner city landlord, I interviewing families about their income and expenses. Random observations are also telling, such as yesterday at a CVS store. The guy in front of me had to ring up his items separately, mini-donuts for 3.25 on the card (food stamps) and 2 mini-cigars for 4.50 cash, no problem. No stigma whatsoever and ready to take on the day!
Is there is no moral hazard or 'learned helplessness' problem with food stamps? (The original point)
Besides obesity and alleviating the urgency to go back to work, the fertility rate is 3 times higher for welfare families than non-welfare families. www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p20-558.pdf Pay more for more mouths to feed and there are more mouths to feed. Who knew? No proof of causation, but that is quite a difference. We may need for a new program and more spending.
-
Possible VP candidate Gov. Chris Christie:
http://www.investigativeproject.org/2506/gov-christie-strange-relationship-with-radical
-
"...with foodstamps they can make healthy choices in the short term that will keep them out of the ER and doctors' offices in the longterm?" - Looking forward to the link on that!
You don't understand the link between nutrition and health, Doug?!? Have been giving you too much intellectual respect? Did you listen to the ad? Is does NOT say let's buy pie and choclate milk. The ad explicitly is discussing health and healthy choices.
The burden is so heavy that 47% of the people need some kind of assistance - in the richest country in earth's history. So, then, we agree that people need assistance? I mean, most of the (FOX) panel you posted agreed that much of the public needs help. So, since we seem to agree, why, exactly is foodstamps the program you disagree with? Is helping people eat bad? Do you want children to starve?
These were not job creation attempts in any way I can recognize. You know that whole "Buy American" push? You know the car companies that were bailed out? You don't recognize the connection to building cars in the US and US jobs?
Since we are telling personal stories... I was on Food Stamps for about 6-8 months about 20 years ago. I literally had no money, no family willing to assist me, and with literally no money no way to move to get a job. It didn't help that I lived in a rural area where there was no public transportation, and the local economy was seriously terrible (one reason not to have local support as you describe is the potential inability for the local government to provide the goods that are needed due to local bankruptcy, economic conditions such as employment or drought or other issues). So, yes, I was on the taxpayers dole for a period of time. Sorry I took all that money out of your pocket. Now that I make money though, I have visited your fair state, and thrown down several hundred dollars on your local economy. You don't mind if we call it even, I hope.
-
Should you wish to continue, I invite the two of you to carry on on some other thread e.g. Govt. Programs
-
BD,
"I was on Food Stamps for about 6-8 months about 20 years ago. I literally had no money, no family willing to assist me, and with literally no money no way to move to get a job. It didn't help that I lived in a rural area where there was no public transportation, and the local economy was seriously terrible (one reason not to have local support as you describe is the potential inability for the local government to provide the goods that are needed due to local bankruptcy, economic conditions such as employment or drought or other issues). So, yes, I was on the taxpayers dole for a period of time."
Thanks for sharing your story. You left out a crucial part. It is not my business but would you share how you managed to get out of your predicament?
You don't sound like one of the ones that Doug is referring to - who gets on public assistance and doesn't really try to get off.
We hear that no one "likes to be on" unemployment, food stamps, disability, etc.
Of course we would all rather be where Zuckerberg is as opposed to the dole.
I am talking about those who seem to get "comfortable" on the dole.
-
"Should you wish to continue, I invite the two of you to carry on on some other thread e.g. Govt. Programs"
I was wondering if the fight should go to a political thread or over to Martial Arts. :wink:
-
Remember, its not a fight, its a conversation :-D
-
Schumpeter in the White House
How to talk about creative destruction
GUY SORMAN
The 2012 presidential race will be, in part, a showdown between two different models of economic growth. President Barack Obama and his Democratic administration will defend the once-discredited and now-resurgent theory that government must act as the economy’s “tutor” and use public funds to stimulate it. The Republican nominee, presumably Mitt Romney, will advance the free-market argument that the main source of new growth is the innovative energy of American entrepreneurs and that government needs to get out of the way.
An essential part of the free-market argument is “creative destruction,” a theory proposed by the great Austrian economist and Harvard University professor Joseph Schumpeter. If you don’t understand Schumpeter’s insight—expressed most powerfully in his classic 1942 book Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy—you’ll have a hard time understanding why free markets work so well to generate prosperity. Yet creative destruction is a complicated concept, poorly understood by the general public and not always easy to defend. As November nears, the Republican nominee will have to figure out a way to show voters how essential it is to American prosperity.
Schumpeter believed that progress in a capitalist economy requires that the old give way constantly to the new: production technologies in a free economy improve constantly, and new products and services are always on offer. But this creative transformation also has a destructive side, since it makes earlier products and services—and the workers who provided them—obsolete. Today’s consumers have little reason to buy an oil lamp instead of a lightbulb, or a Sony Walkman instead of an iPod—which can be bad news for the people who manufacture the oil lamp and the Walkman.
Looking back at the history of Western capitalism, we can see how the discovery of new energy sources, new communications systems, and new financial instruments regularly demolished old ways of doing things. When this happened, the result was typically short-term pain, as certain workers found themselves displaced, and sometimes even what appeared to be economic crises; but there was also substantial long-term gain, as the economy became more efficient and productive. Economists W. Michael Cox and Richard Alm point to transportation as a striking example of the process. “With the arrival of steam power in the nineteenth century, railroads swept across the United States, enlarging markets, reducing shipping costs, building new industries, and providing millions of new productive jobs,” they write. Automobiles and airplanes had similar effects. Yet “each new mode of transportation took a toll on existing jobs and industries. In 1900, the peak year for the occupation, the country employed 109,000 carriage and harness makers. In 1910, 238,000 Americans worked as blacksmiths. Today, those jobs are largely obsolete.”
Creative destruction can take place not just across sectors of the economy but within particular firms, too. Since the invention of the automobile, many automakers have disappeared, unable to improve their products; those that survived have had to transform themselves radically to stay competitive. Sometimes firms even change their business to stay alive. Think of IBM, which started in 1930 by building calculating machines, shifted to computers in the 1950s, and today is a service company.
Trying to prevent creative destruction brings economic torpor or worse. At the extreme were the twentieth century’s totalitarian Communist regimes. I vividly recall the Soviet economy under Brezhnev and the Chinese economy under Mao Zedong. In these state-controlled societies, competition was illegal and existing factories were never shuttered; every industrial complex contained layers of antiquated technologies to which more recent ones had been added. To close down a factory, after all, would imply that the central planners had made mistakes—an impossibility, since socialism was supposedly scientific.
Innovation is very rare under such state-stifled conditions. In East Germany, factories produced the same car—the only one available—for three decades: the infamous Trabant. Without competitors providing consumers with other choices, there was no incentive to do anything else. Visiting Communist countries during the seventies and eighties, as I frequently did, was to enter a museum of industries past. In the poorly stocked shops, one would come across outmoded devices, like mechanical watches, long gone from advanced capitalist economies. In- deed, most of the innovative products that did surface in the Communist world—usually for the benefit of the military—were stolen or smuggled in from the West.
The same weakness affects, though less dramatically, the watered-down form of state economic planning often practiced in European democracies and renascent in America under the Obama administration, with its Keynesian stimulus spending, massive bailouts of the auto industry, partial takeover of General Motors, and subsidies of alternative energy. The track record of such economic intervention in democratic societies has been stagnation, though it has occasionally proved useful in emerging economies, like Japan’s in the 1950s, when capital is scarce and entrepreneurs are thin on the ground. Even in Japan’s case, though, many of the government-backed industries failed, while sectors of the economy that weren’t nurtured by the state’s “industrial policy”—cars, components, ceramics—flourished.
Central planners can never match the private innovators of a competitive economy. (Friedrich Hayek called this bureaucratic arrogance the “fatal conceit.”) A bureaucrat would need omnipotence to anticipate, let alone invent, the paradigm shifts that capitalist economies, churning with creative destruction, have regularly birthed. Economies open to creative destruction have innovated more, created more employment, and enjoyed higher growth rates than their statist rivals.
No place has been more open to creative destruction than the United States, where whole cities, left behind by technological advance, have crumbled into ruin, with abandoned factories standing forlornly alongside rusted railroad tracks and many workers long since departed to clear new lands, like the pioneers of yesteryear. The willingness of Americans to endure creative destruction has allowed their economy to outperform European economies for decades. But creative destruction always runs the risk of ruining the lives of individuals along the way, which poses a significant political problem for defenders of free markets. Consider an example from overseas. Rail now allows travelers to zoom easily and quickly from London to Paris and back. Who, then, needs the slow-moving ferry that links Dover and Calais? But just try explaining Schumpeter’s virtues to a unionized sailor!
Yes, free-market advocates can point out that when a state steps in to help a dying sector of the economy, it is actually harming economic growth by sinking financial capital—a limited resource—into inefficient activities and diverting funds from more innovative enterprises. A job saved in an obsolete economic sector, they will say correctly, is a job—often many jobs—forgone elsewhere in the economy. But that’s a very hard argument for a politician to make. As the great free-market economist Milton Friedman frequently observed, a business closing gets on the television news, while the new businesses that get created from the reallocated capital go unnoticed because they are so widely dispersed.
Mitt Romney has run smack into this problem during his campaign for the Republican nomination. Bain Capital, the firm he led, was a pure engine of creative destruction: a private investment fund that bought troubled businesses, restructured them (often by firing people), and sold them for a profit. Even some of Romney’s Republican opponents, who know better, couldn’t resist attacking him for his entrepreneurial work; Newt Gingrich went so far as to run ads featuring workers who had lost their jobs because of Bain’s restructuring. Romney contended that Bain had helped create 100,000 new jobs, which may be true, but—underscoring Friedman’s point—no one knows exactly where they are.
It may therefore be necessary for defenders of creative destruction to balance Schumpeter with some form of social support. It is misguided to protect superseded firms and industries, they would maintain, but helpingpeople displaced by economic progress is a moral imperative. They would argue for the implementation of a “compassionate capitalism,” perhaps including unemployment benefits, retraining, and various welfare services. (These should be designed not to become disincentives to work, as they frequently have been in the past.) A compassionate capitalism wouldn’t merely be humane; it would also help preserve capitalism, because in a democracy, creative destruction cannot occur without some type of safety net. Workers who risk losing their jobs and lack any social support will soon vote an end to free markets.
Private Equity, Capitalism’s Secret Weapon
Created in the United States in 1946, private equity funds are collective investment schemes that didn’t become serious economic players until the 1970s in Silicon Valley. Early private equity investors, also known as venture capitalists, would buy shares in promising new industries like high-tech and sell their investments at a considerable profit. Eventually, private equity funds spread beyond Silicon Valley and invested in a wider range of industries. Today, they raise capital from cash-rich investors—pension funds, insurance companies, wealthy individuals—or borrow it from commercial banks and other financial institutions. Then they invest in various companies. The goal of the private equity fund is to sell those investments—often to another private equity fund—and turn a profit.
Smart investors at private equity funds select poorly managed companies whose value can be increased by extending, reducing, or reshuffling their activities. After buying a significant number of shares in such a company, a private equity fund can redirect or replace its management structure. Private equity managers may terminate redundant workers to increase productivity; scale back or eliminate less profitable departments; or use the company’s existing business to extend its brand and reach. For instance, Bain Capital, the private equity fund founded by Mitt Romney, turned Staples from a local brand into a national office supplier.
In the simplest sense, private equity investors reallocate capital where it will be most effective—from less productive uses to more profitable ones. Private equity funds propel capitalism’s creative destruction: by promoting innovation and punishing obsolescence, they fuel economic growth.
At the same time, by speeding up processes that might otherwise take a long time—such as the decline of an old industry and the emergence of a new one—private equity funds make the social costs of creative destruction more visible. Those who defend free markets, creative destruction, and private equity must do a better job of explaining their genuine benefits while supporting effective social policies to help workers make smoother transitions from old industries to new ones.
Schumpeter himself prophesied that the unpopularity of capitalism would eventually kill it. He doubted the capacity and willingness of the bourgeoisie to defend capitalism’s legitimacy, and he doubted the heirs of capitalist entrepreneurs even more. He knew many, both in his native Austria and in the United States, who squandered the capital that their parents and grandparents had accumulated and who were eager for the Left to forgive them for having inherited their wealth.
The ultimate enemies of capitalism, in Schumpeter’s view, were intellectuals, many of whom found it outrageous that businessmen had so much more money than they did. Envy—and the indisputable imperfections of capitalism—made these thinkers and writers, including some of Schumpeter’s Harvard colleagues, yearn for a better economic system. Ironically, the wealth created by capitalism had bankrolled a massive expansion of the educational system, empowering the intellectual class that hated that wealth. “Capitalism inevitably . . . educates and subsidizes a vested interest in social unrest,” Schumpeter noted. The rhetorical talent of the intellectuals, he predicted darkly, would help bring capitalism to its knees.
Schumpeter’s pessimism about capitalists’ heirs may have gone too far: some of them, especially in America, have put their money to good use in philanthropies, museums, and foundations that don’t lobby against capitalism. His characterization of intellectuals, though, remains as accurate today as when he made it decades ago. And while it’s true, of course, that socialism as Schumpeter feared it has all but disappeared, the Obama administration’s enthusiasm for economic intervention shows that American openness to creative destruction is not a given. Perhaps the most virulent opponent of creative destruction is the riotous antiglobalization movement. Perpetually laying siege to G-20 meetings, the antiglobalists refuse to accept—or fail to understand—that competition spurs innovation and that innovation spurs economic growth and human progress. Thanks to trade, market competition has become global, establishing a worldwide division of labor that dramatically reduces the costs of consumer goods, from food to cell phones and beyond. In the antiglobalists’ dreamworld, everything would become local again—a fantasy that, were it ever to become reality, would limit access to many goods to the wealthy alone.
Can a Schumpeterian candidate make it to the White House in 2012? Yes, but in the current climate of economic uncertainty, he will need to be a talented rhetorician. Otherwise, America in a second Obama term will probably continue to move in a European direction, with the government playing an increasingly activist role in the economy, protecting out-of-date ways of doing business. And without the liberating fire of creative destruction, America will follow Europe down the path of slow growth, high unemployment, and decline.
Guy Sorman is the author of Economics Does Not Lie.
-
second post of day
http://www.dickmorris.com/obamas-poll-numbers-get-worse-and-worse-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/
-
:-D
The first black, hispanic, woman, gay President just ain't working.
He is going to have to add many more subgroups I guess to have a chance.
He may as well come out and say, look anyone not a white hetero male - vote for moi!
As long as Mitt doesn't muck it up which is doubtful - this may turn into a laugher. :lol:
I was with some very liberal, socialist, democrat party relatives for mother's day. One asked me if I am still a Republican. At first I responded by saying I don't really want to talk politics - we all know we disagree and I otherwise love my relatives.
I then added with a smile "hell no" - I am not a Republican anymore. This was followed by a few moments of silence and I presume shock. Then I gave them all a bigger shock when I said I am now a Tea Partier.!
We all laughed but one of them did say that "is worse".
Liberals will NEVER change, or ever admit they are wrong. Relatives included.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?feature=player_embedded&v=-Czo5Vf8KZs
-
Romney To Win Undecideds
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on May 15, 2012
Printer-Friendly Version
From May 5-11, 2012, I conducted a survey of 6,000 likely voters. On such a mammoth sample, the margin of error is less than 1 percent. I found that Romney has amassed a sizable lead over Obama of 51-42, far in excess of what published polling and surveys of registered -- as opposed to likely -- voters are indicating.
If Romney were to win 51 percent of the vote, the election would, of course, be very close. But if he could hold Obama to 42 percent, it would be a landslide. So the obvious question is how Romney should go about winning the voters in between.
To answer this question, I drilled down in my sample to these undecided voters, none of whom voted for Romney in the survey. I added to their ranks those who voted for Obama but indicated that they only "somewhat" approved of his performance in office. This left me with a sample of 1,500 likely voters who are in play. The data in this column reflects their views. If Romney can win a quarter or a third of their votes, he will win by a landslide margin of 10 points.
On the economy, 46 percent of these swing voters do not believe that there is any recovery. Twenty-three percent say the economy is the same as when Obama took office and an additional 23 percent say it is worse. Thirty-nine percent say the jobs situation has not improved. Twenty-five percent say it is the same and 14 percent say it is worse. And 37 percent agree with the statement that "if we look around, there isn't real evidence that we are actually making progress."
Specifically, swing voters do not believe that the unemployment rate drop Obama heralds is real. Forty-nine percent agree that "the only reason it goes down is that each month more people give up even looking for work."
So Obama's claims that we are climbing out of the recession fall short with almost half of the swing vote. Indeed, 31 percent of swing voters say that "Obama's policies have made the recession worse."
About a third of swing voters squarely blame Obama's borrowing and spending as the culprit for the failure of the economy. Thirty-six percent agree that "the deficit and debt Obama's program caused did more harm that the spending did good. His cure was worse than the disease."
Forty-four percent of swing voters believe that "if we cut government spending and borrowing, we could recover much more quickly."
A third of swing voters -- 31 percent -- reject the president's argument that "if it were not for Obama's policies, things might have been even worse."
Finally, 44 percent of swing voters agree that "if we reelect Obama, he'll just do more of the same."
Romney has the ability to slice off a third of the undecided swing voters by way of a major attack on the economy, thereby lifting him well above the 50 percent threshold. Swing voters:
• Challenge Obama's assertion that we are recovering and that unemployment is dropping.
• Lay the blame for the economic stagnation on his "spending and borrowing" and suggest that with less of each, things would improve much more quickly.
• Believe that "his cure is worse than the disease" in that "the borrowing has done more harm than the spending did good."
• Are convinced that if we reelect Obama, we have only more spending and borrowing to look forward to and that the results will be the same.
Will Romney exploit the vulnerabilities this poll suggests? Only time will tell.
-
Posted on behalf of Crafty Dog...
(http://dogbrothers.com/kostas/2012-05-04-digest-1.jpg)
-
President Obama's best endorsement to date because it comes from a Dem who has been critical of him, on foreign policy and support for Israel but always with Dems on economic issues. Posted in the interest of balance on the forum; I don't agree with him.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/05/21/why_i_support_the_reelection_of_president_obama_114217.html
"Most important, convincing me of the President’s firm commitment to the security of the state of Israel was our personal extended conversation on that issue on September 21, 2011."
-
Even former Obama supporter David Brooks, NY Times, understands the role of private equity and what a distortion the Obama campaign has made, column below.
Pres. Obama struggled with the question of private equity yesterday at his press conference, rationalizing his campaign focus on Romney's old firm while exposing his own sketchy knowledge of how our economy works. He can't explain the unexplainable, how you can attack capital without injuring labor. The heart of capitalism and free enterprise is the free flow of resources to their most productive use; the concept is lost on this President. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/05/21/remarks-president-nato-press-conference "private equity is that it is set up to maximize profits... I think there are folks who do good work in that area."
-------
How Change Happens http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/opinion/brooks-how-change-happens.html?_r=1
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: May 21, 2012
Forty years ago, corporate America was bloated, sluggish and losing ground to competitors in Japan and beyond. But then something astonishing happened. Financiers, private equity firms and bare-knuckled corporate executives initiated a series of reforms and transformations.
Josh Haner/The New York Times
The process was brutal and involved streamlining and layoffs. But, at the end of it, American businesses emerged leaner, quicker and more efficient.
Now we are apparently going to have a presidential election about whether this reform movement was a good thing. Last week, the Obama administration unveiled an attack ad against Mitt Romney’s old private equity firm, Bain Capital, portraying it as a vampire that sucks the blood from American companies. Then Vice President Joseph Biden Jr. gave one of those cable-TV-type speeches, lambasting Wall Street and saying we had to be a country that makes things again.
The Obama attack ad accused Bain Capital of looting a steel company called GST in the 1990s and then throwing its workers out on the street. The ad itself barely survived a minute of scrutiny. As Kimberly Strassel noted in The Wall Street Journal, the depiction is wildly misleading.
The company was in terminal decline before Bain entered the picture, seeing its work force fall from 4,500 to less than 1,000. It faced closure when Romney and Bain, for some reason, saw hope for it in 1993. Bain acquired it, induced banks to loan it money and poured $100 million into modernization, according to Strassel. Bain held onto the company for eight years, hardly the pattern of a looter. Finally, after all the effort, the company, like many other old-line steel companies, filed for bankruptcy protection in 2001, two years after Romney had left Bain.
This is the story of a failed rescue, not vampire capitalism.
But the larger argument is about private equity itself, and about the changes private equity firms and other financiers have instigated across society. Over the past several decades, these firms have scoured America looking for underperforming companies. Then they acquire them and try to force them to get better.
As Reihan Salam noted in a fair-minded review of the literature in National Review, in any industry there is an astonishing difference in the productivity levels of leading companies and the lagging companies. Private equity firms like Bain acquire bad companies and often replace management, compel executives to own more stock in their own company and reform company operations.
Most of the time they succeed. Research from around the world clearly confirms that companies that have been acquired by private equity firms are more productive than comparable firms.
This process involves a great deal of churn and creative destruction. It does not, on net, lead to fewer jobs. A giant study by economists from the University of Chicago, Harvard, the University of Maryland and the Census Bureau found that when private equity firms acquire a company, jobs are lost in old operations. Jobs are created in new, promising operations. The overall effect on employment is modest.
Nor is it true that private equity firms generally pile up companies with debt, loot them and then send them to the graveyard. This does happen occasionally (the tax code encourages debt), but banks would not be lending money to private equity-owned companies, decade after decade, if those companies weren’t generally prosperous and creditworthy.
Private equity firms are not lovable, but they forced a renaissance that revived American capitalism. The large questions today are: Will the U.S. continue this process of rigorous creative destruction? More immediately, will the nation take the transformation of the private sector and extend it to the public sector?
While American companies operate in radically different ways than they did 40 years ago, the sheltered, government-dominated sectors of the economy — especially education, health care and the welfare state — operate in astonishingly similar ways.
The implicit argument of the Republican campaign is that Mitt Romney has the experience to extend this transformation into government.
The Obama campaign seems to be drifting willy-nilly into the opposite camp, arguing that the pressures brought to bear by the capital markets over the past few decades were not a good thing, offering no comparably sized agenda to reform the public sector.
In a country that desperately wants change, I have no idea why a party would not compete to be the party of change and transformation. For a candidate like Obama, who successfully ran an unconventional campaign that embodied and promised change, I have no idea why he would want to run a campaign this time that regurgitates the exact same ads and repeats the exact same arguments as so many Democratic campaigns from the ancient past.
-
http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/the-new-nasty-obama-campaign-20120523?page=1
But the point Booker was trying to make wasn't only about the legitimacy of attacking private equity -- it was that the tenor of the presidential campaign on both sides has become "nauseating to the American public." In saying so, he touched on something potentially even more unspeakable among Democrats: the idea that the slash-and-burn tactics of Obama's reelection campaign mark a definitive departure from the promise to change politics for the better.
"My outrage and really my frustration was about the cynical negative campaigning, the manipulation of the truth," Booker told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow on Monday night, noting the irony of the fact that his plea for civility had been promptly turned into a partisan weapon. "And so here [Republicans] are plucking sound bites out of that interview to manipulate in a cynical manner, to use them for their own purposes."
-
"But as Obama embarks in earnest on his second presidential campaign, deliberately invoking the echoes of 2008 as he does so, the contrast with his old image is especially stark."
One point I suggest is that Obama's image in 2008 was jsut a facade.
I haven't read his books but some of the exerpts clearly suggest he was a very confused and often angry boy/man growing up. He was abandoned by his father. And by his mother and left to be raised by white grandparents. Though his mother was white he is black skinned and appears to have had lots of identity issues growing up with regards to race, religion, his nationality, his allegiences, his culture. He has certainly sounded very angry.
I also hypothesized that this man has a gigantic narcissim problem and when the going gets rough he will start to blame everyone else and be ruthless. So far he is living true to form.
My point is the main difference between now and 2008 is we are really seeing the true nature of the politics and ruthlessness of this man. We have more than his words, his charm along with accusations from his political enemies and hints of information from his past.
We have years of his OWN actions, deeds, dishonesty, hypocracy, cover-ups, self adoration to prove who he is .
You can fool some of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but not all of the people all of the time.
Yes Bigdog. This is essentially unspeakable to Democrats. Cory Booker's quotes are rare from their side. He will be hushed. He may be punished by the DNC as well though we will not hear of it.
-
Romney To Win Undecideds
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on May 22, 2012
Printer-Friendly Version
In a survey of 6,000 likely voters, including a special sample of 1,500 swing voters, taken May 5-11, I probed how Obama's attacks on Romney were likely to play in the general election.
As the economy declines and his chances for victory fade, President Obama is resorting to a virtually wall-to-wall negative campaign in a desperate effort to win reelection. It is vital that the Republicans answer these charges as they surface --one by one -- but what rebuttals will work?
Bain Capital
Obama's first broadcast negative ad attacks Romney for cutting jobs at Bain. The polling shows Romney can survive the hit by saying that "sometimes he succeeded in helping companies, and sometimes he failed." The key is to cite the Wall Street Journal study showing that 22 percent of the companies he helped went broke but 78 percent did fine. When Romney says, "780 is a good batting average in any league!" it rebuts the accusation effectively.
On the other hand, arguments about the need for a high return for investors, Obama's lack of experience at creating jobs or a defense of the economics of outsourcing do not work well.
Outsourcing
Early in the campaign, Obama released a negative ad aimed at criticizing Romney for outsourcing jobs to other countries while at Bain Capital. But when Republicans point out that General Motors, a federally owned company, outsources 160,000 of its 220,000 jobs worldwide, it blunts the criticism and turns it back on Obama.
Medicare, sure to be a key controversy in the election, would have been a big win for Obama were it not for his own Medicare cuts and Romney's repositioning on the issue.
The $500 billion cut the president imposed on Medicare turns off most of the voters who are suspicious of Republican cuts to the program. And when swing voters learn that Romney supports keeping the current Medicare system as an alternative to vouchers if the elderly opt for it, the proposal blunts the president's accusations that the GOP wants to slash the program.
But a key finding is that the GOP can avoid the false choice between slashing benefits and raising taxes on Medicare by focusing on expanding the number of doctors to avoid rationing and allowing lower costs through greater efficiency rather than by restricting coverage. By 52-25, swing voters embrace this option.
Oil-company Profits
From the start of the campaign, Obama has linked Romney to high oil-company profits. This attack is likely to be effective, since most swing voters blame oil companies -- rather than global markets -- for high gasoline prices and support repealing their tax breaks. But when you take the issue beyond mere class warfare and envy, it loses its sting.
The key is for Romney to explain that higher oil-company taxes will "only cut the money they have available for exploration and drilling" and to warn that doing so will "not cut, and might raise, gasoline prices." Swing voters break even on agreeing or disagreeing with this line of argument by 47-46.
To survive this issue, Romney needs to get beyond class warfare and evil oil companies and discuss the pragmatic impact of raising their taxes.
Buffett Rule
Swing voters agree with Obama's proposal that millionaires pay 30 percent of their income in taxes. But when told that Obama himself only pays 20 percent in taxes, it blunts the issue. The second rebuttal is to tell voters that the bill would garner only $70 billion to remedy a $3.7 trillion deficit. After learning this, most swing voters see the president's position as more motivated by getting votes than by cutting the deficit.
There is nothing in Obama's arsenal of negatives that Romney need fear as long as he rebuts each of the charges using the talking points polling suggests.
-
James Tarranto of the WSJ has a great sense of humor. He posts a free column during the day called Best of the Web. Very insightful.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304707604577424401681188544.html
Nobody is challenging Barack Obama in the Democratic primaries this year--and is doing surprisingly well. One of the reasons some commentators thought Obama would be a shoo-in for re-election is that like Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, he drew no serious primary opposition as an incumbent president. By contrast, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Bush père were challenged by Reagan, Ted Kennedy and Pat Buchanan respectively. Lyndon Johnson abandoned his 1968 re-election bid after Eugene McCarthy's surprisingly strong showing in New Hampshire and Robert F. Kennedy's late entry.
The theory goes that presidents lose re-election when they have a strong primary opponent and win when they don't. This requires treating Buchanan as a "serious" opponent, even though he didn't win a single primary in 1992 and his best showing, in New Hampshire, was 37%.
Writing at RealClearPolitics, the delightfully named Sean Trende reformulates the rule and carries it back a century: "There are only seven sitting presidents who have ever received less than 60 percent of the vote in any primary: Taft in '12; Coolidge, '24; Hoover, '32; LBJ, '68; Ford '76; Carter, '80; and Bush '92. All of these presidents, with the exception of Coolidge, were not re-elected." One of Coolidge's challengers, Robert LaFollette, ran a third-party challenge. He ended up with 16.5% of the nationwide popular vote and carried his home state, Wisconsin.
[botwt0524a]
Nobody can beat Obama, they said.
Actually, there's an eighth sitting president who received less than 60% in a primary--in more than one, in fact. That would be Obama in '12, who, as Trende points out, received just 58.4% in Arkansas, 57.9% in Kentucky, 57.1% in Oklahoma and 59.4% in West Virginia. In Kentucky, his main opponent was "Uncommitted," another name for Nobody.
If the Trende trend is predictive--admittedly, a big if--Obama is much likelier than not to lose in November. "I think we can reasonably begin to view this as a sort of organic primary challenge to Obama," Trende writes. "Obama's not likely to lose any states outright in the primaries; think of this more like Buchanan's run against George H.W. Bush in 1992."
...
We now have seen Obama held under 60% by a slate of three candidates--antiabortion extremist Randall Terry, federal prison inmate Keith Judd and Tennessee lawyer John Wolfe--not to mention Nobody. Unlike the recently re-elected presidents, Obama does not have the full support of his party.
...
By all accounts, progressives and blacks are sticking with Obama. Yet the primaries in Arkansas, Kentucky, Oklahoma and West Virginia suggest that Obama is dividing his party anyway. No, he doesn't need any of those states to win, and he didn't carry them in 2008. But four states Obama did carry "have substantial populations in areas geographically and culturally similar to these 'problem areas': southwestern Pennsylvania, western Virginia and North Carolina, and southeastern Ohio." If Obama loses those four states plus Florida...he is a one-term president.
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/
-
Interesting that 3 of these 4 states of no consequence to Democrats were carried by Bill Clinton. That the Dem national party turns away from even their own voters in an entire region and a significant piece of the electoral puzzle elsewhere is a political decision that they made. In Nov we will find out if it hurt them. One of my more recent discoveries (of the obvious) is that margin of victory matters. What both Morris and Taranto point out is telling about Dem side enthusiasm. So will be the June 5 Wisconsin vote. The Obama/public employee union side of the vote did not even win the Dem primary.
-
How much did Perot hurt Bush and Dole in the states Morris mentions? Results suggest that Kentucky, for example, likely would have gone for Bush except for Perot in 1992. Total popular votes below:
Clinton: 665,104
Bush: 617,178
Perot: 203,944
West Virginia tells a similar tale, though the margin of victory likely would have been smaller. A quick look at the 1996 results also suggests that Perot helped Clinton win in states such Kentucky.
Morris is more right in discussing the LBJ decision to abandon his reelection hopes.
-
Bigdog. Your point is well taken, the Perot vote was much larger than Clinton's margin of victory in those states. That does not mean those disaffected voters otherwise go to Bush; staying home and crossing over are two other ways besides a 3rd party vote to show discontent. Perot voters in those states were willing to see Clinton win and Bush lose as a consequence of their choice. We do not yet know whether 2012 is another big 3rd party year, or who that would favor.
In Florida 2000, Dems say the 'Gore voters' who chose Nader more than cost him the election. Nader argues more accurately that those were not Gore voters.
In the Montana 2006 Senate race, the Dem won by 3000 votes to join the new Pelosi-Reid-Obama majority while the Libertarian won 10,000 votes. But all of the those 10,000 knew or should have known their vote was needed for a Republican victory and still chose to vote no. The enthusiasm gap matters. In the above examples, the customer was not sold on the product.
In contrast, 1980 had a strong third party challenge a moderate Republican. Reagan won 44 states.
The disaffection of Dem voters from Obama in these 4 states is most importantly a warning sign of weakness in parts of Ohio, Pennsylvania and other crucial states. Bitter clingers (people not sold on the Obama agenda) are not all Republicans.
-
FWIW IMHO the Perot vote gave the election to Clinton.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OQUyS9H6ioI
Look and see where our money is going. This is a good ad IMO.
-
Not wild about the graphics, but underlining the point that Solyndra is but one of a very large and very corrupt pattern is good aggresiveness by MR.
-
Team Obama keeps losing traction on its campaign initiatives starting with the Romney dog story trumped by the man eats dog story and comments on the flavor. The bully story is matched with quite a book revealing a lot of Obama's youth, the interceptor, the total absorption method.
The Bain private equity story was trumped by the failures of the Obama public equities failures.
The latest attack is the mediocre record of Mitt Romney as a one-term Governor of Massachusetts.
Funny thing is that compares quite favorably with Obama's partial term record as US Senator from Illinois.
Romney was elected to a 4 year term and left the state largely as head of the national governor's association, was focused on springboarding to the Presidency. Obama left a 6 year term to announce and campaign for the Presidency.
Romney had a lousy job creation record. Obama's record for 50 states is even worse.
Romney passed state healthcare with a mandate, now opposes national healthcare with a mandate. Obama's passed national healthcare, perhaps violating the constitution - we will see. Romneycare was passed within the constraints of the Mass. constitution.
Romney is a flip flopper, changed his view on abortion. Obama changed his view on gay marriage - back to what it was before he changed it last time.
When the games chapter of the campaign is over, maybe we could compare the two different governing philosophies and choose one.
-
Did Romney actually have a poor jobs record?
And if MA's record during his term was poor, how much of that is due to MA being a arch-progressive state?
-
"Did Romney actually have a poor jobs record?"
In a high growth economy I believe the Perry people were saying Mass. was 47th best. That is still more jobs growth (any positive number) than Obama got in all 50 states (slightly net-negative).
"And if MA's record during his term was poor, how much of that is due to MA being a arch-progressive state?"
That Romney's state was screwed up by Dems makes a lousy defense for Romney, but an even worse line of attack for Obama. I suppose Romneycare impending was a job growth killer. Which one of them wants to make that point?
With huge Dem majorities in both houses, there was not going to be a lot of supply side reform no matter what Mitt's view or effort was. On that point I would add with certainty that Romney cannot solve our national problems either if sent to Washington with huge Dem majorities in congress to manage the status quo.
Massachusetts may have other unique factors in that time. I know they are a high-tech state, maybe they were slower to come out of the tech crash Clinton Gore recession.
In any case, it is Obama's people not Romney saying to take a closer look at Massachusetts. If people do, they will find that he was not 'severely conservative', he was a pragmatic Massachusetts moderate, constrained by blue state realities, which will not fit the beholden to the far right picture they are otherwise trying to paint.
The attacks on Romney keep circling back to just judging Obama on his record. Are you better off now than you were 6 trillion dollars of new debt ago?
-
"Romney is under no obligation to defend Bush and the old GOP Congress from the charge that spending went up a lot under Bush. It did. Indeed, looked at historically one could refer to the 'Bush-Obama' years in terms of spending growth. ... Romney, in my opinion, should turn the tables on Obama and make Obama defend his continuation of Bush's spending binge (If Romney wanted to be really cruel, he could make the case Obama has continued many of Bush's counter-terror policies as well). Romney has the luxury of being the outsider. He can criticize both parties' records over the last decade. The tea parties won't complain. Neither will independents. And, so long as Romney is respectful in how he frames his criticisms of GOP spending under Bush, most rank and file Republicans and movement conservatives will probably applaud as well. Meanwhile, watching Obama try to deal with an 'anti-Bush' opponent would be hilarious." --columnist Jonah Goldberg
-
If you aren't following Jennifer Rubin, the right-wing columnist for the left-wing Washington Post, you should. Here's her latest, and I think she is spot on. I think it's becoming quite clear that Obama will lose in a landslide this November. There are huge and very important things going on these days that portend very optimistic things for the future of the country and the economy-- Scott Grannis
Obama is killing the Democratic Party
By Jennifer Rubin
President Obama, I have frequently argued, has been fabulous for the conservative movement. He spurred the creation of the tea party. He helped the GOP win the House majority in 2010 and make big gains in the Senate. His Obamacare has helped revive the Commerce Clause and given a boost to conservative jurisprudence. His refusal to support human rights has caused a bipartisan revulsion and reminded us that foreign policy must be girded by American values. He’s sent independents running into the GOP’s arms. He’s forced conservatives to think hard and express eloquently principles of religious liberty, limited government, free markets and Constitutional democracy.
Obama also has wrecked havoc in the the Democratic Party. He’s firmly affixed the “tax and spend” label to it after Bill Clinton declared that the era of big government was over. He’s made Clinton into a pitch man for Mitt Romney. His rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline has split the party. His refusal to adopt the Simpson-Bowles commission’s recommendations has turned Democrats into reactionaries, defending the status quo on entitlements. He’s alienated Jewish voters. He’s re-McGovernized the party, which now stands for appeasing despotic powers, turning on allies and slashing defense spending.
As Ross Douthat wrote, “House Republicans have spent the past two years taking tough votes on entitlement reform, preparing themselves for an ambitious offensive should 2012 deliver the opportunity to cast those same votes and have them count. The Senate Democrats, on the other hand, have failed to even pass a budget: There is no Democratic equivalent of Paul Ryan’s fiscal blueprint, no Democratic plan to swallow hard and raise middle class taxes the way Republicans look poised to swallow hard and overhaul Medicare. Indeed, there’s no liberal agenda to speak of at the moment, beyond a resounding ‘No!’ to whatever conservatism intends to do.”
Not even Jimmy Carter did this much, I would suggest, to jerk his party to the left and hobble its electoral prospects. No wonder Clinton is on a rampage.
Rather than spin endless excuses and blame it all on money, liberal elites might want to reconsider tying themselves too tightly to Obama’s mast. They have already become quite whiny and sacrificed a good deal of intellectual rigor in trying to defend every misstep as brilliant and every loss as a win.
They should take a page from the conservative playbook from the second Bush term. Then, conservatives stuck by their principles, criticized him where appropriate and maintained their integrity. That was a wise choice. Presidents, especially inept ones, come and go, but parties, journalists and political movements need to endure more than four years.
-
Translating the Wisconsin exit poll to the Presidential in rough terms. Widely reported is that 17% of Walker voters say they plan to vote for Obama. Not reported was that 5% of Barrett voters say they will vote Romney bringing that down to a net 12. The exit poll predicting a tie was wrong to the Dem side by 7 points, so that means (to me) (all other things equal) Obama will do 5 points better in Nov than Barret's actual result, which (again) was losing by 7.
That is very rough analysis because I don't buy the idea that in a highly partisan contest pitting neighbor against neighbor that any Walker vote is a decided vote for Obama or any other Dem.
National politics are different than state politics? True, but businessman Ron Johnson beat popular hometown incumbent liberal Russ Feingold for the US Senate seat statewide in Wisc by 5 points in 2010: http://elections.msnbc.msn.com/ns/politics/2010/wisconsin/senate#.T9DjLlKIhdg It can happen.
If Wisconsin is close, that means Romney already won about 40 other states. We will see.
-
Dick Morris reports that the calculation of the 17% number excluded absentee voters (about 15% of the total) who DM says tended to support MR.
-
Obama in 10-Point Drop among Jews
Among U.S. Jews, 64% support Obama, down from 74% in 2008 and similar to what Dukakis got in 1988.
By Gil Ronen
First Publish: 6/10/2012, 5:55 PM
Reuters
U.S. President Barack Obama currently has the support of 64% of Jewish registered voters, according to the Gallup polling agency. This is 10% less than the percentage of Jews who voted for Obama in 2008, and is similar to the percentage of Jews who voted for Michael Dukakis when he contended for the presidency against George Bush in 1988. Republican Mitt Romney enjoys 29% support among Jews.
Gallup notes the 10-point drop is "five points worse than his decline among all registered voters compared with 2008.”
A recent poll by the liberal Jewish Workman's Circle has shown even worse numbers for Obama, yet how the numbers are to interpreted depends on the interpreters. Some Democrats see the latest Gallup poll as a sign Obama's support among Jews is now rising.
The conservative Hot Air blog points out, however, that since 1988, all Democratic nominees have received more than 64% of the Jewish vote: "…Kerry, Gore, and Clinton all cracked 75 percent, and Jimmy Carter raked in 71 percent when he was elected in 1976. The only nominees who failed to reach 70 percent in the past 35 years were, er, Dukakis, Mondale, and Carter in 1980, the last of whom nearly lost the Jewish vote to Reagan."
The Republican Jewish Coalition notes the 29% of Jewish voters who support Romney, represents the “highest level of Jewish support for a Republican presidential candidate in 24 years.” RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks said that if the numbers hold in November, they would spell "a disaster" for Obama and his party.
However, Gallup polls also indicate that Obama held only 62% of the Jewish vote in June of 2008, before the final number rose to 74% in November. A similar dynamic could kick in this year, too.
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/romney-closes-gender-gap-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/
-
"Obama in 10-Point Drop among Jews
Among U.S. Jews, 64% support Obama, down from 74% in 2008 and similar to what Dukakis got in 1988."
Now we know why (most likely approved by, if not done by himself by Alexrod) is leaking security information to the Times including supposed cyber sabotage/eavesdropping in Iran.
Got to keep those Jews sending in the dollars aye Brock?
-
I forget where I saw/heard it (pollster Luntz on FOX?) but the political answer to the question as to how the hell Baraq is even competetive is that people tend to see the choice between
a) the Bush policies that got us in this mess
b) the Baraq policies that keep us in this mess
In other words, Baraq's "It's Bush's fault" resonates. Notions taken as common currency here (the Dems wanted the Bush policies to be even more reckless, the Dems controlled Congress starting in 2006 and therefore the measurement of the data should put the numbers since then on the Dem side of the ledger, the Dems controlled both houses and the White House for two years and therefore the Rep obstinacy argument makes no sense, etc) seem not to have cracked the platitudes of the pravdas in public perception.
Question presented: What to do?
-
Are American Jews Waking Up?
Posted By Ben Shapiro On June 15, 2012
This week, a Gallup poll showed that President Obama’s support level among American Jews had dropped from 74 percent in 2008 to 64 percent. That drop is twice as large as the drop for any other racial or ethnic group. It still leaves two-thirds of Jews standing in support of a President who will not stand by the Jewish State. But it does mean that a growing population of Jewish voters understand the threat that Obama poses – even if they had supported his socialistic domestic agenda.
The Obama administration proved again last week just why Jewish voters should be troubled. On Friday, June 7, the Obama administration blocked an Israeli request to join the Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF) in Istanbul, Turkey. Now, for the past several years, Turkish sentiment has been turning against Israel. Once the two countries’ had a vibrant defense relationship, but Israel now has to fight off flotillas of armed terror-supporters launched from Turkey. Turkey’s Head of state, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is living proof of what happens to a heretofore secular state falls to the scourge of Islamism.
Instead of seeing Turkey as a threat, however, the Obama administration sees it as a model for the Middle East. Egypt has been allowed to go Islamist; so has Iraq (which now has Shariah law as its default under its constitution); so have Libya and Tunisia. All, like Turkey, went Islamist by popular demand. And all, like Turkey, have become radically anti-Israel.
When faced with the intransigence of Islamism, the West has two choices: they can call upon the Islamists to drop the nonsense and begin dealing reasonably with the Jewish State. Or they can cave.
The Obama administration caved.
The GCTF, a crowning achievement of the Obama administration’s foreign policy, was opened in September 2011; it was the United States that chose Turkey as the site of this month’s conference. So when Israel asked to join, America could have told the Turks to deal with it.
Instead, they told Israel to get out, even as they invited Algeria, Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. Non-Middle Eastern nations like China, Russia, and countries of West Europe showed up, too.
Not Israel, however. “The GCTF sought from the outset to bridge old and deep divides in the international community between Western donor nations and Muslim majority nations,” said one U.S. official. “And it has, I think, done that quite effectively.”
Not that effectively. Israel remains a bridge too far for the Arab and Muslim world, which seeks its destruction above all else. And yet the Obama administration acts as though the international scene is one big happy family, anti-terror to the core.
The truth is far more sinister. Holding an antiterrorism conference in Turkey is like holding a women’s conference in Sudan or a gay and lesbian conference in Saudi Arabia. It’s an oxymoron. And the fact that the Turkish won’t let the Jews in shows just what a mockery the entire spectacle is in the first place.
This isn’t the first time the United States has created a coalition of the willing that included a fair number of bad apples. During the First Gulf War, George H.W. Bush could have included Israel in the alliance against Saddam Hussein. He chose not to do so, fearful that he would alienate the rest of the Arab world. It was a tragic mistake, since for the first time, the Arab states would have been forced to work with Israel, or watch Iraq become the regional powerhouse.
But at least in that case, there was a larger goal: the freeing of an oil-rich state. In this case, the larger goal – fighting terrorism – is inseparable from the need to bring Israel into the fold. Any attempt to fight Islamic terror that forces Israel out is not truly fighting Islamic terror – it’s kicking the can down the road. In the short term, terrorists may be stopped. In the long term, they’ll be emboldened.
American Jews instinctively know this. Banning Israel from an antiterrorism conference to cater to the sensitivities of Muslims treads on anti-Semitic ground. But that’s familiar ground for the Obama administration, which has routinely leaked crucial national security information to the press that would undercut Israel’s ability to defend itself. It’s no wonder Jews in the United States – at least the ones who care about Israel – are beginning to see the light about President Obama. All they have to do is read the papers.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.
-
Are American Jews Waking Up?
"This week, a Gallup poll showed that President Obama’s support level among American Jews had dropped from 74 percent in 2008 to 64 percent. That drop is twice as large as the drop for any other racial or ethnic group."
Actually the answer is probably "No".
"WASHINGTON – Jewish support for US President Barack Obama has increased slightly, according to a poll released by Gallup Friday, though both Democrats and Republican seized on findings to bolster their party’s claim on Jewish voters.
Jewish voters back Obama over Romney by a 64-29 margin, up from the 61-28 margin found by an American Jewish Committee survey from March of this year."
http://www.jpost.com/USPresidentialrace/Article.aspx?ID=273208&R=R1
-
Following up on my post of yesterday ruminating upon how
"people tend to see the choice between a) the Bush policies that got us in this mess, and b) the Baraq policies that keep us in this mess"
I would note that part of the Dem syllogism is that MR wants to extend the Bush tax rate cuts therefore MR wants Bush's economic policies; the bubble burst on Bush's watch, therefore Bush's economic policies caused the bubble and its pop.
As I already noted, the Reps need to make strongly the case that "the Dems controlled Congress starting in 2006 and therefore the measurement of the data should put the numbers since then on the Dem side of the ledger, the Dems controlled both houses and the White House for two years and therefore the Rep obstinacy argument makes no sense, etc)" but there is something more and it is real important:
The central cause of the bubble and its pop was Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Fed, the Community Reinvestment Act and related matters. THESE ARE DEM POLICIES and MUST BE HUNG AROUND DEM NECKS.
Why isn't this even on the radar screen?
Can it be because MR was like Newt and also got tainted by this?
-
Marc:
That is the simple answer to your question. Mitt Romney is not, and never has been a true conservative. That is why so many of us fought NOT to have him become the Republican nominee. I grew up in CT as you know, and still have family and many friends up there and in MA. Romney governed there as a New England Republican - i.e., DEMOCRAT. As Mark Levin has repeatedly and forcefully pointed out on his radio show, we are going to have to fight like hell to get Romney elected, and then IF we are successful at that - continue to fight like hell to drag him to the right after he gets into office. I have NO CONFIDENCE that he will take actions that are anywhere near what is actually needed to turn this ship around - although it goes without saying that any pro-American non-Marxist is better than what we currently have in the White House.
Far too many Americans are, in the immortal words of Thomas Jefferson "more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
I fear this situation will have to become MUCH more severe than it is already before enough Americans "wake up and smell the coffee" and demand appropriate action from Congress and the President.
-
Obj:
Go back into this thread and others (e.g. the Newt thread, the Romney thread, etc) and you will see I fully appreciate that MR is not a conservative!!! What I am trying to do here is get to why an election we should be winning in a landslide is currently a toss up.
-
Marc:
You're not connecting the dots. It is PRECISELY BECAUSE Romney and the Republican establishment who pushed for his nomination ARE NOT conservatives that they have no will to hammer home the points you correctly identify as needing to be made. They simply don't have it in them. This Republican inside-the-beltway party establishment doesn't see our current situation as all that critical. Frankly, I believe that they would be satisfied with gaining control of both houses of Congress and forfeiting the White House. The so-called mainstream media - true to form - is of course playing along. They've wanted Romney all along as well - as I believe, has the Obama campaign - because he is essentially another milquetoast "moderate" Republican they can much more easily defeat than a real conservative such as Ronald Reagan was. BOLD CONTRASTS - not pastels, as Reagan used to say - THAT is what wins elections. To the extent that the polls are accurate and the election really is as close as it is being reported (doubtful in my opinion) it's due to a FAILURE of Republican leadership in communicating conservative ideas. Pure and simple. Liberalism is "intuitive," Conservatism is NOT. It requires rational thought and is essentially an intellectual exercise - as William F. Buckley pointed out. To the extent people are not persuaded of conservative ideas - they are by default liberals - and therein lies the problem in which we find ourselves.
-
"...competetive [because] people tend to see the choice between
a) the Bush policies that got us in this mess
b) the Baraq policies that keep us in this mess
In other words, Baraq's "It's Bush's fault" resonates. Notions taken as common currency here (the Dems wanted the Bush policies to be even more reckless, the Dems controlled Congress starting in 2006 and therefore the measurement of the data should put the numbers since then on the Dem side of the ledger, the Dems controlled both houses and the White House for two years and therefore the Rep obstinacy argument makes no sense, etc) seem not to have cracked the platitudes of the pravdas in public perception.
Question presented: What to do?"
------------------------------------------------
Romney campaign sees themselves on message, looking forward, and does not want to be dragged into a discussion defending any part of the 2000's. But "that decade" is the Obama attack line and needs to be answered. (The what to do is answer it here and spread the answer.)
The 2000s had 3 segments economically. Skipping the recession left behind by Clinton that erased much of his gains, there was robust growth and then there was an end to robust growth with investor panic. Is it too wonkish to ask and answer, why did we have robust growth and what were investors seeing during the end of growth and the beginning of the great asset selloff of 2008? [Hint: They saw Obama coming.]
It is in the Senate races especially where the message I call '6 years since 2006' needs to be pressed. Our meek little Amy, Sen Klobuchar D-MN, voted for and pressed for all the crap that caused the crash and all the anti-growth policies preventing recovery, yet enjoys 60% approval, (really it is likability). So did a dozen other dems of 2006. They need to be held accountable for their results and that should spill into the Presidential. Wouldn't it be nice and easier if it could happen the other way around? And do we want likability or a robust recovery - there is a difference.
Pres. Obama needs to be called out an two timeline lies in his message. "When we got here" was Nov 2006 - that is when they took power. There is no one alive who thought Bush was in charge of domestic policy after that moment and unemployment was at 4.6%, and now no one alive who will point it out now, except here. Romney won't press it but I will. :wink:
Secondly is his drivel about 'the logjam', meaning divided government, meaning Republican obstructionism. Yes it has been divided ever since the 14 point swing in 2010 where the nation voted 'no confidence' in our likable President, but no party ever had more power than Dems in his first two years and really for the 4 years Nov 2006 until Nov 2010. This wasn't divided govt, it was HIS government. Those first two years 2009-2010 especially, but prior to that he and his current Secretary of State were the de facto leaders of the United States Senate reforming NOTHING of what was wrong and setting financial traps "before we arrived".
-----------------
Crafty makes a very interesting point about how most of what was wrong in the 2000s (spending, bungled regulations etc.) Obama either supported or would have done worse. This line of politics follows right out of HW Bush attack. He was thrown out for breaking his no new taxes pledge by people who would have raised them sooner and greater. Politics can be very strange.
-
OBJ:
You're new here (and welcome aboard btw!) so I think if you go back you will see I grasp the point just fine.
Right now I'm trying to move forward the Washington Patrician Milktoast Reps towards a winning mindset. (We have a running riff around here about how many famous people must be reading this forum because we front run them on so many things-- I'm hoping this will happen again) as well as simultaneously express my frustration at just how much less Romney is than he can be.
Doug:
Good discussion.
Question presented: Can we focus attention on the housing bubble and its true causes or are we estopped from doing so by things in MR's record?
Idea: I'm thinking that it might be effective to "abandon" the Bush rate cuts (which I am not persuaded were all that well desinged to begin with-- but at the moment I don't have the time to see what we have concerning them in the Tax thread) in the name of "lower rates, broader base with less loopholes"
-
"I forget where I saw/heard it (pollster Luntz on FOX?) but the political answer to the question as to how the hell Baraq is even competetive is that people tend to see the choice between:
a) the Bush policies that got us in this mess
b) the Baraq policies that keep us in this mess"
I guess this is supposed to be some sort of proxy for voters' decision on what is the best course of action going forward - that is is smaller government as proposed by conservative orthodoxy the best way forward for independents.
Or is bigger government as proposed by liberals better for them.
Unfortunately as previous posts point out it is not black or white. First Bush was not a strict conservative. Indeed he had followed this compassionate conservative thing trying to pick off Democrat or Independent voters from the entitlement crowd.
Jeb seems to think this is wise and ultimately needed because of future demographics.
OTOH, Obama has not been totally liberal on foreign policy though I have to say he is liberal on the domestic front and going more that way every day. (One can only imagine what a radical he would be in a second term).
All that said we are really talking about how to win the undecided voters as the rest of us are already in the right or left camps.
My impression is the undecideds are clearly frustrated and sick of Obama. I think the nagging question for them is if Romney gets in and governs as a conservative Republican with all sorts of spending cuts then they will lose out on entiltlement payments or safety net items (unemployment, medicare, food stamps). Sure if they are guaranteed all sorts of jobs with decent pay then they would go head over heals for Mitt.
If people are getting unemployment, health benefits, Soc Sec. food stamps in order to survive, sure they want the economy to grow with job creation but they don't want to be out on the streets as Bill Clinton apply put , having "bread lines come back".
-
Contrary to his own previous statements on the subject, with his Executive Order BO today blew off his responsibilities under our Constitution to enforce the immigration laws. One suspects Sen. Marco Rubio's growing bi-partisan chances of success with his variation of the Dream Act, thus removing the issue as of of advantage for BO with Latinos had more than a little to do with it.
MR's response? Instead of making the points I just did, he said well he supported the concept, but that legislation would be more permanent than an Exec. Order.
Pathetic.
-
I think one makes a grave error in thinking that the Republican establishment will be persuaded by anything other than a massive grassroots uprising such as that which is in progress with the Tea Party. As we saw in the case of Richard Lugar - they are actually quite entrenched and will fight bitterly to avoid losing their grip on power, despite the will of the people they purport to represent. These people are not interested in doing what is best for the country, only in what helps them retain their tenure. I'm not optimistic about the chances of persuading Mitt Romney, his campaign staff, or his cheerleaders among the establishment that they are following the wrong path. Nothing other than continued victories at the local and state level (driven by well-organized conservative tea party conservatives) will achieve this. It's going to be a long slog - a slow, hard battle to replace as many members of Congress with constitutional conservatives as we can. My own representative - freshman Rob Woodall (R-GA) has been a grave disappointment in my estimation, content to curry favor with John Boehner and not make any bold moves. It's way past the point where this type of political impotence can be tolerated if the nation is to be saved.
Political eunuchs such as Boehner and McConnell who don't have a clue how to lead the party to victory by embracing core constitutionalism need to go. As things stand now, I think that enough people are suffering in this economy that the polls are flat wrong and Romney will win handily. That's not to say we can let our guard down for a moment, or stop continuing to educate others and make sure they vote and don't stay home. Romney's choice for VP will tell us volumes about how he intends to govern. My first choice would be Allen West, but Marco Rubio would be acceptable as well. Chris Christie would be a disaster in the making, as would any other Republican with a less-than-solid conservative record.
This is however only the first step in restoring the Republic the Framers created. There really is no short-term solution - only long-term. That happens to be once again making constitutional conservatism the dominant guiding principle in Congress. It won't be achieved in one election. Thus the need for those of us who understand this to work unceasingly in our efforts to achieve it. God knows the Left has been relentless over the past 60+ years. The Obama administration is their crowning achievement. If Obama is not removed in this election it will be the end of this nation as founded. My point is that even if he is replaced (and I believe he will be) our work has only begun.
-
Read around the various threads and I think you will discover you are amongst kindred spirits.
-
Obj: "even if he is replaced (and I believe he will be) our work has only begun."
Yes! Isn't that the truth.
Crafty wrote: "Question presented: Can we focus attention on the housing bubble and its true causes or are we estopped from doing so by things in MR's record?"
I don't know any connection between Romney and the housing problem other than that plenty of other Republicans had their fingerprints all over it. The point to me in housing is to be moving in a direction AWAY from government activism in markets.
Crafty continued: "Idea: I'm thinking that it might be effective to "abandon" the Bush rate cuts (which I am not persuaded were all that well desinged to begin with-- but at the moment I don't have the time to see what we have concerning them in the Tax thread) in the name of "lower rates, broader base with less loopholes". "
The country, even if it chooses well, has a timing problem. IIRC the so-called Bush tax cuts expire this time on 12/31/2012. Even Bill Clinton gets it that having that investment punishment marker looming will tank the economy further. Also see Christina Romer's writings on that. The Romney plan and Ryan plans are good enough IMO if fully implemented. If growth minded Republicans sweep 2012 and IF these packages could get through a less than 60 vote majority QUICKLY, a much better tax plan as Crafty suggests could be made retroactive back to 1/1/2013. Problem is that in the meantime the impending increases that never really materialize still will do serious economic damage during the period of uncertainty. This needs to be fixed now.
We will see if famous people read the forum on that.
-------
Obama believes George Bush screwed up left field so badly that no can play it.
Romney is saying that even if you concede that point to Obama, he is admitting he can't fix it.
It was bad in the fall of 2008, and the investment collapse had an unemployment fallout. But the Bush-Pelosi-Obama recession ended in June of 2009. The 1.2% growth (?) record of the last 3 years since then is all on President Obama and his failed policies. Growth should be five times greater right now IMO.
Decline/stagnation was a policy choice. That's enough of it.
-
Indeed.
I would focus on the housing bubble some more. In my opinion, the housing bubble was the epicenter of everything else.
The FMs and the CRA caused misallocation of investment into housing and other real estate. The loan guarantees of the FMs removed moral hazard from the system and surprise! banks acted badly! Making loans without caring whether they were paid off (and being pressured to make them by the CRA) and then bundling them into products to sell downstream, which bought them thinking that because the mortagages were bundled they were buying a diversified product-- that was guaranteed by the FMs anyway-- the progresses solution of more regulation of the bad greedy banks misses the point entirely-- the FMs guarantee provoked and enabled the bad behavior. Multiply the dynamic several fold by the Fed's deranged easy money, low interest rate policies and VOILA! a bubble was born! The masses thought it real, and the stupid amongst them borrowed against it and spent it.
The Right (which may or may not include the Rep Party) needs to answer the Baraq-Progressive story line on this or for decades policies will be drawn upon the wrong lessons-- just as has been the case with FDR and the Depression.
By focusing on this, a really neat hit on Baraq is enabled too for Baraq is the #2 all time recipient of FM donations! (and that was accomplished in a mere 18 months!) Thus, the authorship of the bubble is laid DIRECTLY at Baraq's door!
Newt would have been estopped from this because of the millions he made from the FMs as their historian :roll: and I remember seeing somewhere that Romney gave some big speech at one of the FMs. Is there more there that prevents him from wanting to go there (possible) or does he simply lack the killer instinct (quite possible)?
-
Echoes Crafty's question of a week ago about Obama should be getting trounced in the polls. He is so Carteresque. Yet they polls are still around 50/50. Well if I recall correctly, Reagan and Carter were neck in neck going into the debates. Only then did Reagan pull ahead only to win with a large margin. I still think Morris is more accurate here and Romney will do better than expected. OTOH Romney is not the communicator Reagan was:
I like Kruathammers lament that Jeb Bush is illogical when he points out the Repub party is controlled by right wing fanatics while the reality is we have a nominee who is distinctly way to the *left* of Reagan. Frankly I have had enough of the Bushes. H gave us Clinton, and W gave us Obama. One could only imagine what Jeb would give us. They are IMHO all great Americans. Yet I sorta wish they would go to pasture along with the Clintons.
****Charles Krauthammer
Opinion Writer Silly Season, 2012
June 14The Washington Post Mitt Romney vs. Barack Obama is not exactly Jefferson-Adams or Lincoln-Douglas. No Harry Truman or Bill Clinton here, let alone FDR or Reagan. Indeed, it’s arguable that neither party is fielding its strongest candidate. Hillary Clinton would run far better than Obama. True, her secretaryship of state may not remotely qualify as Kissingerian or Achesonian, but she’s not Obama. She carries none of his economic baggage. She’s unsullied by the past 31 / 2 years.
Similarly, the Republican bench had several candidates stronger than Romney, but they chose not to run. Indeed, one measure of the weakness of the two finalists is this: The more each disappears from view, the better he fares. Obama prospered when he was below radar during the Republican primaries. Now that they’re over and he’s back out front, his fortunes have receded.
.He is constantly on the campaign trail. His frantic fundraising — 160 events to date — alternates with swing-state rallies where the long-gone charisma of 2008 has been replaced by systematic special-interest pandering, from cut-rate loans for indentured students to free contraceptives for women (the denial of which constitutes a “war” on same).
Then came the rush of bad news: terrible May unemployment numbers, a crushing Democratic defeat in Wisconsin, and that curious revolt of the surrogates, as Bill Clinton, Deval Patrick and Cory Booker — all dispatched to promote Obama — ended up contradicting, undermining or deploring Obama’s anti-business attacks on Romney.
Obama’s instinctive response? Get back out on the air. Call an impromptu Friday news conference. And proceed to commit the gaffe of the year: “The private sector is doing fine.”
This didn’t just expose Obama to precisely the out-of-touchness charge he is trying to hang on Romney. It betrayed his core political philosophy. Obama was trying to attribute high unemployment to a paucity of government workers and to suggest that the solution was to pad the public rolls (with borrowed Chinese money). In doing so, though, he fatally undid his many previous protestations of being a fiscally prudent government cutter. (Hence his repeated, and widely discredited, boast of the lowest spending growth since Eisenhower.)
He thus positioned himself as, once again, the big-government liberal of 2009, convinced that what the ailing economy needs is yet another bout of government expansion. A serious political misstep, considering the fate of the last stimulus: the weakest recovery since the Great Depression, with private-sector growth a minuscule 1.2 percent.
But that’s not the end of the tribulations that provoked a front-page Washington Post story beginning: “Is it time for Democrats to panic”? The sleeper issue is the cascade of White House leaks that have exposed significant details of the cyberattacks on Iran, the drone war against al-Qaeda, the double-agent in Yemen, and the Osama bin Laden raid and its aftermath.
This is not leak-business as usual. “I have never seen it worse,” said Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, 11 years on the Intelligence Committee. These revelations, clearly meant to make Obama look the heroic warrior, could prove highly toxic if current investigations bear out Sen. John McCain’s charges of leaks tolerated, if not encouraged, by a campaigning president placing his own image above the nation’s security. After all, Feinstein herself stated that these exposures were endangering American lives, weakening U.S. security and poisoning relations with other intelligence services.
Quite an indictment. Where it goes, no one knows. Much will hinge on whether Eric Holder’s Justice Department will stifle the investigation he has now handed over to two in-house prosecutors. And whether Republicans and principled Democrats will insist on a genuinely independent inquiry.
Nonetheless, there is nothing inexorable about the current Obama slide. The race remains 50-50. Republican demoralization after a primary campaign that blew the political equivalent of a seven-run lead has now given way to Democratic demoralization at the squandering of their subsequent post-primary advantage.
What remains is a solid, stolid, gaffe-prone challenger for whom conservatism is a second language vs. an incumbent with a record he cannot run on and signature policies — Obamacare, the stimulus, cap-and-trade — he hardly dare mention.
A quite dispiriting spectacle. And more than a bit confusing. Why, just this week the estimable Jeb Bush averred that the Republican Party had become so rigidly right-wing that today it couldn’t even nominate Ronald Reagan.
Huh? It’s about to nominate Mitt Romney, who lives a good 14 nautical miles to the left of Ronald Reagan.
Goodness. Four more months of this campaign and we will all be unhinged.****
-
Crafty brings up a couple of good points on this.
On the housing question, I would say Romney is more inoculated than vulnerable. Far left Mother Jones took their best shot at him here: http://www.motherjones.com/transition/inter.php?dest=http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01/mitt-romney-misleads-his-fannie-and-freddie-investment
Romney was accused of being invested (to a very small extent) in the GSAs. Mother Jones says Romeny misled because the investment was in a mutual fund, not truly a blind trust as Romney had stated in a debate exchange with Newt. Either way it was others hired to invest a portion of his money into government backed securities that would not be fully diversified without touching the federally controlled mortgage market.
From the Boston Globe and Mother Jones again (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/09/mitt-romney-fannie-freddie-bailout): "On his financial disclosure statement filed last month, Romney reported owning between $250,001 and $500,000 (out of hundreds of millions) in a mutual fund that invests in debt notes of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, among other government entities."
Without trivializing $15,001 of interest that the rest of us would kill for (figuratively), that is not a close financial tie, inappropriate, bought off, or otherwise. Romney was 0.1% invested in GSAs with no say whatsoever in policy.
Now take a look at Barack Obama. Crafty wrote: "Baraq is the #2 all time recipient of FM donations! (and that was accomplished in a mere 18 months!)"
Let me add one more exclamation point of my own: !
With all due respect to the President of the United States running for reelection, this JERK blames everyone but himself for a mess he says he "inherited", but he not only voted present on failed policies and botched regulations but mostly voted NOT PRESENT out on the campaign. At the most crucial moment of a federal housing market needing reform he was in fact ON THE TAKE to NOT REFORM the housing GSAs.
Crafty: "... the authorship of the bubble is laid DIRECTLY at Baraq's door!
I would focus on the housing bubble some more. In my opinion, the housing bubble was the epicenter of everything else. The FMs and the CRA caused misallocation of investment into housing and other real estate. The loan guarantees of the FMs removed moral hazard from the system and surprise! banks acted badly! Making loans without caring whether they were paid off (and being pressured to make them by the CRA) and then bundling them into products to sell downstream, which bought them thinking that because the mortagages were bundled they were buying a diversified product-- that was guaranteed by the FMs anyway-- the progresses solution of more regulation of the bad greedy banks misses the point entirely-- the FMs guarantee provoked and enabled the bad behavior. Multiply the dynamic several fold by the Fed's deranged easy money, low interest rate policies and VOILA! a bubble was born! The masses thought it real, and the stupid amongst them borrowed against it and spent it."
You are exactly right economically. The politics of it is another story. Pundits should jump in but I don't think Romney wants to play the 2008 collapse blame game.
Romney could blame Obama for what happened 'under Bush', but really Sen. Barack Obama chose to be a complete non-factor during his brief Senatorial time in Washington. That partial Senate term was a squandered opportunity, just like his Presidency.
If the larger story line is that Obama is corrupt and on the take, then his tie to FNMA's donations at that crucial juncture is the silver bullet. But the story line of this June 2012 is that things are broken and our incumbent, amateur in chief is in way over his head pretending he has some fix now after 3 1/2 years squandered.
I see this as a counterpunch opportunity for Romney. Instead of 30 debates in the primaries there will likely be 2 in the finals. Obama will most certainly make this tired, lame, blame everyone but himself excuse and leave Romney with a there-you-go-again table setting. Here is my help for Romney to reply:
'Alright Mr. President, let's talk about 'that decade' for a moment and both of our roles in it. When our country needed to host the world for the first post-9/11 Olympics while security was in question and the Olympic committee was in shambles, I was honored to be chosen for a reputation of leadership competence, to assemble a team, to lead the effort from start to finish, to chase the corruption out and heightened security in. By all accounts this major event was a total success. And you were where? Doing what? With the most amazing oratory of a generation you rose from a state senator to become the leading voice of the left wing of the Democratic party in this country just as they were taking control of the US Congress 6 years ago. That was when job growth hit 50 consecutive months, unemployment was 4.6% and the deficit was one tenth of what it is today. Instead of taking your position of media attention to warn against the looming dangers of irresponsible lending as the federal housing bubble was expanding, it turns out you were one of the two politicians on their payroll, arguing for regulators to leave them alone and let them go even further down that reckless path. Now, instead of apologizing, you have the AUDACITY to stand here today and tell us it was someone else's fault. Mr. President, with all due respect, you didn't lead then, you didn't lead us out of this as President and you aren't going to fix things now. Mr. President, for the good of the country, please step aside and let someone else lead this great country back on track.'
-
Will Obama Get Latinos?
By Dick Morris on June 18, 2012
President Obama’s surprise announcement of de facto amnesty for children of illegal immigrants who have graduated from high school and have lived in the U.S. for five years will reap big dividends among Latino voters. So intertwined is the Hispanic community that everyone knows young people who will be spared the ongoing terror of deportation by the president’s largesse. His new policy, while obviously an election year pander, will reap him votes among Latinos and could spur a significantly higher turnout.
All this makes the case for Senator Marco Rubio for Vice President all the more urgent. Only a Latino on the ticket can offset the march Obama has now stolen on Romney for the Hispanic vote. Rubio on the ticket could well make the difference between carrying and losing New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada. And, it could possibly be necessary even in Florida.
Unlike the African-American population, the Latino vote is heavily concentrated in certain states. Seventy-five percent live in only five states – California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Illinois – which together have only about a third of our total population. More are concentrated in Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada. Their populations in these states are significant enough, in some cases, to deliver the state to one side or the other.
Rubio belongs on the ticket. He is articulate, conservative, hard working, charismatic, and geographically well positioned. With the Hispanic vote so pivotal in the future of our politics, he offers the best potential for a growing Republican Party in the future.
Obama can hardly object to Rubio’s inexperience since they will both have served only a few years in the Senate before their elevation to national office. But Rubio would run for vice-president not president. The years of seasoning and training can only do him good and groom him for ultimately running for the top job.
Selecting Rubio was important before. It’s vital now.
-
Doug:
I like your strategy of using it as a counterpunch. I like even better the idea of not letting BO getting away with blaming the housing bubble and the ensuing vicious feedback loops on Bush starting right now.
Obj:
IMHO Morris is completely correct. I would add that Romney has been weak and off-balance here in just the kind of way that most have us have feared from the beginning he would be as a candidate.
================
"Obama's depiction of the Bush years is wrong in just about every possible way. First, Bush was hardly a deregulator. In fact, the nation's regulatory budget nearly doubled in his eight years, and regulatory staffing climbed 42%, according to an annual report on the federal regulatory state by George Mason University's Mercatus Center. Nor did Bush's tax cuts devastate the budget. In fact, revenues as a share of gross domestic product hit 18.5% in 2007, which is above the post-World War II average. And deficits fell three years in a row to a low of $160 billion. Unemployment, meanwhile, dropped to 4.4% just before the recession hit. And as we've pointed out on countless occasions, the financial crisis that caused the recession was not the result of too little government, but of far too much government intervention in the banking industry. Then again, Obama can't even keep his own complaints straight. Moments after lambasting Bush's tax-cutting, deregulating ways, he was bragging about how he's imposed fewer regulations than Bush, cut taxes more than a dozen times and how he's not a big spender. (None of that is true.) The real question before voters isn't whether they want to return to some dark, mythical past of Obama's imagination, but whether they want four more years of a dismal present characterized by stagnant growth, chronic unemployment, massive deficits and a president who is utterly clueless about how to fix any of it." --Investor's Business Daily
-
Morris is correct. Romney has done a very poor job of defending his record at Bain Capital. There is no reason for this oversight. His record there is superb - vs. Obama's dismal record with all of his failed government investments in private-sector companies. The Romney campaign needs to hammer this point relentlessly:
www.dickmorris.com/obamas-emerging-strategy-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/
-
Good find. May I ask you to move it to "The Obama Phenomena" or "The Cognitive thread please?
-
Caveman method:
1) Post elsewhere
2) Delete post from its original location.
:-)
-
second post of afternoon: Obama’s Strategy Emerges
By Dick Morris on June 20, 2012
Published on TheHill.com on June 19, 2012
The battle of Barack Obama is ending in his defeat. A sagging economy, a likely setback on ObamaCare and sliding job approval are foreclosing the possibility that the president can be reelected on his record in office.
So the battle of Mitt Romney is beginning. It is evident to Obama’s people that only through a negative campaign can they hope to win the election. Their strategy in attacking Romney is becoming clear.
It begins with an understanding of the fact that Romney’s major attribute in the minds of the voters and his leading defect are two sides of the same coin. On one side, voters see him as a businessman with vast experience. In a war, they turn to a general. In a deep recession, they turn to a businessman with a record of job creation. But the other side of the coin is that voters feel that Romney is too rich to understand the problems of the average person. They worry that he lives on another planet and doesn’t grasp what is going on in their lives.
Whether or not he can overcome the negative is wrapped up in how people see his tenure at Bain Capital. Does it indicate that Romney is a job creator or a dealmaker? Is he a creature of Wall Street or Main Street? Are his skills at saving businesses, or just at making money from them?
The perception of his Bain career is far more important to the Romney candidacy than his record as governor of Massachusetts or his various flip-flops on issues. Bain goes the core of his key credential, his business experience. Lose it and he loses everything.
If Obama can win the battle of Bain, he can go from there to paint Republican budget-cutting plans as the product of a party whose nominee either doesn’t know or doesn’t care about the plight of the average person. He can depict GOP refusal to raise taxes on the rich as a pander to its backers. And then he can take the campaign to the safe haven of all Democrats: Medicare and Social Security.
But if Obama loses the battle of Bain, his attacks on the Republican Party will miss the mark (or miss the Mitt). The House Republicans (as a unit, not as individuals) might be seen as heartless or rigid or dogmatic, but Romney doesn’t sit in the House. Unlike Dole in 1996, he is not responsible for the positions his party takes in Congress. Nor has he ever embraced voucher alternatives to Medicare without also stressing the ongoing availability of the current system into the indefinite future.
Even if Obama scores against the Republican Party as an institution, Romney himself will be seen as an expert who knows his stuff and quietly creates jobs while the politicians fight. If the Republican nominee’s image is deeply rooted in his successes at Bain, he cannot be characterized as a rich guy making deals and raking in millions. Nor can he be vulnerable to Democratic charges of arrogance and ignorance of the problems of Main Street.
Obama opened the battle of Bain with a two-week foray of negative ads depicting a steelworker who had lost his job, pension and, apparently, his hope as well. It was a moving ad that cries out for rebuttal. The Romney campaign must put ads on the screen that show the opposite of the Obama negative — the success stories of Bain and the ways in which Romney’s skill, intellect, dedication and hard work produced some jobs and saved others for average American workers.
-
The vulnerability learned about Romney in 2008 was the flip flop. He was known to be competent, informed, experienced, moderate, common sense centrist.
Obama in June 2012 is happy to give up the flip flop card for reasons unknown.
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/234227-obama-looks-to-capitalize-on-shift-in-presidential-races-momentum
President Obama will look to cap a week in which momentum in the presidential race appeared to shift in his favor with a Thursday address to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials in Florida.
Obama will speak to the group one week after his surprising decision to halt deportations of illegal immigrants brought to the nation as children, a move that caught opponent Mitt Romney flat-footed, forcing him to play defense all week on the issue.
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/234231-hispanic-population-soars-in-presidential-swing-states
Hispanic populations are soaring in toss-up states that will decide the presidential election.
Changing demographics in states not usually associated with Hispanic voters has changed the traditional political calculus heading into Election Day.
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/romneys-bain-capital-invested-in-companies-that-moved-jobs-overseas/2012/06/21/gJQAsD9ptV_story.html
Mitt Romney’s financial company, Bain Capital, invested in a series of firms that specialized in relocating jobs done by American workers to new facilities in low-wage countries like China and India.
During the nearly 15 years that Romney was actively involved in running Bain, a private equity firm that he founded, it owned companies that were pioneers in the practice of shipping work from the United States to overseas call centers and factories making computer components, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
-
June: Obama's Disastrous Month
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on June 25, 2012
Printer-Friendly Version
If Obama loses by the landslide I have been predicting -- and he will -- his undoing started in June.
At the end of 2011, Obama's approval ratings rarely rose above 45% and occasionally dropped as low as 40% in the daily tracking polls of both Gallup (registered voters) and Rasmussen (likely voters). But, as 2012 dawned, his approval gradually rose to 49-50 percent on the strength of a perception of economic recovery. Monthly job creation solidly above 200,000 and dropping first time unemployment claims fueled the heady sense that we were emerging from the Great Recession at last.
But, as we noted in Take Back America and Revolt!, debt implosion crises are often characterized by false dawns - periods where the data looks up and people come to believe the recovery is, at last, underway. But the optimism fades as does the recovery. The only way out is to cut spending and borrowing so the world's panic at the high levels of global indebtedness can be eased.
By April and May, it became clear that there was no recovery underway as the monthly total of new jobs dipped first below 200,000 and then below even 100,000. Unemployment rose to 8.2% and the data from the first quarter indicated a growth rate of only 1.9 percent, well below the 3 percent pace at which the GDP had been growing in the last quarter of 2011.
Voters didn't need the statistics to remind them that the economy was not in recovery. Foreclosures, layoffs, and long-term unemployment told the story in their own daily lives.
So, in June, Obama's job approval fell back to its 2011 levels of 45 percent or less. Romney opened up a lead in Gallup's daily tracking of registered voters and his lead among Rasmussen's sample of likely voters grew to 48-43.
Obama's verbal gaffes ("the private sector is doing fine") and his ongoing battles with Congress which have led to the potential of a contempt citation helped spur his drop in the polls. The Scott Walker victory in Wisconsin gave those who were watching with open minds a foretaste of the dimensions of the coming GOP landslide.
Now, Obama faces a double hit: a possible Congressional contempt citation for his Attorney-General and the looming Supreme Court decision on Obamacare. And then will come June's likely dismal jobs report which will be released at the end of next week.
More disturbing for Obama is that his June swoon happened despite spending at least $50 million and likely much more on paid advertising during May and June. He threw his best punch - an attack on Romney's record at Bain Capital - and got nothing for it.
Even conventional observers are now noting the chances for a Republican victory. We'll see and hear more of that as the summer progresses.
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/polls-show-obama-crashing-romney-surging-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/
-
http://nationaljournal.com/politics/obama-and-convention-no-shows-divorce-or-amicable-separation--20120626
If historical precedent is a guide, President Obama should be worried about the recent spate of Democrats who have declared that they won’t attend their own party’s national convention. But the lawmakers’ decision to stay home doesn’t have other Democrats reaching for the panic button yet.
Such defections amounted to an early alarm bell as recently as 2008, when a deluge of Republicans steered clear of the Republican National Convention lest they be associated with a then-deeply unpopular GOP. Three months later, a Democratic wave swept the White House and congressional elections
-
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/27/marco-rubio-is-the-ideal-candidate-to-fill-out-the-second-spot-on-romney-s-ticket.html
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/27/obama-romney-polls_n_1630085.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009&utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false
-
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/latest-poll-shows-dead-heat/?smid=fb-share
-
There is quite a contrast in polls out there, swing states and nationally. Latest Rasmussen has Romney by 1% nationally, Gallup has Obama by 2%.
Intrade where people put money on their bet has Obama with 56% chance of winning at the moment.
Obama won 2008 by 7% nationally so Romney needs at least a 8-9% swing to be assured a victory. One take is that Iowa is the dead center of the political nation. Obama won Iowa by 9.54% in 2008. Rasmussen had Romney up by 1 in late June, a 10.5% swing.
Another key state is Colorado, where 3 counties allegedly reflect the national swing in these elections: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/07/on-winning-colorado.php http://www.denverpost.com/investigations/ci_21029334/census-registration-paint-picture-colorados-unaffiliated-voters?source=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dp-politics+%28Denver+Post%3A+Politics%3A+All+Political+News%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
Jay Cost, now with Weekly Standard is one of the best analysts on polling and electoral politics. He points out 4 factors running against Obama. Cost maintains that Obama is 1) unpopular with approval consistently below 50%, 2) impressions are set, difficult to change. 3) The economy is hurting Obama, and 4) Romney still has plenty of time to define himself in a very positive sense.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/morning-jay-state-race-four-months-out_648277.html
-
Finally, Morris returns to his area of expertise :lol:
http://www.dickmorris.com/obamas-poll-blip-fades-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/
-
by SARA MURRAY
WSJ
Mitt Romney delivered his sharpest rebuke Thursday to claims that he outsourced jobs, as his campaign released an ad essentially calling the president a liar.
The television ad seeks to debunk claims from media outlets and President Barack Obama's campaign that Mr. Romney oversaw companies shipping jobs overseas when he was the head of investment firm Bain Capital.
"When a president doesn't tell the truth how can we trust him to lead?", the ad asks.
The ad is the campaign's clearest acknowledgment yet that it believes the president's outsourcing allegations have damaged Mr. Romney's standing among voters. Advisers to the Romney campaign attributed the damage to Mr. Obama outspending them in important swing states. In response, the Romney team has upped its ad buys following two months of blockbuster fundraising numbers that outpaced the president's.
The latest ad, called "No Evidence," is running in nearly every major swing state, hitting the airwaves in Florida, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Iowa, Nevada and Colorado.
It also claims the president lied about Hillary Clinton and flashes back to Mrs. Clinton in the midst of her bitter 2008 primary fight with Mr. Obama. In the clip, the now-secretary of state scolds him for an attack ad: "Shame on you, Barack Obama."
The likely Republican nominee has also sought to turn the outsourcing spotlight on the president. "If there's an outsourcer-in-chief, it's the president of the United States, not the guy who's running to replace him," Mr. Romney said at a recent campaign stop in Grand Junction, Colo.
By Mr. Romney's own estimation, the battle over outsourcing—and his campaign's new television ad—is a signal the Republican is losing the messaging war of late.
"I, of course, respond to the attacks that come," Mr. Romney said in a Fox Business News interview Wednesday. "But you know, they say in politics, if you're responding, you're losing."
-
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/237701-report-condoleezza-rice-emerges-as-frontrunner-for-romney-vp
-
Oy vey.
Two-fer or not, the last thing Mitt needs is a direct tie to Bush like that. :roll: :roll: :roll:
Furhtermore she has never run for office, never held office, has no experience within our political system.
-
Meanwhile, Obama repeated his call for Romney to release further tax records. He told a New Hampshire TV station, "What's important if you are running for president is that the American people know who you are and what you've done and that you're an open book." Good advice from the man who took three years to release his birth certificate, and who still refuses to produce his medical records, his college transcripts and papers, and his law school records. Indeed, Obama has been vague and dissembling about nearly every political and social affiliation he's ever had.
From the 'Non Compos Mentis' File
"[Mitt Romney's] father, George Romney, set the precedent that people running for president would file their tax returns, let everybody look at them. But Mitt Romney can't do that because he's basically paid no taxes in the prior 12 years." --Harry Reid
Memo to Harry: Romney paid $3 million in taxes in both 2010 and 2011, the only years he has released information. He donated even more than that to charity. Is that "basically no taxes"?
-
Meanwhile, Obama repeated his call for Romney to release further tax records. He told a New Hampshire TV station, "What's important if you are running for president is that the American people know who you are and what you've done and that you're an open book." Good advice from the man who took three years to release his birth certificate, and who still refuses to produce his medical records, his college transcripts and papers, and his law school records. Indeed, Obama has been vague and dissembling about nearly every political and social affiliation he's ever had.
Come on Crafty; you've got to admit that tax returns are a LOT more important than college transcripts and school records.
From the 'Non Compos Mentis' File
"[Mitt Romney's] father, George Romney, set the precedent that people running for president would file their tax returns, let everybody look at them. But Mitt Romney can't do that because he's basically paid no taxes in the prior 12 years." --Harry Reid
I think he's referring to the percentage. Nothing illegal, but it is/will be a talking point if Mitts paid very low taxes versus the average middle class working stiff. That's just politics.
-
Well, no one made any noise about gigolo John Kerry when he was running being worth hundreds of millions , , , but perhaps that was because he didn't earn it (unlike Mitt who made his own fortune) he got it by marrying two widows (one at a time of course) each worth hundreds of millions , , ,
As for Baraq, I'd say his birth certificate was REAL fg important given the questions about his eligibility and given the general mystery about his life and the extreme paucity of provable facts about it, his college and law school records were of considerable relevance. Did his college record justify his getting into Harvard, or was he affirmative action, or, as has been alleged, was he walked in through the back door.
Dunno why Mitt is limiting himself to two years, but quite unlike candidate Obama, the man has quite an extensive life of accomplishment in the public eye both in the private sector and the public. Unlike candidate/President Obama, his closest relations, mentors, preachers, and friends are not a long list of revolutionary communists, socialists, bigots, anti-semites, anti-American globalists, and the like-- none of whom have any time or accomplishment in the private sector or the military.
-
Well, no one made any noise about gigolo John Kerry when he was running being worth hundreds of millions , , , but perhaps that was because he didn't earn it (unlike Mitt who made his own fortune) he got it by marrying two widows (one at a time of course) each worth hundreds of millions , , ,
That's the point; Kerry made it the old fashioned way; he (indirectly) inherited it. :-) It's easy to understand the money. AND he did file numerous tax returns.
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/04/17/466341/romney-lies-kerry-tax-returns/
Romney is different. You understand that. Smoke and mirrors are legal, but maybe not the best idea for a politician.
Soon, they will be asking, "What is Romney hiding" if he doesn't soon release them. Better to release them now; this is not going away.
-
Forgive the nitpick, but actually all the article you cite says is this:
"Kerry has claimed that he had already released the returns — in January of this year, he said, “I released all my tax returns for 20 years. I have never not released my tax returns throughout my political career.” But aside from releasing details from his 2002 taxes — which showed a total income of $144,091 — it is not clear that Kerry has ever made public his returns from 1999 or 2000 or 2001 before now."
There is no independent confirmation of Kerry's statement and the reporter responds by saying "is not clear that Kerry has ever made public his returns from 1999 or 2000 or 2001 before now" -- apparently taking Kerry's word as sufficient to make it "clear".
Still unchallenged is Baraq's lack of transparency.
-
But don't you think that Mitts' tax returns, especially given his wealth and HOW he made his money, and the taxes he paid (or didn't) is a LOT more important than Obama's High School and College grades? Kerry married rich; good for him - that's easy to track the money. No one cares about that. Most would say that's simply good luck.
Mitts went to BYU, then transferred to Harvard. Probably his Dad helped with that. So what; I don't care nor does anyone else, but his tax records ARE important.
Or do you really think this will all blow away and that Mitts tax returns aren't fair game?
-
So, you acknowledge that the piece you cited didn't say what you said it did? (presumably due to a careless read)
High school? NO ONE HERE BROUGHT UP HIS HIGH SCHOOL RECORDS so why would you?
More relevant is that there seems to be no discernable record of BO's time at Columbia--or even memory of him except for his composite girlfriends :evil: -- though curiously enough apparently he did spend a goodly amount of money making sure that his time there go unrevealed. IMHO college records are relevant (for example John McCain revealed his mediocre record at Annapolis) There are reports of him being guided into Harvard, which would be disproved by a quality record at Columbia, but more to the point, particulary in the case of a cipher like BO, college record would seem important to the sincere and unhypocritical.
And your lack of reference to BO's law school records in your reply is an acknowledgement of their relevance?
Why the insinuation that dad helped MR with Harvard? Any basis for that, or is it just a spontaneous smear on your part?
As for MR's tax returns, they don't really matter to me-- the man's life and accomplishments are a substantial matter of record. But apart for noting the utter hypocrisy in the double standards being applied, I'll leave the political gamesmanship to others and to those who follow in thinking it important.
-
So, you acknowledge that the piece you cited didn't say what you said it did? (presumably due to a careless read)
No, I only said that Kerry filed numerous tax returns; he did.
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/19/was-romney-right-about-john-kerry/
High school? NO ONE HERE BROUGHT UP HIS HIGH SCHOOL RECORDS so why would you?
Because people have brought up that Obama should disclose records relating to the absurd; my point is that it is equal to High School Records, i.e. irrelevant.
More relevant is that there seems to be no discernable record of BO's time at Columbia--or even memory of him except for his composite girlfriends :evil: -- though curiously enough apparently he did spend a goodly amount of money making sure that his time there go unrevealed. IMHO college records are relevant (for example John McCain revealed his mediocre record at Annapolis) There are reports of him being guided into Harvard, which would be disproved by a quality record at Columbia, but more to the point, particulary in the case of a cipher like BO, college record would seem important to the sincere and unhypocritical.
College grades are not relevant. At the time they ran for President, I don't care if John McCain was near the bottom of his class or if Bush got mostly "C's". I love your "there are reports", but no facts.....
And your lack of reference to BO's law school records in your reply is an acknowledgement of their relevance?
No, my lack of reference to BO's law school records is an acknowledgement of their irrelevance. He was Editor of the Law Review at Harvard! He was asked to be a Professor at University of Chicago. Not bad. :evil:
Why the insinuation that dad helped MR with Harvard? Any basis for that, or is it just a spontaneous smear on your part?
No more of a smear than your baseless "reports" of Obama. Further, I acknowledged I don't care; lot's of people I know one way or another are getting help to get into the college of their choice. At this point in their life, it's not relevant presuming it was legal.
As for MR's tax returns, they don't really matter to me-- the man's life and accomplishments are a substantial matter of record. But apart for noting the utter hypocrisy in the double standards being applied, I'll leave the political gamesmanship to others and to those who follow in thinking it important.
Actually the whole point of my post was Romney's tax returns. Numerous prominent Republicans are beginning to agree, yet Romney confirmed he will not release any more. Yet, he gave 21 years to McCain for vetting (note McCain rejected him). It is relevant, it is important; and you know it. This issue will not go away.
-
Moving on.
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/single-women-switch-to-romney-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
July panic for Obama — for good reason
By Jennifer Rubin
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/july-panic-for-obama--for-good-reason/2012/07/15/gJQARQFXmW_blog.html%22
Why has the Obama team been publicly wailing about losing out to Mitt Romney in the money race? Why would the president accuse his opponent of not merely being wrong or unqualified but criminal? After all, the polls are tied, so why so much worry in Obamaland?
Like a mystery novel, the answer is in front of our noses: The candidates are still tied in the polls. Let’s go step by step with the most logical explanation of the Obama campaign’s conduct.
The Obama team knew months ago that the economy would not sufficiently improve before Election Day to justify his reelection. Its polling showed simply blaming President George W. Bush wouldn’t be sufficient. The president and his political hacks concluded that it was too late and too risky to adopt a whole new second-term agenda. (It would risk offending either the base or centrists and reveal his first-term agenda to have been entirely inadequate.) So what to do?
Extend the Republican primary by running ads hitting Romney and encouraging Democrats to vote against Romney in Michigan and elsewhere. Then, before Romney could fully get his bearings, unload a barrage of negative attacks, scare mongering and thinly disguised oppo attacks through the mainstream media, taking advantage of many political reporters’ relative ignorance about the private equity field and their inclination to accept whole-hog President Obama’s version of “facts.”
The extent of that effort is only now becoming clear. The Associated Press reports: “President Barack Obama’s campaign has spent nearly $100 million on television commercials in selected battleground states so far, unleashing a sustained early barrage designed to create lasting, negative impressions of Republican Mitt Romney before he and his allies ramp up for the fall.” Think of it like the Confederacy’s artillery barrage on the third day of Gettysburg before Pickett’s charge — you have to in essence disable the other side before the charge begins or its curtains.
Virtually all of the ads were viciously negative, and judging from the number of Pinocchios they’ve racked up, continually and materially false.
But it didn’t work. Romney and Obama are still deadlocked. (The AP quoted Republican operative Carl Forti: “I don’t think . . . [Obama’s] got a choice. He has to try to change the dynamic now, but the polling indicates it’s not working. He doesn’t appear to be making any headway in the polls.”)
Few Democratic pundits are as sharp or as honest as William Galston, who concedes:
On the one hand, the last round of Bain attacks has clearly rattled the Romney campaign, and a smattering of survey evidence suggests that the sustained ad campaign in swing states has scored some points. On the other hand, the Pew survey found no shift since May in swing-state voter preference.
But it’s not too early to say that Obama’s vital signs look dicey. Over the past 33 months, his job approval has been lower than George W. Bush’s at a comparable time in his presidency for all but one week. Bush averaged above 50 percent in the quarter before his successful reelection campaign, while Obama has been stuck in the 46-48 percent range for months. And the famous “wrong track” measure now stands at 63 percent, versus 55 percent in the days preceding the vote in 2004. If these two numbers don’t improve for Obama, his presidency will be in jeopardy. And they probably won’t — unless the economy perks up noticeably.
So the Obama team has shot its wad. Its opponent has more ammo and more money now. Romney hasn’t been mortally wounded. And there isn’t money from Obama to keep up the 4-to-1 spending barrage. In fact without it, Obama might well have fallen behind in the race. So the Obama team pleads for money and turns up the volume of the attacks. (After calling Romney a criminal in July, what’s left for September and October?)
Obama is now committed to a strategy that isn’t working. He’s left to unleash his attack dogs and to pray for a miracle. Maybe the economy will rebound. Perhaps Romney will implode or pick a Sarah-Palin-type for vice president.
The reason, you see, that Obama’s camp has become so frantic in July is that its ineffectiveness in the summer subjects its side to grave risks. Having to defend his record, rely on his debate prowess and be evaluated on the economy over the last three years is as risky as, well, as sending thousands across a vast, empty field as enemy fire rains down upon them.
-
From her lips to God's ears!
-
POTH columnist captures an interesting notion
The Capitalism DebateBy DAVID BROOKS
Published: July 16, 2012
Let’s say you are president in a time of a sustained economic slowdown. You initiated a series of big policies that you thought were going to turn the economy around, but they didn’t work — either because they were insufficient or ineffective. How do you run for re-election under these circumstances?
Do you spend the entire campaign saying that things would have been even worse if you hadn’t acted the way you did? No. That would be pathetic. You go on the attack. Instead of defending your economic policies, you attack modern capitalism as it now exists. You blame the system for the economy. You do this with double ferocity if your opponent happens to be the embodiment of that system.
This is what the Obama campaign appears to have done in recent months. Instead of defending the policies of the last four years, the campaign has begun a series of attacks on the things people don’t like about modern capitalism.
They don’t like the way unsuccessful firms go bust. Obama hit that with ads about a steel plant closure a few months ago. They don’t like C.E.O. salaries. President Obama hits that regularly. They don’t like financial shenanigans. Obama hits that. They don’t like outsourcing and offshoring. This week, Obama has been hitting that.
The president is now running an ad showing Mitt Romney tunelessly singing “America the Beautiful,” while the text on screen blasts him for shipping jobs to China, India and Mexico.
The accuracy of the ad has been questioned by the various fact-checking outfits. That need not detain us. It’s safest to assume that all the ads you see this year will be at least somewhat inaccurate because the ad-makers now take dishonesty as a mark of their professional toughness.
What matters is the ideology behind the ad: the assumption that Bain Capital, the private-equity firm founded by Romney, should not have invested in companies that hired workers abroad; the assumption that hiring Mexican or Indian workers is unpatriotic; the assumption that no worthy person would do what most global business leaders have been doing for the past half-century.
This ad — and the rhetoric the campaign is using around it — challenges the entire logic of capitalism as it has existed over several decades. It’s part of a comprehensive attack on the economic system Romney personifies.
This shift of focus has been audacious. Over the years of his presidency, Obama has not been a critic of globalization. There’s no real evidence that, when he’s off the campaign trail, he has any problem with outsourcing and offshoring. He has lavishly praised people like Steve Jobs who were prominent practitioners. He has hired people like Jeffrey Immelt, the chief executive of General Electric, whose company embodies the upsides of globalization. His economic advisers have generally touted the benefits of globalization even as they worked to help those who are hurt by its downsides.
But, politically, this aggressive tactic has worked. It has shifted the focus of the race from being about big government, which Obama represents, to being about capitalism, which Romney represents.
Just as Republicans spent years promising voters that they could have tax cuts forever, now the Democrats are promising voters that they can have all the benefits of capitalism without the downsides, like plant closures, rich C.E.O.’s and outsourcing. Just as Republicans used to force Democrats into the eat-your-spinach posture (you need to have high taxes if you want your programs), now Democrats are casting Republicans into the eat-your-spinach posture (you need to accept outsourcing and the pains of creative destruction if you want your prosperity).
The Romney campaign doesn’t seem to know how to respond. For centuries, business leaders have been inept when writers, intellectuals and politicians attacked capitalism, and, so far, the Romney campaign is continuing that streak.
One thing is for sure. As Arthur Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute has said again and again, it’s not enough to say that capitalism will make you money. You can’t fight what is essentially a moral critique with economics.
Romney is going to have to define a vision of modern capitalism. He’s going to have to separate his vision from the scandals and excesses we’ve seen over the last few years. He needs to define the kind of capitalist he is and why the country needs his virtues.
Let’s face it, he’s not a heroic entrepreneur. He’s an efficiency expert. It has been the business of his life to take companies that were mediocre and sclerotic and try to make them efficient and dynamic. It has been his job to be the corporate version of a personal trainer: take people who are puffy and self-indulgent and whip them into shape.
That’s his selling point: rigor and productivity. If he can build a capitalist vision around that, he’ll thrive. If not, he’s a punching bag.
-
On ABC’s This Week (George) Will said that the campaign “must have calculated that there are higher costs in releasing them.”
Dowd, who is also a commentator on ABC’s This Week, agreed. “There’s obviously something there, because if there was nothing there, he would say, ‘Have at it,’” Dowd said Sunday.
“I do not know why, given that Mitt Romney knew the day that [John] McCain lost in 2008 that he was going to run for president again that he didn’t get all of this out and tidy up some of his offshore accounts and all the rest,” said Will.
Appearing on CNN’s “The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer” last week, former Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour said he’d go further than the financial disclosures required by law – and further than Romney has gone in releasing his taxes.
Former RNC chairman Michael Steele and Alabama governor Robert Bentley have agreed with the small, but growing gaggle of Republicans urging Romney to action in releasing his taxes.
“If you have things to hide, then maybe you’re doing things wrong,” Bentley said of Romney’s taxes at the National Governor’s Association last week.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/16/growing-conservative-voice-romney-should-release-taxes/
-
I would like to see JDN's tax returns posted here. I know you're not running for President and not required to do so, but I would like to see them posted anyway.
-
That's why I and frankly a few other people I know won't run for Office. :-)
Once you do run, your private life becomes public; but then that's how it should be in my opinion. So IF you run for public office, you better accept it.
Note, even a growing number of prominent conservative Republicans are saying the same; Romney should release his returns.
-
"your private life becomes public"
No. Candidates pick and choose what they make public and what they don't, including FAST AND FURIOUS documents, don't they? Why won't you post all your tax returns, what do you have to hide?
"Romney should release his returns."
He did and he will. That's not enough. What number of them is enough, exactly? What number is required to run for public office?
My understanding, please correct me if I'm wrong, is that you have to release your tax returns on a timely basis - to the IRS, and that's it.
When exactly did candidate Barack Obama release any information he didn't want to because of the clamoring? And I don't mean 1040EZ tax returns for a guy who never ran a business.
If Romney releases all tax returns back to age 16, how will that change President Obama's job killing record?
-
Doug, perhaps because there is no defense, you seem to be merely trying to obfuscate the issue. What does fast and furious have to do with personal tax returns? Or the President's job record? Or for that matter, my personal tax returns? I'm not running for office; Romney is. Let's get back to point.
Odd, Romney felt compelled and willing to release 21 years of tax returns to McCain when he was being vetted for VP and then was subsequently rejected by McCain, but now, for the public.....
Tax Returns ARE relevant. It's not just me, or simply Democrats, but even prominent conservative Republicans say so. And more each day.
If this was Obama, you and everyone else on this forum would be clamoring for tax returns and insinuating that something is terribly possibly criminally wrong. And you know it.
Frankly, as a politician it's indefensible that Romney won't release them especially given the 100's of millions of dollars he's made as a corporate raider. Between Swiss Bank Accounts, the Cayman Islands, etc. he can probably move dollars around faster than you can hit a tennis ball.
He's better off releasing everything now, face the ramifications if any for a few days, then move on. This is a lot of money we are talking about, not his college grades or some other innocuous matter. I don't think this issue will go away.
-
I'm sorry that as usual you missed my point and that the points you make are unresponsive to the questions I posed. Another approach to an exchange would be to try to answer the questions posed and in doing so you might stumble into the point made. Yes he will probably disclose more information. The July 17 deadline is the shiny object. It MUST be answered NOW because 3 more people are clamoring for it. You already called his wealth filthy and in pure moderate partisanship you posted no objection I know of to the sitting Treasury Secretary's tax evasion. Nothing in Romney's background indicates anything other than squeaky clean and he already disclosed that he was successful and paid all the taxes that he owes. But still we need shiny objects. Who would want to face ISSUES?
Romney's income is interesting because he was in business you say? Well, Obama's academics are interesting because he was in academics. One sided clamoring won't get that information out - ever. In spite of you repeatedly repeatedly repeatedly saying otherwise, that is relevant.
They keep the storyline going that Barack Obama is smarter than all of us, yet serving in his current position, he is stuck on stupid, reduced to looking for shiny objects from his competitor. He hasn't even told us what involvement he had in Fast and Furious that would require an executive privilege assertion to take the scandal IN HIS ADMINISTRATION past the election. Why hasn't he fired his attorney general yet for not prosecuting his own contempt of congress citation and where is THAT clamoring? The Sound of Silence: Hello Darkness my old friend...
Meanwhile, we must know, where does Mitt Romney bank anyway?
-
"the sitting Treasury Secretary's tax evasion"
don't forget Charles Rangel.
I agree with
Mark Levin. Mitt does not need to give the libs any more data they can manipulate to their spin. Give *no* more tax records.
"Independents" or undecided's won't care. Libs have already made up their minds.
Bill Kristol and Haley Barber and both shcultzes should release their taxes first.
-
"the sitting Treasury Secretary's tax evasion"
Good grief, Secretary Geithner made a mistake on his taxes. He was neither charged nor convicted of any wrongdoing.
Further, he was approved by the Senate in a bipartisan vote of 60-34 for Secretary of the Treasury.
Also, I disagree. I predict Independents and Undecideds will care if Romney continues to stonewall.
Even a few respected conservatives like George Will already care and suggest full disclosure.
-
"Good grief, Secretary Geithner made a mistake on his taxes. He was neither charged nor convicted of any wrongdoing."
For some of us the whiff of favoritism is in the air. I forget the details but the way I remember it, it sure looked like more than an innocent mistake-- wasn't there something about his failing to report a couple of hundred thousand and/or taking deductions for his kids summer camp or something like that? Too bad GM is on extended sabbatical-- he would nail this for us in a flash.
Anyway, the larger point as I understand it is the double standard in what is required of Reps and Dems.
(BTW, whatever happened in Charlie Rangel's race? I remember reading it was very close and that the results were not immediately available)
-
Double standard etc, yes. I jumped categories (cog diss of the left) to refresh memories. Yes, how many Dem votes would a Republican tax cheat get on the committee?
JDN, He didn't think he had to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes for several years (source WSJ) because ...................................... .
a) diplomatic immunity
b) he gave at the office
c) dog ate his homework
d) by taxing the rich, I meant the other guy
e) hey, look at that shiny object - over THERE!!
Besides re-filing 6 other years when he found out he was entering new scrutiny... Employing domestics formerly known as illegals, etc.
He made "a" mistake.
For Romney, all they want is more clarity on the "filthy" part of rich.
Meanwhile, more have gone on food stamps and disability under Obama than have found new jobs, and the blind enablers keep looking every time he says hey, shiny object.
Pathetic.
-
Mark Levin's answer to JDN
http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2012/07/17/mark-levin-is-right-on-romney-tax-returns/?singlepage=true
-
Interesting, the very next article on your pjmedia link showed this opposing logic.
Drumbeat Grows from Right for Romney to Release Returns
The National Review, the Weekly Standard, columnists like George Will, and several prominent GOP lawmakers have all called on Mitt Romney to release additional tax returns. Even “objective” reporters have gotten into the act and criticized the candidate for keeping his filings to himself.
As the National Review puts it:
Romney may feel impatience with requirements that the political culture imposes on a presidential candidate that he feels are pointless (and inconvenient). But he’s a politician running for the highest office in the land, and his current posture is probably unsustainable. In all likelihood, he won’t be able to maintain a position that looks secretive and is a departure from campaign conventions. The only question is whether he releases more returns now, or later — after playing more defense on the issue and sustaining more hits. There will surely be a press feeding frenzy over new returns, but better to weather it in the middle of July.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/07/18/drumbeat-grows-from-right-for-romney-to-release-returns/
-
Taking over from tax returns, "You didn't build that" seems to be the defining statement of the campaign.
If the Wright Brothers, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, etc. didn't build that, then why the hell are the rest of you, the unwashed, trying to build something?
Meanwhile we advertise with taxpayer dollars for more food stamp recipients: it's easy, it's healthy and it's fun! And we add more to permanent disability than we add to full time employment.
It was really a Freudian slip for the 11 million dollar book writing President because we can say with certainty Mr. President: You didn't write that!
Punditry caught the President's new line and their collective jaw dropped. It took a few days for it to really sink in.
John Podhoretz, Commentary magazine: "The Biggest Mistake of Campaign 2012 is not Mitt Romney’s handling of Bain Capital, or anything Mitt Romney has done. The biggest mistake was the one made by Barack Obama on Friday, when what you might call his now-familiar “Declaration of Interdependence” went completely off the rails. Obama’s “we’re all in this together” bit has been a feature of his speeches during the past year, as he cites the government-led activities that have made this country better—land-grant colleges and infrastructure and the social safety net. It sounds kind of uplifting, which is why he likes to say it, and it fits his general message of a country in which government plays a central role for the good of all. But when he extended it to personal and private endeavor, the president revealed the danger of this message—to him. ...This statement is a colossal opportunity for Mitt Romney and will prove a suppurating wound for the president, who revealed a degree not only of condescension but of contempt for the very people who are going to decide this election. And if there’s one thing people recognize, it’s when they are being viewed with contempt."
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/07/17/the-biggest-mistake-of-campaign-2012/
---------------------------
Rich Lowry, National Review: Obama against the Self-Made Man
If Bartlett’s ever puts together a collection of insultingly deflating quotations, it should include President Barack Obama’s take on business success before a crowd in Virginia the other day: “If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.”
Obama was explaining — as is his wont — why the rich should pay more taxes. They might have had a great teacher. Or they drive on public roads and bridges. “If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that,” the president explained, apparently in the serene confidence that he wasn’t speaking to an audience bristling with proud business owners. “Somebody else made that happen.”
The Obama theory of entrepreneurship is that behind every successful businessman, there is a successful government. Everyone is helpless without the state, the great protector, builder, and innovator. Everything is ultimately a collective enterprise. Individual initiative is only an ingredient in the more important work when “we do things together.”
The Obama riff is a direct steal from Elizabeth Warren, the Democratic Senate candidate in Massachusetts who sent liberal hearts aflutter by throwing the same wet towel on the notion of individual success a few months ago. The Obama/Warren view is a warrant for socialization of the proceeds of success. Behind its faux sophistication is a faculty-lounge disdain for business, and all those who make more than tenured professors by excelling at it. Behind its smiley we’re-all-in-it-together façade is a frank demand: You owe us. ...
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/309606/obama-against-self-made-man-rich-lowry
-----------------------------------------
WSJ today:
The Presidential election has a long way to go, but the line of the year so far is President Obama's on Friday: "You didn't build that." Rarely do politicians so clearly reveal their core beliefs.
Speaking in Roanoke, Virginia, Mr. Obama delivered another paean to the virtues of higher taxes on the people he believes deserve to pay even more to the government. "There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans," he observed, and many of them attribute their wealth and success to their own intelligence and hard work. But the self-made man is an illusion: "There are a lot of smart people out there," he explained. "Let me tell you something—there are a whole bunch of hard-working people out there.
"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help," he continued. "There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business—you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."
This burst of ideological candor is already resonating like nothing else Mr. Obama's said in years. The Internet is awash with images of the President telling the Wright Brothers, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Steve Jobs and other innovators they didn't build that. Kevin Costner's famous line in "Field of Dreams," as adapted for Mr. Obama: "If you build it, we'll still say you didn't really build it."
Beneath the satire is the serious point that Mr. Obama's homily is the soul of his campaign message. The President who says he wants to be transformational may be succeeding—and subordinating to government the individual enterprise and risk-taking that underlies prosperity. The question is whether this is the America that most Americans want to build.
---------------------
Paul Ryan:
Every now and then, he pierces the veil. He’s usually pretty coy about his ideology, but he lets the veil slip from time to time. … His straw man argument is this ridiculous caricature where he’s trying to say if you want any security in life, you stick with me. If you go with these Republicans, they’re going to feed you to the wolves because they believe in some Hobbesian state of nature, and it’s one or the other which is complete bunk, absolutely ridiculous. But it seems to be the only way he thinks he can make his case. He’s deluded himself into thinking that his so-called enemies are these crazy individualists who believe in some dog-eat-dog society when what he’s really doing is basically attacking people like entrepreneurs and stacking up a list of scapegoats to blame for his failures.
His comments seem to derive from a naive vision of a government-centered society and a government-directed economy. It stems from an idea that the nucleus of society and the economy is government not the people. … It is antithetical to the American idea. We believe in free communities, and this is a statist attack on free communities. … As all of his big government spending programs fail to restore jobs and growth, he seems to be retreating into a statist vision of government direction and control of a free society that looks backward to the failed ideologies of the 20th century.
This is not a Bill Clinton Democrat. He’s got this very government-centric, old 20th century collectivist philosophy which negates the American experiment which is people living in communities, supporting one another, having government stick to its limits so it can do its job really well … Those of us who are conservative believe in government, we just believe government has limits. We want government to do what it does well and respect its limits so civil society and families can flourish on their own and do well and achieve their potential.
How does building roads and bridge justify Obamacare? If you like the GI Bill therefore we must go along with socialized medicine. It’s a strange leap that he takes. … To me it’s the laziest form of a debate to affix views to your opponent that they do not have so you can demonize them and defeat them and win the debate by default
I think he believes America was on the right path until Reagan came along, and Reagan got us going in the wrong direction. And and he wants to be as transformational as Reagan by undoing the entire Reagan revolution. … I think he sees himself as bringing about this wave of progressivism, and the only thing stopping him are these meddling conservatives who believe in these founding principles so he has to caricature them in the ugliest light possible to win the argument.
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/07/paul-ryan-rips-obamas-comment-that-if-youve-got-a-business-you-didnt-build-that-somebody-else-made-that-happen/
-
President Obama’s instantly infamous “You didn’t build that” speech is a major turning point of the 2012 election not because it was a gaffe but because it was an accurate and concise summary of core progressive fiscal dogma. It was also a political blunder of epic proportions because in his speech Obama unintentionally proved the conservatives’ case for limited government.
When Obama implied at the Roanoke, Virginia rally that some businessmen refuse to pay for public works from which they benefit, he presented a thesis which, like a three-legged stool, relies on three assumptions that must all be true for the argument to remain standing:
1. That the public programs he mentioned in his speech constitute a significant portion of the federal budget;
2. That business owners don’t already pay far more than their fair share of these expenses; and
3. That these specific public benefits are a federal issue, rather than a local issue.
If any of these legs fails, then the whole argument collapses.
For good measure, we won’t just kick out one, we’ll kick out all three.
“Small Government” Is Not the Same as “No Government”
Progressives critique the fiscal conservative/Tea Party/libertarian position by purposely misrepresenting it as anarchy. When fiscal conservatives say “We want smaller government,” progressives reply, “Oh, so you want no government?”
“Government” in this particular discussion is shorthand for “communal pooling of resources for mutual benefit.”
Fiscal conservatives have never called for no government — that’s the anarchist position, and contemporary anarchism is actually dominated by extreme leftists, not extreme conservatives. Instead, fiscal conservatives clearly and consistently call for limited government, or for smaller government — but not for the absence of government altogether.
So when President Obama and his mentor Elizabeth Warren justify their call for tax hikes by pointing out that all entrepreneurs benefit from communal infrastructure, they’re committing the classic Straw Man Fallacy by arguing against anarchy — a position that their opponents do not hold.
Here’s the shocking truth: President Obama and Elizabeth Warren are correct — we all benefit from certain taxpayer-funded collectivist government infrastructure projects and programs. And here’s the other shocking truth: Therefore, we should limit government expenditures to just those programs.
-
I would add what for me is a central point, we the people created the government, it only has the powers granted by us to it in its founding charter, our beloved Constitution. It is OUR work and productivity that pays the taxes that funded it. It is dependent upon us, not we upon it!
-
Nicely put. That is exactly the question being called in Nov. now that the President so gracefully proclaimed that he is on the opposite side.
Of the things that government does best (a short list), other than defending our shores shorter list yet), are there really $3-4 trillion worth of services that the federal government is uniquely able to perform and is authorized to do so in the constitution? Do you want the decisions about road building around your home and business to go through Washington? Really? Local schools, bridges and rail lines, that is federal and authorized in what article of the constitution, by what stretch of the imagination?? It is a complete straw argument to think you couldn't make cuts close to the immediate trillion a year Ron Paul was proposing and still have all those things that are both authorized in the constitution and are of value to all of us.
-
Let us remember a point upon which I think all of us (even JDN?) share agreement:
Discretionary spending is an insufficient target for serious deficit reduction. Serious debt reduction requires going after the obligations defined by entitlements-- and in this race no on is talking about that.
-
I definitely agree! Discretionary is merely the tip of the iceberg. But sadly in my opinion, it's a non sequitur until the election. After that, regardless of who wins, I hope a bipartisan effort will be made. Simply increasing Social Security's age of retirement would make a big difference. Other issues of course exist.
-
and furthermore , , , some random thoughts
a) One of the biggest tropes out there is "BO was dealt a bad hand". So why is it that there is pretty much NO discussion as to what caused that bad hand , , , beyond some sort of vague OWS type of analysis?!? The "bad hand" was a direct result of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the Fed Govt and the Fed driving a housing bubble. Right at the tip of this spear into the heart of the American economy (indeed, the world economy) was one Baraq Obama, who in a mere 18 months became the second largest all-time recipient of FM largess.
b) I just don't get the Condi Rice for VP boomlet. Is it anything more than the crudest of condescending political calculations-- "She's a two-fer!"? This would have to be one of the absolutely dumbest choices possible:
*tie MR to Bush
*relitigate Iraq and WMD
*choose someone with absolutely ZERO experience in running for office or pretty much any type of American politics
*choose someone with absolutely ZERO background in economics
*choose someone with absolutely ZERO business experience
*choose someone with absolutely ZERO experience in domestic political issues
Dumb, dumber, and dumbest, all in one.
c) "Restarting welfare as we knew it": Perhaps we were overwhelmed by the immensity of what goes wrong (understandable!) but it has hardly been commented here on Baraq's probably illegal new regulations vaporizing key standards for recipients of welfare under the Clinton-Gingrich "End of Welfare as we know it". Why is that? And is that correct thinking?
d) Charles Krauthammer suggested tonight that MR take up "Solyndra or Staples?" as his campaign slogan.
e) I think the crony capitalism meme that Romney has been using the last week or so is a good one. He should keep hammering away on it. There certainly are plenty of good examples to keep him in fresh supply for the duration of the campaign.
-
"Former Navy SEAL Launches PAC To Fight Obama"
Politicker, July 17, 2012
Today, Ryan Zinke, an ex-Navy SEAL and Montana State Senator, announced the launch of Special Operations for America, a political action committee dedicated to “the election of Mitt Romney and like-minded candidates.”
“Navy SEAL’s, Special Operations Personnel and Veteran’s across America have been outraged since Barack Obama conveniently took credit for killing Osama Bin Laden for political gain,” a statement announcing the launch of SOFA said. “The active duty military has no voice as they are forbidden to publicly engage in the political campaign process and it is career suicide for senior military leaders to speak out against the President.”
Mr. Zinke, who has frequently slammed the president’s handling of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, reiterated his criticisms of the operation.
“The President has failed and he is jeopardizing the safety of our troops, their families and our National security for political gain. Obama has exposed the identity of special operations units, leaked classified information, and limited the rules of engagement of forces on the ground,” said Mr. Zinke. “For those who have taken an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, it is a call of duty to take back America from a Commander-in-Chief that is incapable of understanding the sacrifices that have been made for the values that have made America great.”
Mr. Zinke has served in the Montana State Senate since 2009. According to Afghanistan and Iraq Veterans for Congress, a political action committee dedicated to electing Republican vets, Mr. Zinke was a member of SEAL Team Six, the elite unit that killed Bin Laden, from 1990 until 1993 and from 1996 until 1999. He held several titles including Task Force Commander. In 2004, In 2004, was named “Deputy and acting Commander, Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force-Arabian Peninsula in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM” in that capacity he “led a force of over 3500 Special Operations personnel in Iraq in the conduct of 360 combat patrols, 48 Direct Action missions, and hundreds of sensitive operations” and “was responsible for killing or capturing 72 known enemy insurgents and terrorists.”
-
Crafty: "I just don't get the Condi Rice for VP boomlet"... (among other things) "absolutely ZERO background in economics"
John Podhoretz writes today: "The issue today is the economy. Not to mention the economy. Also, the economy."
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/why_bam_losing_6hphTPplSqc4KPBJcKn4nO
For 8 years I tried to like the work product of Condi Rice and I struggled, kept thinking there is more going on behind the scenes than what we know. If he wants, Romney can try to bring her back as Secretary of State, or keep Hillary Clinton for that matter to offset diplomatically a re-energized Defense department. This election is the economy. Rubio is the visionary and skilled orator who might make a great President someday and Paul Ryan is the current policy heavyweight. We will see.
-
Crafty, a couple of days ago: "Discretionary spending is an insufficient target for serious deficit reduction. Serious debt reduction requires going after the obligations defined by entitlements-- and in this race no on is talking about that."
Yes. Most of what we call government is not governing functions at all but transfer payments to individuals. That isn't going to end but as competent economists have suggested, pass reforms that roll the costs back to 2007 levels, when this economy was last close to functional.
-
Obama's Vision Places Government, Not People, First
By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER
Posted 07/19/2012
"If you've got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen."
Barack Obama, Roanoke, Va., July 13
And who might that somebody be? Government, says Obama. It built the roads you drive on. It provided the teacher who inspired you. It "created the Internet." It represents the embodiment of "we're in this together" social solidarity that, in his view, is the essential origin of individual and national achievement.
To say all individuals are embedded in and the product of society is banal. Obama rises above banality by means of fallacy: equating society with government, collectivity with the state.
Of course we are shaped by our milieu. But the most formative, most important influence on the individual is not government. It's civil society, those elements of the collectivity that lie outside government: family, neighborhood, church, Rotary Club, PTA, the voluntary associations that Tocqueville saw as the genius of America and source of its energy and freedom.
Moreover, the greatest threat to a robust, autonomous civil society is the ever-growing Leviathan state and those like Obama who see it as the ultimate expression of the collective.
Obama compounds the fallacy by declaring the state to be the font of entrepreneurial success. It created the infrastructure — roads, bridges, schools, Internet — off which we all thrive.
Absurd. We don't credit the Swiss postal service with the Special Theory of Relativity because it transmitted Einstein's manuscript to the Annalen der Physik. Everyone drives the roads, goes to school, uses the mails. So did Steve Jobs. Yet only he conceived and built the Mac and the iPad.
Obama's infrastructure argument is easily refuted by what is essentially a controlled social experiment. Roads and schools are the constant. What's variable is the energy, enterprise, risk-taking, hard work and genius of the individual. It is therefore precisely those individual characteristics, not the communal utilities, that account for the different outcomes.
But the ultimate Obama fallacy is the conceit that belief in the value of infrastructure, and willingness to invest in its creation and maintenance, is what divides liberals from conservatives.
More nonsense. Infrastructure is not a liberal idea, nor is it particularly new. The Via Appia was built 2,300 years ago. The Romans built aqueducts too. And sewers. Since forever, infrastructure has been understood to be a core function of government.
The argument between left and right is about what you do beyond infrastructure. It's about transfer payments and redistributionist taxation, about geometrically expanding entitlements, about tax breaks and subsidies to induce actions pleasing to planners.
It's about free contraceptives for privileged students and welfare without work — the latest Obama entitlement-by-decree that would fatally undermine the great bipartisan welfare reform of 1996. It's about endless government handouts that, ironically, are crowding out necessary spending on, yes, infrastructure.
What divides liberals and conservatives is not roads and bridges but Julia's world, an Obama campaign creation that may be the most self-revealing parody of liberalism ever.
It's a series of cartoon illustrations in which a fictional Julia is swaddled and subsidized throughout her life by an all-giving government of bottomless pockets and "Queen for a Day" magnanimity. At every stage, the state is there to provide — preschool classes and cut-rate college loans, birth control and maternity care, business loans and retirement. The only time she's on her own is at her gravesite.
Julia's world is totally atomized. It contains no friends, no community and, of course, no spouse. Who needs one? She's married to the provider state. Or to put it slightly differently, the "Life of Julia" represents the paradigmatic Obama political philosophy: citizen as orphan child. For the conservative, providing for every need is the duty that government owes to actual orphan children. Not to supposedly autonomous adults.
Beyond infrastructure, the conservative sees the proper role of government as providing not European-style universal entitlements but a firm safety net, meaning Julia-like treatment for those who really cannot make it on their own — those too young or too old, too mentally or physically impaired, to provide for themselves.
Limited government so conceived has two indispensable advantages. It avoids inexorable European-style national insolvency. And it avoids breeding debilitating individual dependence. It encourages and celebrates character, independence, energy and hard work as the foundations of a free society and a thriving economy — precisely the virtues Obama discounts and devalues in his accounting.
-
Abe Lincoln:
"and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
Brockster:
"and that people of the government, by the government, for the government, shall not perish from the earth because of the government".
ccp,
"Your no Lincoln!"
-
Abe Lincoln:
"and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
Brockster:
"and that people of the government, by the government, for the government, shall not perish from the earth because of the government".
ccp, "Your no Lincoln!"
Great line CCP! Isn't that the truth.
-
It would be even greater were it this:
"You're no Lincoln!" :evil:
-
Obama's Ratings Dive
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on July 24, 2012
Printer-Friendly Version
His personal favorability, once a strong point for Obama, has vanished and is now being replaced by a personal dislike that is dragging him down.
These data, buried deep in the latest NY Times/CBS poll (of registered voters, not likely voters) are both stark and important. In April, Obama had a 42-45 favorable/unfavorable rating, itself a shock given his vastly higher favorable ratings only a few months before. Now, he has a favorable rating of only 36% and an unfavorable rating of 48%.
The NY Times poll showed Romney getting 47% of the vote compared to 46% for Obama (again, this poll is of registered voters, likely voter polls are more pro-Romney). So that means that one-quarter of Obama's voters do not give him a favorable rating - a danger sign for the president.
What is most notable about this statistic is that it is not due primarily to the bad economy. While the Times poll showed that the percent of voters who feel he is doing a good job in handling the economy has dropped to 36%, Obama's ratings in this category have been low for some time. The drop in favorability is new.
Rather the cause of his decreased likeability is his negative campaigning, both in person and on the air. He is now no longer the sunny, optimistic, friendly person he portrayed himself as being in 2008. Instead, a nasty, surly, angry image has taken over.
This change is at the heart of Obama's dilemma. The more he goes negative, the more he hurts himself in the process and undermines the reservoir to good will that has sustained him through tough economic times.
As recently as one year ago, Obama's personal favorability was ten points above his vote share in most polls. Now it is ten points below it presaging further a likely further drop in his poll numbers.
-
It is said that the candidate dishing out negative ads doesn't take the heat. Maybe this is different. This is an incumbent President blanketing airwaves in July, not a summer of recovery, with personal destruction ads on his opponent while he is too busy to meet with his jobs team, too vain to visit Wisconsin during recall, too ideological to listen to the deficit commission and too stubborn to work out a tax deal with Republicans. Reelection and holding power is job one. To hell with you people.
Romney ran Bain, whatever each voter is going to think about that. Bill Clinton got caught lying about Jennifer Flowers before his first election, got caught taking young intern, Oval Office blow jobs in his second term - and voters including soccer moms still wanted to hear about his economic plan.
The smear ads on Romney end (I assume) with a proud, smiling President saying "I'm President Obama and I approve this message". It must look desperate. Also it makes you wonder why he isn't busy governing if he wants the job that badly.
Those ads should have been run by the outside groups but that is so hard to coordinate from the Chicago campaign headquarters without breaking federal campaign laws.
---------------------------
* Latest poll in MN, one of the most yellow states, shows that Romney has cut Obama's lead in half and Dems losing by double digits on two ballot amendments, marriage and voter ID.
-
Famous people reading the forum?
Romney responding to a reckless Biden remark: "We have very serious problems confronting our nation and American families are hurting, yet the Obama campaign continues to try to divert voters' attention with specious shiny objects. "
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/07/romney-camp-biden-diminishes-presidency-130083.html
-
Debate dates and subjects have been released!
-
Henninger: America's Two Economies With Barack Obama, the competition between the private economy and the public economy is clear.
By DANIEL HENNINGERLike this columnist
For a long time, the United States had one economy. Now we have two economies that compete for America's wealth: A private economy and a public economy. The 2012 election will decide which will be subordinate to the other. One economy will lead. The other will follow.
How the U.S. arrived at the need to choose between two competing economies reveals a lot about the political polarization in the country. Any history of the Democratic Party in the 20th century will recognize its roots in the American labor movement. The party was defined by the names of those unions. The United Mine Workers. The United Auto Workers. The Brotherhoods of Teamsters and Railroad Workers. Consider what those names represented: Both Democrats and Republicans were rooted in the private economy. Unionized workers knew then that this private economy was where they made their living. The arguments were over dividing the productive fruits of that economy. That was your father's Democratic Party.
From the 1960s onward, the professional Democratic Party began to lose its relationship with the private economy. Democratic politicians drew closer to a rising public-sector union movement and its campaign financing, while the private unions declined. This meant the party itself was slowly disconnecting from the machinery of the private economy and becoming part of a rising parallel economy, the public economy of government.
There was one other big event that convinced Democrats that their public economy was equal to or better than the private economy. It has to do with the Democratic Party's moral identity. After JFK's assassination, Lyndon Johnson passed the building blocks of the Great Society, notably Medicare and Medicaid. But most importantly came the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The legislative events of that period (no matter that they passed with bipartisan votes) convinced the Democratic Party once and for all of government's moral efficacy. Public spending, conclusively, was now a public good.
Today the private and public economies are in head-to-head competition for the nation's wealth—with the private economy calling that wealth capital or income, and the public economy calling it tax revenue and making moral claims for spending tax revenue.
Until recently and except for the Reagan years, the Republican Party has largely been a confused onlooker, uncertain how to embrace the private economy. In the 1990s, the party embraced the private sector mainly as a source of contributions via K Street lobbyists. In short, crony capitalism.
With the Obama administration, the tensions between the country's two economies clarified. The $831 billion spending bill in 2009 was intended to stimulate hiring of public-sector workforces but also among the satellite businesses that are subsidiaries of the public economy. Barack Obama's routine use of the traditional private-economy term "investment"—in energy, education and such—is the public economy claiming capital for its needs.
President Obama is telling the private economy it must subordinate itself to the public economy's moral efficacy. The passage in 2010 of the Affordable Care Act, with no Republican support, was justified as a 1960s-type act of moral necessity. The private economy, in his view, can't compete on that basis.
In the November 2010 elections, the private economy pushed back. Two years into the financial crisis and amid tea-party insurgencies, Democrats were swept out of office at every level of government.
These are not small events. Powerful belief systems are in motion today, and they are slamming into each other. Rep. Paul Ryan in the first sentence of his now-famous Roadmap budget said, "Rarely before have the alternatives facing America been so starkly defined." President Obama, announcing his ideas on taxes on July 9, said, "What's holding us back . . . is a stalemate in this town, in Washington, between two very different views about which direction we should go in as a country" (emphasis added).
Those are the two poles in an historic battle over who runs the American economy.
For about 40 years before 2008, spending as a percentage of GDP was around 20%. In 2009, it rose to 25% and has remained at 24% of GDP. This isn't just spending data. These numbers are a proxy for the standoff between the public economy and the private economy.
Some in the Democratic Party argue that this higher, "normal" spending level (the White House projects 22+% of GDP going forward) is necessary to fulfill the commitments our politics have made to retiring baby boomers and others. The role of the private economy in the U.S. will be to support the long-term wants and needs in the public economy.
President Obama is right: This is a choice between two paths into the American future, the clearest choice since the end of World War II. It is a mandate election.
Barack Obama is explicitly seeking a mandate to make the public economy pre-eminent. That is the unmistakable meaning of "You didn't build that." His opponent so far is talking about, but not seeking a mandate for, the other economy. One expects that in time Mitt Romney will seek a mandate equal to Mr. Obama's.
-
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/obama-talks-gun-control-ak-47s-belong-in-the-hands-of-soldiers-not-in-the-hands-of-criminals/
-
From Crafty's WSJ/Henninger post:
Barack Obama is explicitly seeking a mandate to make the public economy pre-eminent. That is the unmistakable meaning of "You didn't build that."
Correct, no matter the meaning of 'that'. Some of us have been begging for that kind of clarity from Republicans for a few years here.
Clinton used to blur the differences and co-opt his opponents' agenda. RINOs do that too. In 2008, Obama was cautious and cryptic, speaking in platitudes, even when he told a plumber we need to spread the wealth. Now the President sounds hate-filled and angry: "You didn't build that!" A far cry from hope and change.
The lines are drawn; it's the chicken and the egg. One side says you couldn't have your business if not for the public sector. The other side argues that you can't fund our public sector without a healthy private sector.
Both are right but voters have to choose which is pre-eminent.
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/romney-gains-lead-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/you-didnt-build-it-is-big-obama-blunder-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
(Should be a Media Issue...) At a time when Pres. Obama couldn't buy a good news story, he didn't need to. The useful idiots in the biased polling business have stepped up to the plate to declare Obama with big leads in key states. The poll becomes the news story hopefully in their mind giving the President a lift. No .;can prove them wrong in July. By late October they have to shape up their numbers to protect their rotten reputations. Meanwhile these outliars will linger and figure into the most respected polling averages for some time to come.
Poll internals: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/08/01/us/politics/01quinnipiac-new-york-times-cbs-poll.html?ref=politics
What they do in Florida for example is oversample Dems by 13 points. In a best case year or 2008, Obama won Fla by 4. In the most recent statewide contest wide nationwide implications, Republican Marco Rubio won Florida by a million votes and second place was a Republican. So much for polling Dems at +13 to get a result of the Dem leading by 6.
-
Curious to hear from Crafty's "pack" here what you think about the serious problem we currently face regarding the "Voluntarily State-Controlled Media" as Rush Limbaugh calls it. What is the solution? We have legions of "journalists" working today who are nothing more than political hacks. They trade in propaganda and selective reporting of news stories to promote their leftist agenda. Granted, we have conservative talk radio and Fox News Channel to counter them - but it appears the overwhelming majority of the public still gets their "news" - either directly or indirectly - from this volunteer "Pravda" network of "reporters." I'm not sure the Framers ever envisioned such a scenario.
What do you folks think?
-
Seize with gusto our First Amendment! Speak Truth to Power!
This forum is but one effort.
-
http://www.nationaljournal.com/economy/lost-on-the-campaign-trail-a-real-jobs-debate-20120802
-
I was asked today to be on local television to comment on the general election in November. I will be in studio for the duration of the coverage after the polls close. National and important state and local elections will be on the docket. 8-)
-
How very cool. Please report back to us on this!
-
BD, Very exciting!
Beware of exit poll history, 2004 comes to mind.
"Throughout election night, the national exit poll showed the Massachusetts senator leading President Bush by 51 percent to 48 percent. But when all the votes were counted, it was Bush who won by slightly less than three percentage points. Larger discrepancies between the exit poll estimates and the actual vote were found in exit polls conducted in several states. At the request of the media sponsors, Mitofsky and Lenski are continuing to examine exit polling in Ohio and Pennsylvania, two critical battleground states where the poll results were off."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22188-2005Jan19.html
-
With 3 months to go the election is coming down to a choice between President Obama's view that someone else broke it and he can't fix it and his opponents' view that the movement toward the policies of Obama that preceded his presidency brought the economy down and he can't fix it. At least we all agree that he can't fix it.
-
"At least we all agree that he can't fix it."
Recenlty Rush and Levin have both admitted the obvious.
There are increasing numbers of people here who want someone else to pay for them.
Either one believes in traditional America, with capatilism free, enterprise, limited government, competition, or one doesn't care and they are on the dole.
Ideology is the issue but ideology alone won't win.
Most don't care about ideology. Most care about their pocketbooks.
So what am I saying? It is about ideology and yet it isn't.
No, what I am saying it IS absolutely about ideology. But Mitt is going to have to convince enough voters that the conservative ideology is the best for them, all of us, and America. He cannot speak in just "jobs", "unemployment", or "big government", or "statism", or "entitlements".
He has to speak about all of it and tie it all together. It doesn't appear that calling Obama a socialist is enough. Unfortunately, there are ever increasing numbers of poeple who basically want socialism. Free" health care, "free" educatuion (why never "free" legal care?). The crats are doing everything they can to expand their numbers with bribery using taxpayer money.
As Levin has FINALLY pointed out we can only hope there are more of us then them. I couldn't agree more and have felt this way for years and am glad the talking heads are finally saying it.
For they speak to the choir. The 40% firmly in the Democrat party camp are always going to want taxpaid beneftis -always - that is how they think.
I think the talking heads are now struggling to come up with a Romney theme that will get past the banner phrases and give enough voters the confidence his ideology is best for their pocketbooks. Just my take.
-
HOPEY-CHANGEY: Obama Campaign Sues to Restrict Military Voting.“President Barack Obama, along with many Democrats, likes to say that, while they may disagree with the GOP on many issues related to national security, they absolutely share their admiration and dedication to members of our armed forces. Obama, in particular, enjoys being seen visiting troops and having photos taken with members of our military. So, why is his campaign and the Democrat party suing to restrict their ability to vote in the upcoming election? . . . If anyone proposes legislation to combat voter fraud, Democrats will loudly scream that the proposal could ‘disenfranchise’ some voter, somewhere. We must ensure, they argue, that voting is easy and accessible to every single voter. Every voter, that is, except the men and women of our military. Make no mistake, the Democrat lawsuit is intended to disenfranchise some unknown number of military voters. The judge should reject it with prejudice.”
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/us/politics/record-spending-by-obamas-camp-shrinks-coffers.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120805
-
"This is shaping up to be the second election in a row that's about someone who isn't on the ballot: George W. Bush. ... If Bush-bashing was really hurting Obama's numbers, he'd stop doing it. ... Romney needs to explain to voters why he's not Bush 2.0. ... Obama did inherit a deficit when he came into office. Why this fact justifies racking up vastly more debt and bigger deficits is a logical mystery. ... In short, Romney needs to say that when it comes to spending and the growth of government, it's Obama who's closer to 'Bush on steroids.' To do so, Romney must challenge Obama's theories of both the past and the future. The notion that Bush was a government-shrinking market fanatic is bizarre. Under Bush, the federal government spent more than 3 percent of GDP on anti-poverty programs for the first time. Education spending rose 58 percent faster than inflation. Bush gave us Medicare Part D, the biggest expansion in entitlements since the Great Society -- until Obamacare. He signed Sarbanes-Oxley, created a whole new Cabinet agency (the Department of Homeland Security), and was the originator of the bailouts, TARP and the first stimulus program. Obama took many of these policies and approaches and expanded them." --columnist Jonah Goldberg
-
second post of morning
"Obama's usual campaign method ... has been to pry into the private records of his opponents. ... One month before the 2004 Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate, Obama was down in the polls, about to lose to Blair Hull, a multimillionaire securities trader. But then the Chicago Tribune leaked the claim that Hull's second ex-wife, Brenda Sexton, had sought an order of protection against him during their 1998 divorce proceedings. ... After having held a substantial lead just a month before the primary, Hull's campaign collapsed with the chatter about his divorce. ... As luck would have it, Obama's opponent in the general election had also been divorced! ... [Jack Ryan] ... made hundreds of millions of dollars as a partner at Goldman Sachs, and then, in his early 40s, left investment banking to teach at an inner city school on the South Side of Chicago. Ryan would have walloped Obama in the Senate race. But at the request of -- again -- the Chicago Tribune, California Judge Robert Schnider unsealed the custody papers in Ryan's divorce five years earlier.... [R]yan dropped out of the race for the horror of (allegedly) propositioning his own wife and then taking 'no' for an answer. ... And that's how Obama became a U.S. senator. ... Obama's team delved into Sarah Palin's marriage and spread rumors of John McCain's alleged affair in 2008 and they smeared Herman Cain in 2011 with hazy sexual harassment allegations all emanating from David Axelrod's pals in Chicago. It's almost like a serial killer's signature. So you can see what a pickle the Obama campaign is in having to run against a Dudley Do-Right, non-drinking, non-smoking, God-fearing, happily married Mormon. They've got to get their hands on thousands of pages of Romney's tax filings so that the media can -- as Romney says -- lie about them." --columnist Ann Coulter
-
The G.O.P.'s One-Legged Stool?
Center for Security Policy | Aug 06, 2012
By Frank Gaffney, Jr.
Ronald Reagan forged a winning electoral majority on the stable foundation of what he described as a three-legged stool: fiscal discipline, traditional values and peace through strength. He understood it to be an appealing platform to the American people writ large, including of course economic, social and national security conservatives and the rest of his Republican Party.
Unfortunately, it seems increasingly, that today's Republicans want to bet that they can regain the White House by cutting off two legs from that stool - disregarding, if not dismissing outright conservative social issues and national security themes.
A case in point came last week as the G.O.P.'s 2012 presidential nominee, Governor Mitt Romney, declared that his campaign was "not going to talk about" the Left's attempt to punish the owners of Chick-fil-A for their stand on gay marriage. Neither would it be talking about the request made by Rep. Michele Bachmann and four of her colleagues for an investigation into Muslim Brotherhood influence operations that appear with increasing success to be targeting the Obama administration.
Whatever one thinks about marriage between people of the same sex, surely a man running as a business-friendly candidate would say whether he favors boycotts of privately owned businesses on the basis of the beliefs of their shareholders?
Similarly, the Republican standard-bearer could surely observe that there are statutes and administrative guidelines designed to protect individuals and the government from the possibility that foreign associates may seek to exercise influence on family members, friends, colleagues or their federal agencies that employ them. He could make clear that he supports the rights of members of the House of Representatives to inquire whether there have been breaches of those rules. He can say that he's reserving judgment on their concerns until we learn the results of the requested Inspector General inquiries.
Instead, Gov. Romney is signaling an indifference to these topics - and, in the process, sending a message that can only alienate those for whom such issues are not just important but determinative of their votes.
In past elections since the Reagan era, Republican establishment candidates and their strategists have taken the support of conservatives of all stripes for granted, sometimes contemptuously declaring "they have nowhere else to go." Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush (during his reelection race) and John McCain are testament to the failure to appreciate that, while conservatives may not vote for their opponent, they do have somewhere to be on election day: They can stay home
Mitt Romney is not exactly enjoying a surfeit of enthusiasm for his candidacy as it is. Failing to address matters of concern to the various parts of the Republican base - and to the future of our nation - is a formula for his defeat, no matter how compelling his position may be on economic and fiscal matters, the one leg of the stool on which his campaign currently rests.
It happens that there is another powerful reason for addressing in particular the national security portfolio and the threat posed by the Muslim Brotherhood. The next Commander-in-Chief will inherit a world substantially remade by the Obama Doctrine: "emboldening our enemies, undermining our friends and diminishing our country."
Arguably, nowhere is that more true than in the parts of the globe where the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies are ascendant. That rise - and all that it portends for our one reliable ally, Israel, and what remains of our "friends" in the Mideast, South Asia, North and sub-Saharan Africa - will present grave challenges to our security and other interests.
We need to know how the man who would replace President Obama will contend with such a threat. To do so, we at least need to understand whether he regards it as such. And, if so, whether he is going to allow some of the factors that appear to have contributed to it - namely, the access the Obama administration has afforded to its councils to individuals with documented ties to the Muslim Brotherhood - to operate in his campaign and White House.
It is gratifying that Mitt Romney did not join some other Republicans in denouncing Representatives Bachmann, Louie Gohmert, Trent Franks, Lynn Westmoreland and Tom Rooney for seeking answers to these sorts of questions as they relate to the present administration. Still, if he wants to become the leader of the Free World in the next one, Gov. Romney is going to have to address the mortal threat to it posed by the Muslim Brotherhood and its civilization jihad - a stealthy, insidious form of subversion that will, unless checked, remove all three legs of the Reagan "stool" and the constitutional republic it has helped build and preserve.
-
Wayne Allyn Root
Wayne Allyn Root is a former Libertarian vice presidential nominee. He now serves as Chairman of the Libertarian National Campaign Committee. He is the […] Wayne Allyn Root is a former Libertarian vice presidential nominee. He now serves as Chairman of the Libertarian National Campaign Committee. He is the best-selling author of "The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gold & Tax Cuts." His web site: www.ROOTforAmerica.com [ x ].
wayne@rootforamerica.com
Author's Website I am President Obama’s classmate at Columbia University, Class of ’83. I am also one of the most accurate Las Vegas oddsmakers and prognosticators. Accurate enough that I was awarded my own star on the Las Vegas Walk of Stars. And I smell something rotten in Denmark. Obama has a big skeleton in his closet. It’s his college records. Call it “gut instinct” but my gut is almost always right. Obama has a secret hidden at Columbia- and it’s a bad one that threatens to bring down his presidency. Gut instinct is how I’ve made my living for 29 years since graduating Columbia.
Obama and his infamous strategist David Axelrod understand how to play political hardball, the best it’s ever been played. Team Obama has decided to distract America’s voters by condemning Mitt Romney for not releasing enough years of his tax returns. It’s the perfect cover. Obama knows the best defense is a bold offense. Just keep attacking Mitt and blaming him for secrecy and evasion, while accusing him of having a scandal that doesn’t exist. Then ask followers like Senator Harry Reid to chase the lead. The U.S. Senate Majority Leader appears to now be making up stories out of thin air, about tax returns he knows nothing about. It’s a cynical, brilliant, and vicious strategy. Make Romney defend, so he can’t attack the real Obama scandal.
This is classic Axelrod. Obama has won several elections in his career by slandering his opponents and leaking sealed documents. Not only do these insinuations and leaks ruin the credibility and reputation of Obama’s opponents, they keep them on the defensive and off Obama’s trail of sealed documents.
By attacking Romney’s tax records, Obama’s socialist cabal creates a problem that doesn’t exist. Is the U.S. Senate Majority Leader making up stories out of thin air? You decide. But the reason for this baseless attack is clear- make Romney defend, so not only is he “off message” but it helps the media ignore the real Obama scandal.
My answer for Romney? Call Obama’s bluff.
Romney should call a press conference and issue a challenge in front of the nation. He should agree to release more of his tax returns, only if Obama unseals his college records. Simple and straight-forward. Mitt should ask “What could possibly be so embarrassing in your college records from 29 years ago that you are afraid to let America’s voters see? If it’s THAT bad, maybe it’s something the voters ought to see.” Suddenly the tables are turned. Now Obama is on the defensive.
My bet is that Obama will never unseal his records because they contain information that could destroy his chances for re-election. Once this challenge is made public, my prediction is you’ll never hear about Mitt’s tax returns ever again.
Why are the college records, of a 51-year-old President of the United States, so important to keep secret? I think I know the answer.
If anyone should have questions about Obama’s record at Columbia University, it’s me. We both graduated (according to Obama) Columbia University, Class of ’83. We were both (according to Obama) Pre-Law and Political Science majors. And I thought I knew most everyone at Columbia. I certainly thought I’d heard of all of my fellow Political Science majors. But not Obama (or as he was known then- Barry Soetoro). I never met him. Never saw him. Never even heard of him. And none of the classmates that I knew at Columbia have ever met him, saw him, or heard of him.
But don’t take my word for it. The Wall Street Journal reported in 2008 that Fox News randomly called 400 of our Columbia classmates and never found one who had ever met Obama.
Now all of this mystery could be easily and instantly dismissed if Obama released his Columbia transcripts to the media. But even after serving as President for 3 1/2 years he refuses to unseal his college records. Shouldn’t the media be as relentless in pursuit of Obama’s records as Romney’s? Shouldn’t they be digging into Obama’s past–beyond what he has written about himself–with the same boundless enthusiasm as Mitt’s?
The first question I’d ask is, if you had great grades, why would you seal your records? So let’s assume Obama got poor grades. Why not release the records? He’s president of the free world, for gosh sakes. He’s commander-in-chief of the U.S. military. Who’d care about some poor grades from three decades ago, right? So then what’s the problem? Doesn’t that make the media suspicious? Something doesn’t add up.
Secondly, if he had poor grades at Occidental, how did he get admitted to an Ivy League university in the first place? And if his grades at Columbia were awful, how’d he ever get into Harvard Law School? So again those grades must have been great, right? So why spend millions to keep them sealed?
Third, how did Obama pay for all these fancy schools without coming from a wealthy background? If he had student loans or scholarships, would he not have to maintain good grades?
I can only think of one answer that would explain this mystery.
Here’s my gut belief: Obama got a leg up by being admitted to both Occidental and Columbia as a foreign exchange student. He was raised as a young boy in Indonesia. But did his mother ever change him back to a U.S. citizen? When he returned to live with his grandparents in Hawaii or as he neared college-age preparing to apply to schools, did he ever change his citizenship back? I’m betting not.
If you could unseal Obama’s Columbia University records I believe you’d find that:
A) He rarely ever attended class.
B) His grades were not those typical of what we understand it takes to get into Harvard Law School.
C) He attended Columbia as a foreign exchange student.
D) He paid little for either undergraduate college or Harvard Law School because of foreign aid and scholarships given to a poor foreign students like this kid Barry Soetoro from Indonesia.
If you think I’m “fishing” then prove me wrong. Open up your records Mr. President. What are you afraid of?
If it’s okay for U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to go on a fishing expedition about Romney’s taxes (even though he knows absolutely nothing about them nor will release his own), then I think I can do the same thing. But as Obama’s Columbia Class of ’83 classmate, at least I have more standing to make educated guesses.
It’s time for Mitt to go on the attack and call Obama’s bluff.
Wayne Allyn Root is a former Libertarian vice presidential nominee and the author of “The Conscience of a Libertarian.” Read more at his website: www.ROOTforAmerica.com
-
***"Obama's usual campaign method ... has been to pry into the private records of his opponents. ... One month before the 2004 Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate, Obama was down in the polls, about to lose to Blair Hull, a multimillionaire securities trader. But then the Chicago Tribune leaked the claim that Hull's second ex-wife, Brenda Sexton, had sought an order of protection against him during their 1998 divorce proceedings. ... After having held a substantial lead just a month before the primary, Hull's campaign collapsed with the chatter about his divorce. ... As luck would have it, Obama's opponent in the general election had also been divorced! ... [Jack Ryan] ... made hundreds of millions of dollars as a partner at Goldman Sachs, and then, in his early 40s, left investment banking to teach at an inner city school on the South Side of Chicago. Ryan would have walloped Obama in the Senate race. But at the request of -- again -- the Chicago Tribune, California Judge Robert Schnider unsealed the custody papers in Ryan's divorce five years earlier.... [R]yan dropped out of the race for the horror of (allegedly) propositioning his own wife and then taking 'no' for an answer. ... And that's how Obama became a U.S. senator. ... Obama's team delved into Sarah Palin's marriage and spread rumors of John McCain's alleged affair in 2008 and they smeared Herman Cain in 2011 with hazy sexual harassment allegations all emanating from David Axelrod's pals in Chicago. It's almost like a serial killer's signature.***
Agreed! That is why it is very likely Alexrod is either the leaker of responsible for another person leaking military security issues from the WH to the NYT.
I never thought I would live to see it but these guys are even sleezier than the Clinton team - and they are sleezy.
-
Good post and very good point made by obj on govt programs and ending welfare reform. Pres. Obama seeks to run on Clinton's jobs record yet oppose him on Clinton's jobs agenda.
Speaking of the legs of a stool, with a nudging from Newt and the 1994 electorate, Clinton built some growth success on some solid conservative principles:
a) Capital gains tax rate cuts spurring American investors to invest in America, Obama opposes that, see the Obama-Buffet rule. After-tax tax rates needs to be higher than regular tax rates.
b) Ending the unpopular quest for national health care. He got beat up in the mid term, changed the agenda and sidelined his unpopular wife. Imagine that.
c) "The age of big government is over." Actual quote. At least in rhetoric, there is not a government program that cures all problems.
d) Free trade to grow jobs and build prosperity.
e) "Ending welfare as we know it." The timing was perfect. They messed with comfort of idle welfare at the same time that businesses were begging for workers.
For Obama, he is trying two familiar takes on insanity. Do more of the same in terms of policies for a second term and expecting a different result, and using the opposite strategies to those that grow jobs but expecting job growth to re-appear anyway.
How that can poll above 45% is beyond me.
-
Getting ready for flight to Switzerland.
This by Wesbury seems quite on point to me:
Monday Morning Outlook
________________________________________
The Romney-Ryan Achilles Heel To view this article, Click Here
Brian S. Wesbury - Chief Economist
Bob Stein, CFA - Senior Economist
Date: 8/13/2012
When Mitt Romney chose Rep. Paul Ryan as his running mate he guaranteed that the 2012 presidential race will be about two opposing economic philosophies.
Not even 1980 had such a clear choice. The economy was in recession with double-digit inflation – people demanded change. It’s true that Reagan spoke about getting government off our backs, but President Carter had cut the capital gains tax rate and deregulated both trucking and airlines. Senate Democrats, who ran the Joint Economic Committee, published a report called “Plugging Into the Supply-Side.” Reagan altered the course of America, but he did it with bi-partisan support.
This year, President Obama wants to raise tax rates on the rich and massively expand the government’s role in health care. Senate and House Democrats agree. President Obama has been clear; he believes government’s role in the economy should be larger than it has ever been.
The Romney-Ryan team wants to reform Medicare, Medicaid and President Obama’s health care law. They believe tax rates should be reduced. Vice Presidential candidate Ryan says “Our rights come from nature and God, not government.”
It will be clear to voters which side the candidates are on and, as a result, this election could determine the direction of the American economy for decades to come.
What will make this even more interesting is that Republicans have an Achilles Heel and it is certain that it will be attacked. Back in 2008, during the financial crisis, many Republicans supported TARP – a massive interference in the free market. It was sold as protection against a collapse in the economy caused by toxic assets and greedy bankers.
We think TARP was a mistake. As former Wells Fargo CEO Richard Kovacevich has said, “TARP was one of the greatest economic mistakes ever made in the history of the US. It…caused our citizens to question our entire free market system.” We could not have said it better.
The problem is that by voting for TARP, Republicans admitted that they think we need the government to rescue us from “market failure.” So, Democrats can ask Paul Ryan (who voted for TARP) why he thinks bailing out banks is OK, but why he’s against fixing “market failures” in health care and other sectors.
In Ryan’s defense, at that time he was a member of the minority party. Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House and she decided what came up for a vote. Moreover, there was a bipartisan consensus of “too big to fail.” Congress was told that big banks might fail and, in that situation, not giving them aid would have broken an implicit promise to the markets.
The better free market approach would have been ending overly strict mark to market accounting rules. That was eventually done in March 2009, and the stock market and economy started rebounding almost immediately.
But that wasn’t Ryan’s choice to make in late 2008. Most Republicans ignored the accounting rule and pushed forward in support of a big government bailout.
That bailout (TARP), and what it signifies, is a problem for Republicans. They will have to explain it somehow and still fight for free markets. It’s a headwind they created for themselves, a black mark on their free market credentials. Nonetheless, the differing philosophies of government’s role in the economy are still very clear. 2012 is a huge election.
-
What’s more, even when it comes to cutting the deficit, most Americans don’t believe in doing it exclusively through tax cuts. According to Pew, in fact, even a majority of rank-and-file Republicans prefer cutting the deficit through both tax hikes and spending cuts than doing so through spending cuts alone. And when asked about Medicare spending, Americans want it to go up by a factor of more than 3 to 1. It’s not that most Americans could never stomach any cuts in, or changes to, Medicare, but given how much they value the program, they consider such changes a last resort. And they suspect that right-wing Republicans, given their ideological antipathy to federal domestic spending, consider such cuts a first resort instead.
It’s hard to blame Romney’s advisers for gambling on Ryan. Yes, turning the campaign into a referendum on Medicare cuts doesn’t bring the greatest odds of success. But if you believe Romney was on a losing trajectory already, what was there to lose? Except maybe the House and Senate.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/13/mitt-romney-s-pick-of-paul-ryan-bold-doesn-t-always-work.html
-
I don't think you or the daily beast understand that the people who think they can spend more and more and more and get someone else to pay for it or not pay for it are in Governor Romney's target market in the first place. They already have an app for that!
If you are so certain of the consistency and accuracy of your pushpolling links, then how do you explain the win of Republicans in the most recent election by 7 points nationally with the same choices on the table?
JDN, who would YOU vote for if the election were held today?
-
JDN, who would YOU vote for if the election were held today?
Without getting into an argument, I'll try to answer your question.
I was very unhappy with Bush. Frankly, although I know you disagree, I think Obama inherited many of the current
problems from Bush. Also, the world's economy is in the doldrums; it's not just us. Obama is not that bad. :-)
I, as the article pointed out, believe it should be combination of cuts and tax increases. I believe in protecting the middle class;
I don't think the "rich" will mind nor will it change their lifestyle to pay another 2-3 percent. Further, I think capital gains, frankly
all income should be taxed nearly the same. Romney's 12% tax rate, maybe lower in previous years, and even lower under Ryan's
proposal, doesn't seem right to me when others, i.e. middle class are paying over 30%.
I don't think Romney really understands the middle class. Or has empathy.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/13/opinion/hogue-ryan-romney/index.html
So if I could vote today, I would probably vote for Obama. If McCain had been president, I don't think the economy would be much
better, although he might have acted differently. Yet I would have voted for McCain excecpt for his age AND his absolutely terrible choice
for VP. He's more middle of the road (reasonable) and aligned with my opinion; Romney day by day is going right and further right....
That said, we do need to address Medicare and Social Security (raise the age?). And make some cuts, including the military.
-
Putting aside the Orwellian fictions of baseline budgeting; BO wants to increase spending 9 TRILLION DOLLARS, whereas Ryan seeks a increase of "only" 5 trillion
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/08/economists-to-romney-campaign-thats-not-what-our-research-says/
Mitt's economists not being careful readers of the studies they cite.
-
Thank you JDN; that was a very responsive post. The question was who would you choose today so I have no argument. That is your choice and those are your reasons. The point of my question was that I did not understand all the negativity about Romney if you were still going to vote for him, but if after all we've been through you still support Obama, then your negative feelings about Romney are genuine.
"I think Obama inherited many of the current problems from Bush." - Don't forget the Pelosi-Reid-Obama-Biden congress. We had 4.6% unemployment when Dems took congress not 8.3 or 9 or 10%. It came from Bush. It came from Dems and it came from Dems in congress and it came most elected Republicans who supported to some degree all the same CRAp: a federal program for everything, spending beyond our means, straying from all principles, regulations beyond logic and a government that controls markets and centrally tries to pick winners and losers.
"Also, the world's economy is in the doldrums; it's not just us." - That is a one edged sword? We used to lead the world but now it is that their demise bringing us down. Why not a mention that our wrong-headed policy-based failure to recover is bringing down the world economy?
"I...believe it should be combination of cuts and tax increases." - Just a few weeks ago I thought we agreed to distinguish tax revenue increases and tax rate increases. As Crafty already posted, there are no spending cuts in anyone's proposal so that half is hot air and the historic correlation is with increasing tax revenues by cutting tax rates rather than by increasing them. Years of citing data, links, studies and proof can not trump such likable rhetoric from big government ideologues. Even Obama admits that raising tax rates is about "fairness" not revenues. Four historic examples AGAIN: JFK's ( a Dem) tax rate cuts had a lasting effect, Reagan tax rate cuts doubled revenues within a decade, Clinton-Gingrich capital gain rate cuts led to a balanced budget and even W Bush's rate cuts caused the static scorers to misunderestimate revenues with forecasting shortfall errors in the HUNDREDS of BILLIONS. Oh well. Maybe some else reading these threads got the point.
"I don't think the "rich" will mind nor will it change their lifestyle to pay another 2-3 percent."
- They may not mind it or all vote against it but they do invest and employ less at the margin. "2-3%" is not the increase that is on the table from the Obama administration 2.0. More like a tripling of cumulative tax rates in some cases.
"Further, I think capital gains, frankly all income should be taxed nearly the same."
- I think you mean quadruple-taxed the same; most capital gains have already been taxed at least 2 or 3 times before you figure the 15% additional or whatever that rate becomes. A long term capital gain at anytime in our lifetime has by definition an inflation component to it. Have you EVER taken the time to read, think, understand and agree that continuous devaluation of the dollar is not income?!?!
"Romney's 12% tax rate, maybe lower in previous years, and even lower under Ryan's
proposal, doesn't seem right to me when others, i.e. middle class are paying over 30%."
- The top 20% earners in this country make 50% of the income and pay 70% of the taxes. Any implication that the rich as a group do not pay their share is based on lies and deception. The group that isn't paying their share is the poor and no one is proposing that they do. If you could confiscate every penny earned by the rich you still can't pay for spending at these levels. What perplexes me is your previous support of Huntsman's plan which is markedly to the right of both Romney and Ryan. Huntsman proposed ELIMINATING all federal taxes on capital gains http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/31/news/la-pn-huntsman-economy-20110831 because the income has already been taxed.
"I don't think Romney really understands the middle class." - The middle, median, 50th percentile adult in this country pays ZERO federal individual income tax. The thing that Romney needs to understand, and does, is that killing off investment kills off jobs. What is to understand about anyone who is working his/her tail off except that they might like the opportunity to make more, keep more and not pass on all that debt to their children.
"He's (McCain) more middle of the road (reasonable) and aligned with my opinion; Romney day by day is going right and further right...."
- Obama was the leftmost Senator and our leftmost President. McCain was the most "middle of the road" possible and yet you chose the leftmost over the centrist. Romney was the RINO-most of the Republicans running. Did you not see the hate speech on the far right sites towards him. :wink:He picked a very reasonable and thoughtful running mate (who wants to raise spending by just 5 trillion) and still you prefer the leftmost. That speaks about you, not much about him. I seriously appreciate your very candid comments. No offense but the goal is not to win over people who want the leftmost President to continue to transform, not reform. The goal over on our side is to defeat you. :wink:
-
"I think Obama inherited many of the current
problems from Bush"
The reason Bush was such a big spender was precisely because, he, Rove, and the "compassionate conservative" crowd were trying to keep up with the Democrats in appearing kind, "compassionate", for the "po", for the struggling masses if you will.
It was a spending spree to keep up with the tax and spend Democrats who are relentlessly willing without end to find reasons and ways to tax more and spend more essentially buying off more and more voters. The Bush crowd is clearly fearful that if they don't do something to beat the Crats at their own game the crats will continue to buy off more and more voters as they are successfully doing.
Some years ago I agreed with this supposed compromising strategy. Now I realize it was all misguided. We cannot have two parties competing to spend more taxpayer money to pay for more and more entitlements.
The country is going over a cliff. And the left will never be satisfied till America is driven down to a status like all the other countries. Liberals appear hell bent on the concept that America's wealth and those of the white race must be shared throughout the world. And one central government will control it all.
So Bush was wrong as are all the Bushes.
Romeny choice in Ryan was sound. We make a stand now or we can kiss the country goodbye. The stricter conservatives are right in my view.
JDN, afrter reading your posts for years, I don't recall you ever spending any serious time bashing Democrats. You always find ways to bash Republicans.
Why don't you just say tyou are a Democrt and of course you will vote for Obama. Just get it over with. Why try to kid us aftera ll these years. You certainly want big brother entitlements. Your posts for years reflect this.
-
"Some years ago I agreed with this supposed compromising strategy."
Yes, Dr. CCP was my formerly favorite moderate on the board. :-)
We used to argue the merits of smaller government versus bigger government, compromising with big spenders versus not. Now we argue big government versus going bigger and bigger and bigger with no idea whatsoever how to pay for it. Can't we get 51% or so to settle for just big government at all levels instead of total control of all aspects of our lives?
As posted, taking a 4 trillion/year out of control spending habit, keeping all of it and increasing it by 5 trillion over 10 years is still considered hard right politics and pushing Granny over the cliff.
-
Yes, Doug. I recall our discussions on this issue. I was wrong. There is no compromise with liberals. There is no end to their demands. We have gigantic government now. ****Endless**** entitlements programs, government programs, government organizations. Yet their prescription is to tax and spend and expand this even more!
We cannot compromise. We already have. There simply is no compromise. Stop it now or we are done.
In medicine every single thing I do is or will be scrutinized at *industrial* assembly line quality control levels. Every single thing I say, I write, I do, every decision, every move, everything I don't do will collected sent stored and analyzed by people who will credit, discredit, reward, punish, pay for, refuse to pay for, make public, correct, make me redo, question, critique, "approve", not "approve", warn, and more.
If not enough, one false move, one mistake, I can be sued for years.
I am used to this in medicine. It gets sworse not better everyday. But,
I don't want this for the rest of my life's endeavors. I don't want my car black boxed. I don't want my electric bill evaluated for the wrong usage, my water bill scrutinized for the amount of flushes, or my grocery bill scrutinized and taxed because obama doesn't approve of my food choices.
Despite all this I work several months a year to have it confiscated and doled out to the predominantly Democratic parties pet constituencies who of course vote them right back in office.
The Democrat party comeback is,
I should pay more taxes, shut the fuck up, because I might be accused of being a biggoted white boy, who had the God damn nerve to have had the ood fortunebrought up in a good (we were confortable but not rich) and nurturing family.
Am I angry, your damn right I am.
I have had enough!
-
Doug, just to address a few points. I like Huntsman overall for many reasons, not to mention he was the most qualified, but as to his tax plan you fail to mention that he would do away with nearly ALL tax deductions; I've been saying that since day one. Romney wants his cake and to eat it too; he wants to lower the capital tax rate AND keep the cushy deductions.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/276231/huntsman-absolutely-no-deductions-tax-plan-katrina-trinko
I would have voted for Huntsman if he was now running.
I like compromise. Even Reagan compromised a lot, but people on the right seem to forget that.
As for McCain, I like his centralism. And integrity. But especially given his age, his choice for VP was very important to me. Palin was an atrocious choice, almost a joke; frankly, I think many Republicans agree with me.
Back to my point; even Romney when he was governor was basically a centrist.
But every year since he has gone further right; now during this election he's about to fall off, or maybe he's being pushed, the right wing cliff. Too bad....
-
"Economists to Romney campaign: That’s not what our research says"
Bigdog, Thanks for posting that. It is not that uncommon that economists don't like the conclusions that others draw from their research. The headline is quite clear but the arguments made by Ezra Klein of the Washington Post that follow seem quite convoluted to me, and there were far more than 3 economists quoted in that piece.
I'm glad we are trying to hold both sides accountable. The study (Tax Policy Center) currently being cited by Obama regarding the Romney economic plan is one of the most deceptive I have seen in years of watching deception, and the main attack still levied against Paul Ryan on Medicare was awarded Politifact's 2011 Lie of the Year Award, not exactly a right wing organization. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/dec/20/lie-year-democrats-claims-republicans-voted-end-me/
Ezra Klein: "Hubbard, Mankiw, Taylor and Hassett make three main points: The first is that this recovery has been terribly slow, even by the standards of post-financial crisis recoveries. The second is that the Obama administration made a grievous error by relying on (spending) stimulus. And the third is that Romney’s tax and economic plans would usher in an era of rapid growth that would both be good for the country and provide the boost to revenues and employment necessary to make their numbers work out." - So far, so good. Should have stopped there IMO.
“This recession is really quite different,” Bordo said. But he didn’t see government policy as the obvious cause. - That is absurd IMHO and not at all studied or proven in the research cited.
"Both Sufi and Bordo agree that the housing market was at the core of this recession..."
- Nothing about houses, 2x4's, roofs or siding caused or the bubble or the collapse. It was the government policies toward creation of money and lending on houses without regard to creditworthiness or logic that led to the insanity. Mortgages were 90% federal and the rest were all under the complete jurisdiction of botched federal regulations.
Klein regarding economist Bordo: But when I probed whether Bordo was implicitly criticizing the Obama administration’s housing policies, he essentially shrugged. “We didn’t have massive government intervention in it anyway,” he says.
What?? 90% control of mortgages and moratoriums on foreclosures including the 10% they didn't control along with infusions of trillions and lending based on non-creditworthiness considerations, this is not massive government intervention?? Nonsense, and also NOT IN THE STUDY.
The only quote in the paper from Bordo that I saw is that "a slow growth recovery is not inevitable". http://www.docstoc.com/docs/125714335/Romney-Tax-Reform-White-Paper That is fair conclusion one could make looking at 26 cycles studied in the research paper that Bordo co-authored and pretty close to their own conclusion: "Our analysis of the data shows that steep expansions tend to follow deep contractions, though this depends heavily on when the recovery is measured. In contrast to much conventional wisdom, the stylized fact that deep contractions breed strong recoveries is particularly true when there is a financial crisis. In fact, on average, it is cycles without a financial crisis that show the weakest relation between contraction depth and recovery strength." http://media.hoover.org/sites/default/files/documents/Bordo-Haubrich-Steep-Paper-SNB%209_7.pdf (This contraction most certainly had a financial crisis!) If Bordo now contends that this slow recovery was inevitable, then maybe he is satisfied with current economic growth. The rest of us aren't. Pretending that what is wrong in this economy today is about housing when nearly everyone has a house and houses are arguably still overvalued is absurd, and not demonstrated in the study. Isn't ousing construction according to Wesbury is growing faster than the rest of the economy anyway?
4 years past Bush we are on a glidepath to never solving our problems without changing leadership and changing direction and making serious governmental reforms. Meanwhile Ezra Klein with an unhidden agenda writes about shiny objects, over here!
The current policy direction arrow on all major Obama policies is anti-growth. Other goals, Pres. Obama's quest for 'fairness' and his propensity to give goodies to targeted constituent groups, are paramount to seeking enterprise driven growth in all policy considerations as far as I can see.
The way you recover housing is to allow incomes to grow. The way you grow incomes is to allow economic freedoms to expand. These policies are aimed entirely in the opposite direction. This is Decline by Design no matter how it is spun. MHO
-
JDN, you crack me up. Accepting spending at the 4 trillion level and increasing it over 10 years by 5 trillion is not failure to compromise; that is utter hogwash. It is the other side that failed to compromise to the point of governing by czar, by executive order and by passing transformational legislation without attracting a single crossover vote. So that can't be your real yardstick. Like CCP said, you just need to admit it; you are one of them. :wink:
[Romney] "during this election he's about to fall off, or maybe he's being pushed, the right wing cliff"
FWIW, the right wing, tea party, fiscal conservative, expanding individual liberty, returning to founding, limited government principles movement is not the cliff. Nice try. We don't want to stop you from driving a Prius, giving to the poor, choosing your doctor, changing your work schedule or eating an organic french fry. The status quo is the cliff. Stay on it and the next generation is bankrupt.
-
"It is not that uncommon that economists don't like the conclusions that others draw from their research."
A few things, Doug:
1. So? Isn't it possible that it isn't uncommon because people don't understand the article?
2. Really? I know several economists, and not one of them has ever said this to me.
3. As an academic, I find it flattering when my work is cited (I was recommended reading for the Obama transition team... pretty neat!). I think I would be frustrated if my work was used to support something I didn't say, or even something contrary to what I said. You don't find it somewhat disconcerting that the majority of the economists cited don't support the position taken?
-
I found the title disconcerting enough to look into it. I did not find the distinctions made by the economists to be so. I posted links and exact quotes. In the Bordo example the research was the in-depth data about 26 downturns and recoveries collected and presented. The analysis is what different economists make of that. That the analysis would come out differently would not be disconcerting, but as quoted it did not seem to be very much different. I disagree strongly with interview points made by Bordo, that this is not a policy caused downturn for example and the implication that 1.5% growth (economic decline) is all that is possible now because of the static nature of housing. I agree very strongly with Prof. Taylor that robust growth is possible right now with the right policy mix. Looked to me like it was Bordo disagreeing with conclusions in his own co-authored study that I quoted verbatim in my post. Why? I don't know but it would seem he wanted to distance himself from any implication that he was endorsing Romney's plan. It is clear that he isn't. Klein reports that two economists differing with the Romney plan also disagree with each other. Not uncommon, but the data one researched on recoveries and the other on the negative effect of cash for clunkers I still find relevant and helpful.
Constitutional law I think is a perfect analogy. Wouldn't it be possible that two reasonable and honest Justices could hear and quote the same oral testimony or written argument or empirical study but draw a different conclusion?
In economics the example that comes to my mind is a paper published by Christina Romer in June 2010 "The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates Based on a New Measure of Fiscal Shocks" arguably making the case that any significant 'fiscal shock' could push the fragile recovery back into recession just as the administration was fighting to do exactly that with tax rate increases. I don't think the intent of her work was to give backing to administration opponents but it did and she was out of that job as chief economic adviser to the President in a matter of days. Later the President backed temporarily away from that policy for the same reasons. (http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~dromer/papers/RomerandRomerAERJune2010.pdf)
------
Very cool to be cited by the transition team! If you are willing to send any links to your writings by private message I promise to respect your privacy and anonymity on the board.
-
Doug: Decidedly helpful, thank you. I appreciate your response, and always, I enjoy the discussion.
-
http://www.c-span.org/Campaign2012/Events/Former-Obama-Campaign-Co-Chairman-Campaigns-for-Mitt-Romney/10737433188-1/
-
Freedom or free stuff (while it lasts)
Choose one.
-
Mitt Romney: What I Learned at Bain Capital
My business experience taught me how to help companies grow—and what to do when trouble arises. When you see a problem, run toward it before the problem gets worse..
Article Comments (394) more in Opinion | Find New $LINKTEXTFIND$ ».
smaller Larger facebooktwittergoogle pluslinked ininShare.27EmailPrintSave ↓ More .
.
smaller Larger
By MITT ROMNEY
The back-to-school season is here, and as parents take their children to shop for school supplies, I suspect that many of them will be visiting a Staples store. I'm very familiar with those stores because Staples is one of many businesses we helped create and expand at Bain Capital, a firm that my colleagues and I built. The firm succeeded by growing and fixing companies.
The lessons I learned over my 15 years at Bain Capital were valuable in helping me turn around the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. They also helped me as governor of Massachusetts to turn a budget deficit into a surplus and reduce our unemployment rate to 4.7%. The lessons from that time would help me as president to fix our economy, create jobs and get things done in Washington.
A broad message emerges from my Bain Capital days: A good idea is not enough for a business to succeed. It requires a talented team, a good business plan and capital to execute it. That was true of companies we helped start, like Staples and the Bright Horizons child-care provider, and several of the struggling companies we helped turn around, like the Brookstone retailer and the contact-lens maker Wesley Jessen.
My presidency would make it easier for entrepreneurs and small businesses to get the investment dollars they need to grow, by reducing and simplifying taxes; replacing Obamacare with real health-care reform that contains costs and improves care; and by stemming the flood of new regulations that are tying small businesses in knots.
My business experience confirmed my belief in empowering people. For example, at Bain Capital we bought Accuride, a company that made truck rims and wheels, because we saw untapped potential there. We instituted performance bonuses for the management team, which had a dramatic impact. The managers made the plants more productive, and the company started growing, adding 300 jobs while Bain was involved. My faith in people, not government, is at the foundation of my plan to strengthen America's middle class.
I also saw firsthand through these investments how energy costs impact the ability of a business to grow. Today, energy costs are weighing on job creators across America because President Obama has limited energy exploration and restricted development in ways that sap economic performance, curtail growth, and kill jobs. I will take a sensible approach to tapping our energy resources, which will both create jobs and make energy more affordable for every sector of our economy.
Enlarge Image
Close
Bloomberg
.
In the 1990s, when the "old-technology" steel industry in the U.S. was failing, Bain Capital helped build a new steel company, Steel Dynamics, which has grown into one of the largest steel producers in America today, holding its own against Chinese producers. The key to its success? State-of-the-art new technology.
Here are two lessons from the Steel Dynamics story: First, innovation is essential to the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing. We are the most innovative, entrepreneurial nation in the world. To maintain that lead, we must give people the skills to succeed. My plan for a stronger middle class includes policies to give every family access to great schools and quality teachers, to improve access to higher education, and to attract and retain the best talent from around the world.
The second lesson is that we must have a level playing field in international trade. As president, I will challenge unfair trade practices that are harming American workers.
Running a business also brings lessons in tackling challenges. I was on the board of a medical diagnostic-laboratory company, Damon, when a competitor announced that it had settled with the government over a charge of fraudulent Medicare billing. I and fellow Damon outside board members joined together and immediately hired an independent law firm to examine Damon's own practices.
The investigation revealed a need to make some changes, which we did. The company, along with several other clinical-laboratory companies, ended up being fined for billing practices. And a Damon manager who was responsible for the fraud went to jail. The experience taught me that when you see a problem, run toward it or it will only get worse.
That will be my approach to our federal budget problem. I am committed to capping federal spending below 20% of GDP and reducing nondefense discretionary spending by 5%. This will surely result in much wailing and gnashing of teeth in Washington. But a failure of leadership has created our debt crisis, and ducking responsibility will only cripple the economy and smother opportunity for our children and grandchildren.
I'm not sure Bain Capital could have grown or turned around some of the companies we invested in had we faced today's anti-business environment. Andy Puzder, the chief executive of CKE Restaurants Inc., which employs about 21,000 people at Carl's Jr. and Hardee's restaurants, has said that the "current unfriendly economic environment perhaps best explains why American companies are sitting on over $2 trillion which they could invest."
President Obama has piled on excessive regulations, proposed massive tax increases, added more than $5 trillion in federal debt, and failed to address the coming fiscal cliff—all of which is miring our nation in sluggish growth and high unemployment.
I know what it takes to turn around difficult situations. And I will put that experience to work, to get our economy back on track, create jobs, strengthen the middle class and lay the groundwork for America's increased competitiveness in the world.
Mr. Romney is the Republican Party candidate for president.
-
Second post of morning
Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan weighs in:
smaller Larger facebooktwittergoogle pluslinked ininShare.1EmailPrintSave ↓ More .
.
smaller Larger
It is good that Joe Biden is going to the Republican National Convention to hold high the flag of his party. People make fun of his gaffes, of his embarrassing verbal forays, but he's no fool and he knows how to take it to the other guy. The speech he is working on, to be given in the heart of downtown, just across from the convention site, will be stirring and stentorian: "All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Tampa, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words, 'Ich bin ein Tampon.'"
I wish that were mine. It came in the mail from a Hollywood screenwriter, one of the gifted conservatives who quietly toil there.
***
Enlarge Image
Close
Associated Press
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his wife Ann in Schaumburg, Ill., in March.
.
This, amazingly enough, is how the campaign feels at the moment: both neck and neck and wide open. A week ago a longtime elected official, who's been making the rounds in his swing state, told me he thought the national polls were correct and yet wrong. Americans are telling pollsters they've already made up their minds, they know who they're for. But, he said, he's seeing a number of people who don't feel fully satisfied with their decision, who aren't certain they've made the right choice. They may change their minds. "Ten or 15%", he guessed, "are still persuadable," still open to argument.
If he is right, that's big. It would be in line with the singular nature of this election year, and would explain what has been, so far, a fervor deficit.
***
So, Tampa. No one can guess the highlights in advance, but some hopes:
That Gov. Chris Christie brings his Garden State brio, that he is bodacious, funny and pointed, and that people say, the next day, "Man, Obama—Christie really opened up a can of Jersey on him."
That Sen. Rob Portman, whom many thought would, like Mr. Christie, have been a very solid vice presidential nominee, will get the best kind of revenge, which is constructive revenge. He is well placed to do for Mitt Romney what Ronald Reagan did for Barry Goldwater in 1964, which was make the case better than the nominee ever did.
It would be good to see Sen. Marco Rubio and talk about the meaning of things, the meaning of politics. He's a young man in the big game. Why?
Paul Ryan will be exciting, somehow you know that in advance. But he should perhaps keep in the back of his mind something that hasn't been mentioned much. People are saying—not as a criticism, not as a compliment, but musingly—two words: "He's young."
They've just had a bad experience with young, with President Obama. Mr. Ryan stands for big change in terms of programs, and people will be inclined to want some years in such a person. So he and his people should consider that 42 can be a plus or a minus, and think about how to enhance the former and lessen the latter.
***
How will voters judge Mr. Romney's speech? The answer comes in some questions:
Is it fresh? Is it true? Does it substantiate—add substance to—what we think we know of Mitt Romney? Does it deepen and broaden our understanding of him? Does it make us, as we listen, begin to see him as a possible president? Presidents are in our face 24 hours a day now. Is this someone we'd let in our living rooms for four years? Can he inspire?
Free advice is worth the price, and here goes:
If you want to lead America, you have to speak to the fix we're in, and that means addressing spending. But economic probity has a friend called economic growth, and that is what people care so much about—jobs, opportunity, the competitive advantage conferred by good policies. Are we a vital nation able to grow, to take on our true size again?
Emphasis is everything. Emphasize dynamism.
Mr. Romney shouldn't just repeat what he thinks but tell people why he thinks it, what life has taught him that formed his views.
He shouldn't shy away from religion. Why should he? This is America. It was in the practice of his faith that Mr. Romney came, as a bishop of the Mormon church, to become involved in helping those with lives very different from his own. In an interview Thursday night on the Catholic network EWTN, he told anchor Raymond Arroyo that as a "small-p pastor" he learned a great deal about those who feel under siege, lonely, left out. What did he learn? How did his church help him learn it?
He must use humor, for three reasons. One is that wit breaks through and sharpens all points. Another is that it is natural to him. Before the voting in Iowa, he wryly told a friend that the caucuses were like the LaBrea Tar Pits: "No one comes out the way they went in." On a conference call recently, he asked a question of his staff. No one answered. Mr. Romney waited. "Bueller? Bueller?" he said, in a perfect imitation of Ben Stein.
More Peggy Noonan
Read Peggy Noonan's previous columns
click here to order her book, Patriotic Grace
.
Third, President Obama can't stand to be made fun of. His pride won't allow it, his amour propre cannot countenance a joke at his own expense. If Mr. Romney lands a few very funny lines about the president's leadership, Mr. Obama will freak out. That would be fun, wouldn't it?
A small point with practical significance. Convention crowds are revved up. They want to stomp and cheer. During Mr. Romney's speech, they'll go crazy applauding and yelling. This is fun in the hall but tedious for the viewer at home. At some point Mr. Romney should signal, by his demeanor and through his text, that everyone should calm down so he can talk to America. Applause line, cheers, applause line—that's not political discourse, it's a ticket to nowhere.
***
Finally, the big broadcast networks plan to give the Republicans (and the Democrats) only one hour a night of TV coverage.
They used to give all night, long as it took, and treat the proceedings with respect. What they give now, to the people of a great democracy fighting for its economic life in an uncertain world, is . . . an hour a night? For a national political convention?
This is a scandal. Mock them for it. This isn't Edward R. Murrow in charge of the news, it's Gordon Gekko in charge of programming.
***
Much is uncertain, no one knows what will happen this year, how it will turn out. But when I think of Mr. Romney's speech I find myself thinking of Alan Shepard.
It's May 5, 1961, in Cape Canaveral, Fla., and everyone's fussing. This monitor's blinking and that one's beeping and Shepard is up there, at the top of a Redstone rocket, in a tiny little capsule called Friendship 7. Mission Control is hemming and hawing: Should we stay or should we go? Finally Shepard says: "Why don't you fix your little problem and light this candle?"
That's what a good speech and a good convention right now can do. There's a great race ahead. Make it come alive. Come on and light this candle.
-
Third post of morning
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?feature=player_embedded&v=-Czo5Vf8KZs
-
It is good that Joe Biden is going to the Republican National Convention to hold high the flag of his party. People make fun of his gaffes, of his embarrassing verbal forays, but he's no fool and he knows how to take it to the other guy. The speech he is working on, to be given in the heart of downtown, just across from the convention site, will be stirring and stentorian: "All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Tampa, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words, 'Ich bin ein Tampon.'"
Very funny.
-
The Republican Party has decided to postpone the opening due to Isaac.
-
www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSez25yb_g0&feature=player_embedded#!
-
Peggy Noonan's Blog
Daily declarations from the Wall Street Journal columnist.
Search Peggy Noonan's Blog1 . Aug 29, 2012
1:44 AM Ann Romney and Chris ChristieTags
Campaign 2012
A read on the first night of the convention:
They lit the candle. They got past the ill luck of the storm and declared there’s a convention going on.
Ann Romney was stunning, sweet, full of enthusiasm, a little shy, a little game for the battle. Her speech was fine. I think the headline was that she and Mitt got married young, lived in modest circumstances and struggled a bit while he studied and tried to get a foothold in business. But it was scattered, full of declarations — “Tonight I want to talk to you about love” — that weren’t built upon but abandoned. Strong as the impression of personal beauty is, I think she missed an opportunity.
Here’s how I see it. I have just spent the past two and a half days talking to people who’ve known Mitt Romney well for ten, twenty and thirty years, even more. They love him, and in all their conversations they say either literally or between the lines, “If only you knew him like I do.” It is their mantra. They mean it, and they are so frustrated. They believe he is a person of unique and natural integrity, a kind man who will give you not only his money but his time, his energy. They see him as a leader. They know the public doesn’t see this. They don’t understand why. And, actually, I don’t blame them, because it really is a bit of a mystery. If he’s so good why can’t his goodness be communicated?
The opportunity Ann Romney missed was to provide first person testimony that is new, that hasn’t been spoken, that hasn’t been in the books and the magazine articles. She failed to make it new and so she failed to make it real.
I’m not sure her speech was a loss but it doesn’t feel like a gain. We’ll see. The real reaction to a highly publicized speech emerges not overnight on twitter but over days and weeks as people chat in the office and on the sidewalk in front of school. So we’ll see what they say, we’ll see how it bubbles up.
*
Chris Christie’s speech was big. It was hopeful. It said the American people can turn their country around, that they actually want candidates who speak the truth, that they will follow difficult prescriptions if they seem grounded in reality. Christie always reminds me a little of Jackie Gleason — “To the moon, Alice!” But he is one shrewd political mind, and he actually thinks about the meaning of things. He played the common man Tuesday night but he was high minded, and he beautifully skewered the hypocrites and reactionaries in the teachers’ unions, who have made it so clear to so many the past decade that really, they are all about pensions and bennies, not about students, and if you don’t like the longterm cost of the deals they make with pols you can just avoid the property taxes by selling your house and going to rent somewhere. They don’t care where because there will be a teacher’s union there, too.
So look, all of this was good, and right, and big. But.
Chris Christie is a politician and there’s nothing in it for him, as a New Jersey Republican, as a guy trying to survive and prosper in a Democratic state, in really bringing it to President Obama. He stuck to thoughts on governance. This was worthy.
But you know, this is how the Republican base feels: No one classy and admired like Chris Christie has ever taken it to Obama and been as tough a partisan as, say, Joe Biden, or as amusing and pointed as — well, actually, I can’t think at the moment of a truly pointed and funny Democrat, but whoever that person is would be is the person I mean.
Republicans aren’t really hungry for red meat, that’s not what this is about. They’re hungry for someone who is an elected official at a high level, and who is admired, to push back, to have fun, to stir the blood, to make the case, to get the troops going again.
I want to tell you they marched out of the hall Tuesday night on fire for their side. But I was there and they did not. They walked out like people who weren’t quite sure what to think or how to feel but were hoping for the best because they love their country. A lot.
-
second post:
Inside the GOP's Tampa convention hall this week, one prominent feature is a debt clock ticking toward $16 trillion. With due respect to that horrifying number, it's the wrong figure to watch. What Mitt Romney and the GOP need above all is a growth clock and a persuasive case for economic revival.
Most Americans have concluded that Obamanomics is a failure, but polls also show that independent voters remain skeptical that either party has an answer to the malaise of the Obama and latter Bush years. This cynicism plays into the hands of President Obama, who is trying to convince Americans that 1.5% growth and 42 months of more than 8% unemployment is the best we could have expected.
Our view has long been that Republicans have the best chance of winning when they make the growth message their top priority. That's especially true this year. The Reaganites had it right: Rapid economic growth causes the deficit and debt to fall, not the other way around.
Without a sustained recovery in national output to 3% growth or more and without putting millions more Americans back to work, there is no politically feasible spending reduction or tax increase that could balance the budget even if Ron Paul ran Congress. Tax revenues have remained below 16% of GDP for the last four years because the economy is in a slow growth rut. The growth deficit, not the budget deficit, is the great issue of our time.
The Reagan years offer an instructive history, because the economy's troubles in the 1970s and the steep drop in real middle-class incomes (some $4,000 per household since 2009) were so similar to today's. Reagan put pro-growth tax cuts and a rebuilt military ahead of his ambitions to balance the budget, and he was right.
After his tax cuts fully kicked in on January 1, 1983, annual growth averaged some 4% over five years, while employment gains were swift and long-lasting. The deficit fell in half from a peak of 6% of GDP in 1983 to under 3% in 1989.
The temporary surge in federal borrowing that the media fretted so much about at the time was dwarfed by private asset and wealth gains as national net worth doubled. Annual tax revenues soared to nearly $1 trillion in 1989 from $517 billion in 1980 with much lower tax rates.
The pattern continued in the 1990s, after the mild recession of 1990-91 and a decline in the rate of growth in the Clinton tax increase year of 1993. The real reasons the budget balanced by the end of that decade were the peace dividend after the Cold War ended, spending restraint mid-decade after the GOP took Congress in 1994, and above all another burst of economic growth. Revenue surged into the Treasury from 1996-2000, including a wave of capital gains after the tax rate was cut to 20% from 28% in 1997.
Even the last decade produced a revenue surge after the much-maligned 2003 investment tax-rate cuts—the rates Mr. Obama wants to raise. Revenues increased in nominal dollars by more than in any previous four-year period until the housing bubble burst.
Consider what would happen if economic growth increased today to what it would be in a normal economic expansion—about twice what Mr. Obama has delivered. That return to prosperity would raise far more revenue for Uncle Sam than the panoply of Mr. Obama's planned estate, capital gains, dividend and income tax hikes.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that each increase of 1% in GDP means $2.78 trillion more in revenue over a decade. Nearly every problem known to man is more solvable with a larger economy—and what better gift to leave our heirs.
Getty Images
.
***
This is not to say that cutting spending and reforming entitlements aren't necessary or economically beneficial. The Obama era is different than the Jimmy Carter days because the baby boomers are that much closer to retirement and health-care spending has increased enormously. Our debt burden as a share of the economy is also higher.
So spending restraint is crucial. Under Mr. Obama, federal spending has taken between 24% and 25% of GDP for four years, higher than the recent average of about 19% or 20%. This spending share will rise rapidly once ObamaCare kicks in and if Mr. Obama's other budget priorities prevail.
Mr. Romney is promising to reduce spending to 20% of GDP over time, which means taking it back to where it was in 2007. This is achievable. Meanwhile, Paul Ryan's Medicare reform offers the promise of slowing the increase in health-care spending in the long run.
But none of this will be possible politically without the ballast of faster growth and rising incomes. And that is why Mr. Romney and the GOP need to resist what former Buffalo Congressman and supply-side evangelist Jack Kemp used to call "root canal" Republicanism. The road to revival doesn't require a prescription of pain, suffering and tax increases. This brand of Republicanism repels voters, which is why it makes liberals cheer.
Messrs. Romney and Ryan have a defensible economic revival plan—marginal-rate tax reductions and reform, regulatory relief, sound money, and an energy policy to promote domestic production. American entrepreneurs, workers and investors will do the hard work. What they need to hear from Republicans in this election campaign are specific pro-growth policies and a message of optimism that they know how to regain America's lost prosperity.
-
Third post
On the Web: http://patriotpost.us/editions/14565/
Printer Friendly: http://patriotpost.us/editions/14565/print
PDF Version: http://pdf.patriotpost.us/2012-08-29-chronicle-2eb91c04.pdf
-------------
The Foundation
"[A] wise and frugal government ... shall restrain men from injuring one another,
shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and
improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.
This is the sum of good government." --Thomas Jefferson
-------------
Editorial Exegesis
"n Tampa, the Republicans have an opportunity to make stark the contrast between
fear and facts, by making their convention -- and the Romney/Ryan candidacy -- about
something good. The convention not only needs to give an attractive picture to the
country of who Mitt Romney is, and who Republicans are, but also of who
conservatives think Americans are and aspire to be. Aspiration is the key. The
Democrats have a habit of presenting Americans as passive victims of tragedy in need
of government succor. Some people do need government assistance, of course, but most
Americans do not see themselves as powerless in the face of forces beyond their
control. They have goals and ambitions. They don't need help from the government so
much as they need obstacles removed, and institutions reformed so as to facilitate
rather than frustrate or threaten their plans. In making the case that America is on
the wrong track and in need of new leadership, it will be tempting -- sorely so --
to emphasize the incumbent's failures. But it is crucial that Republicans point out
that the obstacles and dysfunctional institutions standing in Americans' way precede
Obama, even if he has in some cases made them worse and in others failed to do
anything about them. This account will be more plausible for voters than one that
implicitly or explicitly blames Obama for everything bad in American life, or that
could be read to suggest that rolling back the Obama years (and thus returning to
those of you-know-who) would simply fix everything. As much as it is said that the
election is a referendum on Obama, the American people will not deliver a mandate to
a negation. [This week] in Tampa, Republicans have a singular opportunity to
demonstrate what they are for. It should not be wasted." --National Review
(http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/315053/tampa-timbre-editors )
-------------
Upright
"[Ann] Romney succeeded in conveying to the audience in the hall -- and, the
campaign hopes, to the millions watching on television -- her love for her husband,
her belief in his essential goodness, and, perhaps most importantly, her implicit
faith in his abilities. 'This man will not fail,' she assured the audience near the
end of her speech. 'This man will not let us down.' Mrs. Romney clearly believes
that if she were flying in a plane, and the pilot died from a heart attack, Mitt
Romney would find a way to land the plane safely. She wanted to communicate that
faith to the audience, and she did." --Washington Examiner's Byron York
"When politicians said anything that suggested women working outside the home were
neglecting their children ... they bristled with anger. 'Choice!' they screamed.
Abortion must forever and ever be not only legal but celebrated and endorsed. Ann
Romney presented a different view, one that I suspect makes a lot more sense for
women under 50 and those over that age who never became advocates of the 'choice'
movement. She showed that she shared the everyday experience of mothers, married and
single, pro-choice and pro-life. An illuminating picture, one worth reflecting on
for all of us." --political analyst Michael Barone
"[Chris] Christie's speech ... I thought was a mild disappointment. It was clearly
rushed at the end and felt undisciplined and self-indulgent throughout (it took a
very long time to mention the nominee). I loved the themes of the Christie's speech,
however, and I think that the Romney campaign wanted different things from these
speeches than I was looking for. Both Ann Romney and Christie seemed to be working
harder at bolstering the Republican brand than the Mitt brand. Perhaps the target
audiences they're going after need to be seduced into feeling okay to vote
Republican before they can be convinced to vote for Romney. That's a good ambition,
it seems to me, and if these speeches worked to that end that's great. Mildly
disappointing those ... looking for more red meat is a small price to pay."
--columnist Jonah Goldberg
-
I thought Ryan's speech last night was GREAT!
==========
WSJ:
A funny thing didn't happen on the way to Paul Ryan's rousing speech Wednesday night accepting the GOP nomination for Vice President. The Republican ticket hasn't sunk in the polls, Democrats haven't nationalized the race around Medicare to their advantage, and seniors haven't fled Mitt Romney in droves.
All of those outcomes were predicted with utter certainty by the great political sages when Mr. Romney selected Mr. Ryan on that mid-August weekend. Go back to the videotape for the August 12 Sunday talk shows. Many Republicans—some in Mr. Romney's own campaign—said the same thing sotto voce. (We know who you are.)
Enlarge Image
CloseAssociated Press/Charles Dharapak
Republican vice presidential candidate, Rep. Paul Ryan
.So far they've all been exactly wrong, as the polls show Mr. Romney having closed the gap against President Obama not only in Mr. Ryan's native Wisconsin but in Florida, Ohio and Virginia. On Medicare, an issue that Democrats usually dominate, Mr. Romney is battling to a draw at worst and is nearly even among voters on which candidate is most trusted. This hasn't happened since the dawn of the entitlement age.
Paul Ryan formally accepted his party's nomination for vice president in Tampa, Florida Wednesday night before thousands of cheering Republicans and blamed President Obama for a sluggish economy.
.What's going on? The Romney campaign deserves credit for staging an Inchon landing by skillfully using ObamaCare to go on offense against Mr. Obama on Medicare. Liberals and the reporters they dine with still can't bring themselves to believe that their historic achievement is unpopular, so they and the press corps refuse to admit that the Affordable Care Act has changed the entitlement debate.
But retirees know that Mr. Obama robbed Medicare's accounts to make ObamaCare's budget impact look benign. And even if they can't follow the deliberately convoluted details of phony Beltway bookkeeping, they are learning that Mr. Obama's Medicare "cuts" are immediate and Mr. Ryan's reforms won't apply to anyone over age 55. The Obama campaign won't give up on Mediscare, but it has been caught unprepared.
Mr. Ryan has also performed better on the national stage than even many of his supporters anticipated. Even Democrats have had to concede he's no lightweight and does his homework. He has put a new, youthful face on the Republican Party, and his earnest enthusiasm is a walking refutation of Democratic claims that he's a Randian radical. He looks and sounds like Janesville.
The latest assault is that Mr. Ryan won the genetic lottery, has no feeling for his fellow man, and thus wrote a budget that grinds down the less fortunate. These attacks will be on full display next week in Charlotte, especially now that it has become clear that Mr. Romney might win.
The best response to these attacks is for Mr. Ryan to keep showcasing his natural optimism and Midwestern equanimity, as he did on Wednesday. Mr. Ryan had the difficult job of introducing himself to a public that barely knows him while also fulfilling the running mate's traditional job of dismantling the record of his opponents.
He did the first by focusing on his family, his Wisconsin roots and by paying tribute to his mentor, the late Jack Kemp. On the latter, he showed the ability to expose the President's failures more in sorrow than in anger. His line about jobless college graduates in their 20s "staring up at fading Obama posters" in their childhood bedrooms is the line of the campaign and was Reaganesque in its subtle but still withering truth. This sets up Mr. Romney to offer his own positive vision and agenda on Thursday.
Perhaps the best explanation for Mr. Ryan's impact on the race may be how it has changed perceptions of the man at the top of the ticket. Nearly everyone had expected Mitt Romney, the cautious technocrat and political calculator, to make the "safe" pick. In choosing Mr. Ryan, the Governor showed both a political daring as a candidate and a seriousness about governing if he wins.
This has motivated the GOP base, in case it needed any more motivating. But it doesn't seem to have hurt among independents, who can appreciate a candidate who seems sincere and unafraid in his desire to address the country's serious problems.
Mr. Romney has had a hard time inspiring enthusiasm less because of his personality than because his candidacy has seemed more a personal crusade than a cause. In choosing Mr. Ryan, Mr. Romney gave Americans hope that he is trying to rally the country for the larger purpose of greater freedom and national revival.
=============
-
"I thought Ryan's speech last night was GREAT!"
That was my reaction as well. Vision and clarity. More important might be what a real swing voter thought of it.
I am looking for a home run-grand slam from Romney tonight. The stage is set for really laying out a contrast and an opposing vision in a very Reaganesque way. Friendly audience, perfect timing, doesn't need to go through Gwen Eifel or Charlie Gibson or anyone else to talk directly with the American people.
We will see.
-
George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan
Follow Peter Drucker's advice: Don't solve problems, pursue opportunities. Like unlocking America's entrepreneurial value.
(WSJ excerpt, please subscribe at https://buy.wsj.com/offers/html/offerN.html?trackCode=aap3ejic for full coverage)
By GEORGE GILDER
Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan could soon be facing a David Stockman moment. Mr. Stockman was President Reagan's young, first-term budget director assigned the titanic task of retrenching government spending in the midst of the Cold War. In this role, he made the covers of all the most fashionable magazines as "Mack the Knife" or some other compassionless conservative slashing the growth rate of federal spending to a Dickensian 2% above the inflation rate.
Yet Mr. Stockman ended up capitulating to his critics, abandoning supply-side economics as a naïve mistake, and skulking off to write books and articles about the virtues of "spreading the wealth around."
Mr. Stockman has re-emerged in this election year echoing President Obama. He writes in the New York Times that vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan's "sonorous campaign rhetoric about shrinking Big Government and giving tax cuts to 'job creators' (read: the top 2%) will do nothing to reverse the nation's economic decline and arrest its fiscal collapse." Fashioning himself as the nemesis of "crony capitalism," Mr. Stockman blames much of the current economic crisis on the Republicans' supposed "tax cuts for the two percent." Here he's taken a sure path to lavish media laurels as a heroic truth-teller applauded by all the Democratic cronies.
How can Messrs. Romney and Ryan escape the Stockman fate?
By grasping the Peter Drucker wisdom: Don't Solve Problems. When you solve problems, you end up feeding your failures, starving your strengths, and achieving costly mediocrity. You become a Stockman. Instead of solving problems, pursue opportunities.
Ronald Reagan in the White House with his first budget director, David Stockman.
Everyone knows about America's liabilities. Everyone knows that they will have to be addressed and many know that Mr. Ryan's plan will address them. But the real opportunity is to transcend them by reversing the devaluation of America's human and capital assets, which is what renders the liabilities increasingly unsupportable.
Today, 70% of government discretionary spending devalues human assets by paying people to be unemployed, unmarried, retired, sick, poor, homeless, hapless, disabled or drugged. With the eclipse of family life in the inner cities of America, we have created a welfare state for women and children and a police state for boys. Supposed problem-solving programs accomplish nothing beyond expanding themselves by spreading dependency and tragic waste. Reforming them is all upside.
Such upside policy change can redeem all the stocks and bonds and hopes for initial public offerings dashed and devalued by the maze of taxes and regulations; all the land wasted and ruined by ethanol and windmills and druidical sun henges and water rules; all the industrial innovation and venture capital sicklied over by a pale cast of green goo; all the real energy resources capped and crimped by litigation, chemophobia and specious species bans; all the real estate wasted and plundered by federal blight and insurance scams; all the youthful aspirations and talents depleted by debt loads at schools of self-esteem; all the banks debauched by federal insurance, zero interest rates, Treasury privileges and social causes; and all the military deterrence and innovation depreciated by disarmament pandering from President Obama and his team.
Mr. Stockman may have disdained Reagan, but Reagan understood the Drucker rule. Reagan horrified David Stockman by raising government spending massively more than his predecessor did. He did so to pursue the opportunity of leading the West to victory in the Cold War.
Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.
Ultimately the Reagan boom would raise private-sector assets by another $60 trillion over 20 years, not halting until 2007. Under the Obama administration, for the first time since the 1970s, the U.S. economy is suffering capital flight. For the first time ever, as economist David Malpass has reported, it is experiencing a net emigration of high-technology talent.
The Romney-Ryan opportunity is an all-upside campaign to reverse these crippling trends.
The challengers understand that capital and labor are not competitive but complementary. As workers become more productive, employers hire more—not fewer. Capital linked with private-sector knowledge releases creativity and new employment. With drastically lower marginal tax rates on income and capital formation, Mr. Romney's plan would endow millions of more jobs at higher pay. To further spur companies away from tax-and-profit avoidance—and toward creativity and entrepreneurship—Mr. Romney might also embrace Mr. Ryan's suggestion that the world's highest corporate rate eventually be replaced with an 8.5% business-consumption tax applying to the difference between costs and sales.
With their skills, experience and improving health, seniors could remain in the workforce as assets rather than becoming liabilities for their diminishing numbers of grandchildren. Saving Social Security and Medicare is an opportunity for keeping seniors healthy and in the workforce rather than driving them out by punitive tax rates on their earnings and halting innovation in government-directed health care.
The most obvious rule of social science is that people will abuse any free good. The price of "free" evokes unbounded demand while choking off supply. In the perverse feedback loops of "free," free health care comes to mean hypochondria, illness caused by needless exams and treatments, queues for an ever-expanding portfolio of mediocre services, and ultimately euthanasia under government bureaucracy. Free drugs mean widespread addiction to existing medications and an end to medical innovation. Free money, manifested in the near zero-interest-rate policy of the Federal Reserve, diverts the wealth of savers to favored governments and crony capitalists while creating shortages for everyone else.
A supply-side change in policy can effect an instant and sharp improvement in the value of all entrepreneurial assets. If Messrs. Romney and Ryan win election and choose to pursue this path, they can galvanize another American century.
Mr. Gilder is a founding fellow of the Discovery Institute. His books include "Wealth and Poverty: A New Edition for the Twenty-First Century" (Regnery, 2012).
-
WWWOOOFFF!!! 8-) 8-) 8-)
-
I only saw Eastwood, Rubio, and MR.
I really enjoyed the Clint Eastwood bit and think/hope it will go a long way towards changing the cultural landscape when it comes to the helping people wrap their minds around voting against BO and for MR.
I thought Rubio was very good, with some moments of great, but occasionally I also felt him flirting with going over the top a bit.
On the other hand IMHO Romney's speech sounded like he had been taking too much advice or , , , I dunno. Whatever the case it certainly underelined the case for MR not being a great speaker and for being a rather stiff/wooden guy. Don't get me wrong, he had moments where he came alive and spoke well and I think/hope it will do, but for me a fair amount of "opportunity missed".
-
As for the speech, Eastwood was fantastic. He ran wild with the numbers a little, but who cares; he's great. Rubio was up to the challenge; his speech was good too. That left Romney with some tough acts to follow.
As a side note, I picked up on Crafty's comment, "On the other hand IMHO Romney's speech sounded like he had been taking too much advice or , , , I dunno."
I know Crafty was applying that to this speech, but I would like to note that in general I think Romney "takes too much advice". Frankly, he wasn't a bad guy on a lot of issues, however in the last
few months he has turned sharp right; full speed ahead. I don't really think that's him, but if he doesn't have enough backbone to say "No, this is what I believe" then I guess it's his own fault.
-
I thought Romney's speech, in the context of following superb works from Christy, Ryan, Rice, Eastwood, the Olympians and Rubio, was just right. I give the whole lineup the grade of A and I thought Romney hit all the right notes.
Hard to say when was the last time a candidate looked that Presidential or came in that prepared for the office.. maybe Eisenhower
The stage is set for an Obama rebuttal and a robust, 2 month, back and forth debate leading up to the election.
-
Big Dem line of the season is that Rs are waging a war against women.
Then for their own keynote mentor they choose their most notorious abuser of our time.
Still waiting for a mainstream commentator to note the contradiction.
-
I agree about Clinton, but even larger for me is that the idea that not having someone else (the taxpayer) pay the costs of having consequenceless sex (birth control, abortion) is a "war on women" is being taken as a reasoned thought boggles the mind.
-
A federal judge ordered the battleground state of Ohio to open its polling places three days before the Nov. 6 election, giving a victory to the Obama campaign and marking the sixth ruling in recent weeks to block or void new voting rules set by Republican-dominated state legislatures.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-voting-rights-20120901,0,146164.story
-
One of the points I noticed in the chattering class AAR's of the Rep. convention was MR's failure to discuss the war that 75,000 or so of our troops are fighting in Afpakia. Yes, Condi spoke well in generalities, and yes MR has on occasion mentioned the cognitive dissonances of BO's "strategy" for Afpakia, but what in point of fact would he do? BO has succeeded in seeming to respond to the understandable war weariness of the American people (and one suspects of many of our troops as well). This weariness is understandable. Bush-Rumbo led the Iraq War poorly, barely leaving at last a doable situation with the Surge (thrown out by BO though) while letting Afpakia go down the tubes due to inattention and a tragically flawed strategy (alliance with Pakistan? :-P )
The American uni-polar moment is gone, but some of MR's panderings to what he thinks the hawks of the Rep party think IMHO show a serious case of tin ear to the mood of the American people. On the whole, I think his instincts in this regard are good (Strong is good, BO's cuts are a disaster in the making, etc) but I see BO campaign talking about bringing the troops home, he killed OBL, he's droning AQ etc. These points sound good and as I have mentioned here before more than once, the Reps are letting this issue, which once they owned, slip away from them.
PS: Michael Yon calls for end to US involvement in Afpakia.
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/apache-apocalypse-real-faces-of-war.htm
-
Crafty I agree with your post.
"The American uni-polar moment is gone"
And good riddance.
I only saw a small portion of the convention but someone (Mitt?) was speaking about "only America can lead the charge against crises around the world" (or something to that effect).
This is in my opinion a blunder. I personally, and believe most Americans have come to agree that we DO NOT want to be the policemen for the world.
It may have been John McCain who was stating this stuff. I do not agree with we should be getting involved in every middle east country every time there is a crises.
America should not be taking on the role of spreading Democracy around the world. We can encourage it, promote it but keep our troops our money out of it. I think most Americans agree with me. And Dick Morris also said as such when he mentioned how when he listened to McCain speech "alarm" bells starting going off in his head - those who were hearing the speech would be thinking, oh no not again.
I generelly like McCain but on this he is nuts. We don't need more wars unless it is in our absolute security interests.
I feel helping Israel is in our direct security but of course I am biased because I am Jewish. I don't know if JDN and the rest of Americans can be persauded as such. On this I like what Romney has to say for it is clearly inevitable that military action is needed to stop Iran from finishing the job they are hell bent on for 2-3 decades.
-
http://2016themovie.com/ (http://2016themovie.com/)
Nice movie, explains Obama from the colonial POV...I think there is some truth to it.
-
Barone's view matches my reaction pretty closely. I know people only tuned in here and there if that but still I see the whole week as the Romney speech. He chose the people who chose the speakers and the messages and orchestration and viewed together I thought he got the job done.
What people didn't see the first time is still excellent material available for campaign advertising this fall.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/barone-inspiring-but-not-slick-romney-showed-right-stuff/article/2506637#.UEOeEVKIhdg
Inspiring but not slick, Romney showed right stuff Michael Barone, Washington Examiner
The 40th Republican National Convention is now history, and political strategists and pundits are poring over the poll numbers to see whether Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are getting a post-convention bounce in what have been very closely divided polls.
Romney's convention managers made some correct and some interesting decisions. First, don't relitigate 2008, as some conservatives would love to do.
Romney and Ryan both acknowledged the hopes for change motivating so many erstwhile Obama voters. They looked back on his record in office more in sorrow than in anger.
Former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis eloquently described his own disenchantment with the president. You can see why they didn't want to air a minute of his talk on MSNBC. It would have undercut the cable channel's relentless narrative that Republicans are racists.
There was a special callout to young voters, 66 to 32 percent for Obama last time, when Paul Ryan talked of 20-somethings in their childhood bedrooms "staring up at fading Obama posters and wondering when they can move out and get going with life."
And there was a reachout to the unquantifiable but undoubtedly large number of voters who feel that it would be a bad thing for Americans to be seen rejecting the first black president.
That's the one reason I can think of why the Romney people made the otherwise puzzling decision to put on Clint Eastwood at 10:00 Eastern, when the broadcast networks began their hour of coverage. It's summed up in one sentence: "And when somebody does not do the job, we got to let them go."
This was not as tightly scripted a convention as the George W. Bush or Bill Clinton conventions. Eastwood spoke without a teleprompter, and so, very effectively, did Condoleezza Rice.
In back-to-back speeches, Ann Romney talked about "love" and Chris Christie said respect was more important than love. That seemed dissonant.
Actually, the two themes are reconcilable. A leader acts out of love for the people but, as Machiavelli taught, prefers to be feared than loved.
But slicker convention management would have rewritten one of the texts. The Romney folks left interpretation to a mostly hostile press and, they hope, a more sympathetic public.
I suspect the point was not to seem slick. Romney has a cool demeanor and the convention was a device to humanize him.
He and his wife described their personal lives in ways that resemble those of almost everyone. The kids roughhousing, the misfortunes that come sooner or later: They may have more money, but their lives are like those of lots of people.
The testimony of fellow church members about the Romneys' service and caring were genuinely moving, recounted by people who are the opposite of slick. The convention floor was almost silent as they spoke, and we'll see them again in TV ads.
The point is that the Romneys contributed something that is in short supply even among the very rich: time.
The convention also addressed concerns that have undoubtedly surfaced in focus groups. Yes, the candidate is open to women taking a lead role, as they have on his staff.
Yes, the candidate did help create businesses that employ tens of thousands and provide goods and services that people found they needed. Yes, Republicans care about education, and education choice so that disadvantaged children have a chance to move upward.
Romney made that point in his speech, and it was underlined earlier in the evening by Jeb Bush, an extraordinarily successful governor and a politician whose behind-the-scenes support at crucial moments made possible the national career of the man who introduced Romney, Sen. Marco Rubio.
Coming off the convention floor, I heard raves about Romney's speech from rank-and-file delegates and limited praise from those more experienced. Not spectacular, they said, but good enough.
That's actually high praise. Democrats like their presidential candidates to be philosopher kings. They must be not only competent, but intellectually dazzling and oratorically thrilling.
Republicans have more modest ambitions. They see politicians as tools, and are satisfied if they are good enough to do the job.
Mitt Romney, in selecting Paul Ryan, in staging an inspiring rather than slick convention and in delivering his acceptance speech, convinced Republicans in the hall and around the nation, and probably many undecideds, that he is a more than sufficient tool to do the job.
-
The Foundation
"Work as if you were to live 100 Years, Pray as if you were to die To-morrow."
--Benjamin Franklin
-------------
For the Record
"Eight years ago, when John Kerry tried to defeat the incumbent George W. Bush, he
accused Bush of leading a 'jobless recovery.' When the economy started creating
hundreds of thousands of jobs, Kerry and the Democrats then claimed that Bush was
creating mostly 'McJobs,' low-wage positions rather than higher-paying jobs for
people with significant skills. ... Today, the Obama administration keeps claiming
to have added 4.3 million jobs by choosing to start from February 2010 rather than
the start of the recovery in June 2009 or the passage of Barack Obama's stimulus
package in February 2009. The Obama recovery in full has only added less than 65,000
jobs per month, far below the level needed to keep up with population growth
(125K-150K per month), and the civilian population participation rate has fallen to
a 30-year low this spring. A new study now shows that even those jobs that have been
added are the 'McJobs'
(http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/business/majority-of-new-jobs-pay-low-wages-study-finds.html
) that Kerry inaccurately accused Bush's recovery of generating. ... We're not even
keeping up with population growth in this recovery. The average jobs added per month
since January has been 83,286 according to the BLS ... still a long way from keeping
up with population growth. That's not a recovery in jobs at all, which anyone
looking at the participation rate (63.7%) would instantly recognize. The data shows
that even the paltry job creation of the Obama recovery has done little to advance
the economy. Businesses won't invest in job-creating activities that require more
expensive labor until they can reliably calculate future costs, which in this
regulatory and tax environment, they cannot do. That's why companies are sitting on
their capital, and why we won't get anything but McJobs in significant numbers until
those policies change." --columnist Ed Morrissey
(http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/31/the-mcjob-recovery/ )
-------------
Opinion in Brief
"Both the offensive and defensive segments of [Mitt Romney's] speech [Thursday
night] -- as of this convention as a whole -- strike us as a success. Romney's
remarks about his own agenda were sketchier but promising, and conservative. In the
past Romney has described conservatism as a three-legged stool resting on free
markets, moral truth, and national strength. He mentioned all three elements
[Thursday]: promising to protect the sanctity of life, to guard against unwise cuts
to the defense budget, and above all to remove governmental impediments to economic
growth. The economic policies he suggested -- energy development, school choice, new
trade agreements, spending restraint, reductions in taxes on business, regulatory
simplification, and the replacement of Obamacare -- impress us as sensible if
incomplete. (We also need a monetary policy, for example, that reduces uncertainty
rather than adds to it.) We would not be surprised if the president delivers a finer
literary production in his speech next week. What he cannot talk away is a high
unemployment rate, a legislative record most Americans dislike, and a philosophy
they do not share. [Thursday] night may be remembered as when the Obama tide began
to recede." --National Review
(http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/315600/offensive-and-defensive-success-editors
)
-------------
Political Futures
"[Paul] Ryan's speech made an understated bow towards Reagan's political message
with a signature passage. 'The right that makes all the difference now is the right
to choose our own leaders. You are entitled to the clearest possible choice because
the time for choosing is drawing near,' Ryan told the Tampa convention crowd. There
is no doubt that he was reaching back to Reagan's classic political debut speech
endorsing the 1964 candidacy of Barry Goldwater. Reagan burst onto the national
scene with a speech he called 'A Time for Choosing.' He told his audience back then,
'The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the economy without
controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use
force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing.'
... Liberals are already throwing spitballs at Ryan. They recognize that his
candidacy has energized Mitt Romney and the conservative base to run a campaign on
bold ideas that calls on voters to make a fundamental choice about the country's
future. ... Now we'll see how much the country likes the newly unveiled Romney-Ryan
team. So far the signs are favorable." --columnist John Fund
(http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/315425/young-vs-useless-touch-gipper-john-fund
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/314773/689-reasons-defeat-barack-obama
The first few of them...............
1. Because he was not the one we were waiting for.
2. “Forward.”
3. Because Julia needs to get off her lazy, federally subsidized butt, get a real job, and pay for her own damned birth-control pills.
4. Because lots of people fail at their first real job.
5. Because “Winning the Future” was not a very good slogan back in 2005 when it was Newt’s.
6. Because the country is ready for its first African-American former president.
7. To give him the free time to write his third memoir.
8. Because he’ll have even more “flexibility” after November if he’s back in Chicago.
9. Joe Biden.
10. So that dissent will once again be the highest form of patriotism.
11. Because he didn’t quite get the message in 2010.
12. For claiming that he would cut the deficit in half.
13. And then adding more than $5 trillion in new debt.
14. To remind him that debt used to be, in his own words, “unpatriotic.”
15. Because the buck never stops.
16. For blaming President Bush.
17. For blaming headwinds.
18. For blaming Japanese earthquakes.
19. For blaming ATMs.
20. He can’t get the vice president to stop calling him “Barack” in public.
-
Looking forward to reading a point by point rebuttal to Bull Clinton's speech tonight. If the Romney campaign can't get it done on their own, we will do it for them here on the forum.
-
The chair rams through platform amendment http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISvoPQ5jtzk&feature=youtu.be
Unencumbered by its variances from reality and the facts, unfortunately Clinton gave a politcally masterful speech last night IMHO, well designed to appeal to fence sitters.
-
Clinton was outstandinding. :-D
-
It remains to be seen if CNN and other MSM do "fact checks" on Clinton's speech which reminded quite well how he can spin anything and the media will drool all over him. Truth, reality, facts, history - for some reason because he spins it so well he gets away with anything.
He apparently has that ability to fool some of the people "all of the time".
-
One of the most surprising statistics of the night came from former President Bill Clinton. Since 1961, he said, 24 million private-sector jobs were added during the 28 years that Republicans held the White House. But when Democrats were president, that figure almost doubled — 42 million private-sector jobs created over 24 years. That claim appears to be true; it is backed up by a recent Bloomberg News analysis and federal labor statistics.
-
JFK cut taxes and so too did Clinton-- when forced to by Gingrich et al.
-
The Democrats Rally
.
Article
Peggy Noonan's Blog HOME PAGE »
.
smaller
Larger
.
.
The Democrats killed. The first night of their convention was a great success. The question is: Killed in the room or killed also in the country? We’ll get a sense of that through polls and comments over the next few weeks.
The elements of last night’s success:
The crowd was happy, attentive, responsive and moved. And there were many thousands of them. All eyes were trained on the stage. The Republican convention site last week never looked so full, so crowded and full of human passion. The Democrats had animal density.
They stayed on schedule—they weren’t going to allow the audience’s engagement to dissipate.
The speakers were uniformly interesting, some absolutely first-rate and some—that would be you, Ted Strickland—sourly mean-spirited and ad hominem. But that was interesting too. It told you, again, how the Dems will spend the next eight weeks going at the Reps.
Highlights:
Julian Castro, smooth, handsome, bright, winning. “Gee, why didn’t I think of that?” was a great line because it cut to the bone of a certain kind of Republican cluelessness, and did it with humor. His conceding that Mitt Romney is not a bad man was clever—it made his subsequent sharp criticisms of Romney seem fair-minded, or at least lacking in animus. Castro and many other of the speakers were at great pains to get across a point that might be called We Are Spiritually Normal.
The Democratic Party is the party of abortion; it supports the widest possible interpretation of choice, and is heavily funded, literally, by the abortion industry. Abortion involves the killing of children. Sometimes Democrats speak of it, publicly, in such a way that it sounds like a small thing, a tooth extraction; sometimes they speak of it in a way that suggests it is a holy right, a high value, a good thing. Because of this, there’s a shadow of weirdness over their party, and it’s been there for at least a quarter century. When Kathleen Sibelius walked out to speak I did not think, “There’s the HHS Secretary,” I literally thought, “There’s abortion enthusiast Kathleen Sibelius, who decided to make the Catholic church bow to her need to spread abortion-inducing drugs.”
Julian Castro and other speakers were at pains to dispel the Shadow of Weirdness. Twice he spoke of his grandmother making the sign of the Cross as he went to school. (There were a lot of babies and children in the audience, and their parents held them tenderly, and I’m telling you, even those babies were watching that stage.) Anyway, Castro and others were at pains to communicate that they do not see themselves as cruelly outside the mainstream. He seemed like a very nice young man, and certainly gifted in terms of political communication.
Too smooth? Yes. But there’s a lot of too smooth on the other side, too. It’s the thing that marks the rising generation of political stars 30 to 50, they’re all too smooth. Remember when you were learning “Now I know my ABC’s . . .”? They learned it too, but on a teleprompter.
* * *
Michele Obama has turned into a great political performer, and her speech Tuesday night was remarkable and memorable. She is a strong woman. People have asked the past few years where the Barack Obama of 2008 went. I have wondered where the Michele Obama of 2008 went. She was so compelling and interesting on the trail that year, so proud and eager and, occasionally, awkward, which only underscored her good points. Then in the White House she often looked unhappy, resentful, going through the motions. Last night she was none of those things: ’08 Woman was back.
She was beautiful with an almost eloquent beauty, she was dazzling in that salmony, orangey dress, she spoke clearly and with complete confidence, and she enjoyed, it seemed, being the focus of all eyes. The first half of her speech was socially conservative and could have been given to great hurrahs at the Republican convention, although oddly enough from a Republican it would have sounded preachy. She sounded like a woman who respects standards, had good role models, came from a home that was full of love and discipline, and whose lack of the broadest or richest material comforts did not leave her bitter or misshapen, it left her committed. The second half of the speech was more political and partisan and might have been the point at which you started daydreaming. I continued listening because I am interested in how she thinks, and how she sees what is at issue. She did not seem at all apologetic as she spoke of her husband’s leadership. She seemed proud, and protective.
Near the end, as she spoke of her daughters, her eyes seemed to fill with tears.
In the camera cutaways many of the audience’s eyes were full of tears.
* * *
Rhetorically, a number of Democrats last night used the old ways, the old tricks: call and response, involving the crowd, making them yell “Yes!” and “No!,” bringing them into chants that energized the speaker and enhanced the effectiveness of the text. It was great stuff. Props to Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland: the “Forward, not back!” chant was the best of the night.
They ended the night with a prayer.
I remember when Republicans did better conventions than Democrats—better staging, better films, better speeches, more fun. So far, looking at both last week and last night, that’s being turned on its ear.
Does any of this matter? Will it affect the outcome? We’ll see. But if I’m a Democrat, I’m looking at last night and thinking, “That didn’t hurt. That didn’t hurt at all.”
-
Looks like this writer from the WSJ has been reading my posts here , , ,
Clinton's False Narrative .
by JASON L. RILEY
If Sandra Fluke and Elizabeth Warren used their speeches at the Democratic convention last night to rile base voters, Bill Clinton was clearly reaching out to the independents, and Republicans would be wise to focus on rebutting the crux of what the former president said.
"In Tampa, the Republican argument against the president's re-election was pretty simple," said Mr. Clinton. "We left him a total mess, he hasn't cleaned it up fast enough, so fire him and put us back in."
Mr. Clinton's pithy explanation, however misleading, of how we got here is filling a vacuum created by the Romney campaign's inability so far to communicate an alternative narrative. Mitt Romney has been focused on telling voters that unemployment is too high and that economic growth is too slow. Team Obama doesn't quibble with that but denies responsibility, and last night Mr. Clinton gave the president cover.
"No president, not me, not any of my predecessors, no one could have fully repaired all the damage [to the economy] that he found in just four years," said Mr. Clinton. "But he has laid the foundation for a new, modern, successful economy of shared prosperity." Translation: The Obama presidency hasn't been a failure. Rather, it is being held to impossibly high expectations by the GOP.
Never mind that Mr. Obama hasn't met the economic and employment expectations that he set for himself. Never mind that the real criticism of Mr. Obama is not that he hasn't "fully repaired" the economy but that the recovery has been too slow under his leadership due to misguided policies and priorities.
The challenge for Mr. Romney is to come up with his own plausible narrative so that Democrats don't ride Mr. Clinton and Mr. Obama's false one to victory in November.
-
"Michele Obama has turned into a great political performer, and her speech Tuesday night was remarkable and memorable'
Truthfully, wouldn't most people get good at making speeches if they do it frequently for years?
-
"Michele Obama has turned into a great political performer, and her speech Tuesday night was remarkable and memorable'
Truthfully, wouldn't most people get good at making speeches if they do it frequently for years?
Actually no, just watch Romney. :-)
-
Noonan: The Democrats' Soft Extremism
Obama is out of ideas, and Clinton's speech was unworthy of him.
By PEGGY NOONAN
Barack Obama is deeply overexposed and often boring. He never seems to be saying what he's thinking. His speech Thursday was weirdly anticlimactic. There's too much buildup, the crowd was tired, it all felt flat. He was somber, and his message was essentially banal: We've done better than you think. Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?
There were many straw men. There were phrases like "the shadow of a shuttered steel mill," which he considers writerly. But they sound empty and practiced now, like something you've heard in a commercial or an advertising campaign.
It was stale and empty. He's out of juice.
His daughters have grown beautiful.
As for Joe Biden, I love him and will hear nothing against him. He's like Democrats the way they used to be, and by that I do not mean idiotic, I mean normal—manipulative only to a normal degree, roughly aware of the facts of normal life, alert to and even respecting of such normal things as religious faith. I wish he did not insist on referring to his wife as "Dr. Jill Biden." I'm sure she has many doctorates, but so do half the unemployed in Manhattan.
John Kerry was on fire. It was the best speech of his career. He drew blood on foreign policy: "Talk about being before it before you were against it!" Obama will take that message, on Afghanistan, into debate.
***
Was it a good convention?
Beneath the funny hats, the sweet-faced delegates, the handsome speakers and the babies waving flags there was something disquieting. All three days were marked by a kind of soft, distracted extremism. It was unshowy and unobnoxious but also unsettling.
There was the relentless emphasis on Government as Community, as the thing that gives us spirit and makes us whole. But government isn't what you love if you're American, America is what you love. Government is what you have, need and hire. Its most essential duties—especially when it is bankrupt—involve defending rights and safety, not imposing views and values. We already have values. Democrats and Republicans don't see all this the same way, and that's fine—that's what national politics is, the working out of this dispute in one direction or another every few years. But the Democrats convened in Charlotte seemed more extreme on the point, more accepting of the idea of government as the center of national life, than ever, at least to me.
The fight over including a single mention of God in the platform—that was extreme. The original removal of the single mention by the platform committee—extreme. The huge "No!" vote on restoring the mention of God, and including the administration's own stand on Jerusalem—that wasn't liberal, it was extreme. Comparing the Republicans to Nazis—extreme. The almost complete absence of a call to help education by facing down the powers that throw our least defended children under the school bus—this was extreme, not mainstream.
The sheer strangeness of all the talk about abortion, abortion, contraception, contraception. I am old enough to know a wedge issue when I see one, but I've never seen a great party build its entire public persona around one. Big speeches from the heads of Planned Parenthood and NARAL, HHS Secretary and abortion enthusiast Kathleen Sebelius and, of course, Sandra Fluke.
"Republicans shut me out of a hearing on contraception," Ms. Fluke said. But why would anyone have included a Georgetown law student who never worked her way onto the national stage until she was plucked, by the left, as a personable victim?
Convention Journal
Related News:
Obama Pledges a U.S. Revival
Capital Journal: Two Divergent Paths to Prosperity
Democrats Party on Corporations' Tab
More Opinion:
Review and Outlook: Transformers 2
Potomac Watch: The Party That Obama Un-Built
OpinionJournal @ the Convention
Peggy Noonan's Blog
.
What a fabulously confident and ingenuous-seeming political narcissist Ms. Fluke is. She really does think—and her party apparently thinks—that in a spending crisis with trillions in debt and many in need, in a nation in existential doubt as to its standing and purpose, in a time when parents struggle to buy the good sneakers for the kids so they're not embarrassed at school . . . that in that nation the great issue of the day, and the appropriate focus of our concern, is making other people pay for her birth-control pills. That's not a stand, it's a non sequitur. She is not, as Rush Limbaugh oafishly, bullyingly said, a slut. She is a ninny, a narcissist and a fool.
And she was one of the great faces of the party in Charlotte. That is extreme. Childish, too.
Something else, and it had to do with tone. I remember the Republicans in Tampa bashing the president, hard, but not the entire Democratic Party. In Charlotte they bashed Mitt Romney, but they bashed the Republican Party harder. If this doesn't strike you as somewhat unsettling, then you must want another four years of all war all the time between the parties. I don't think the American people want that. Because, actually, they're not extreme.
***
Bill Clinton is The Master. That is stipulated. Almost everyone in the media was over the moon about his speech. It was a shrewd and superb moment of political generosity, his hauling into town to make the case, but it was a hack speech. It was the speech of a highly gifted apparatchik. All great partisan speeches include some hard and uncomfortable truths, but Mr. Clinton offered none. He knows better than so much of what he said. In real life he makes insightful statements on the debt, the deficit and the real threat they pose. He knows more about the need for and impediments to public-school reform than half the reformers do. He knows exactly why both parties can't reach agreement in Washington, and what each has done wrong along the way. But Wednesday night he stuck to fluid fictions and clever cases. It was smaller than Bill Clinton is.
Still, he gave the president one great political gift: He put Medicaid on the table. He put it right there next to the pepper shaker and said Look at that! People talk Medicare and Social Security, but, as Mr. Clinton noted, more than half of Medicaid is spent on nursing-home care for seniors and on those with disabilities such as Down syndrome and autism. Will it be cut?
Here's what I'm seeing the past 10 years. The baby boomers have been supporting their grown children and their aged parents. They are stressed, stretched and largely uncomplaining, because they know that as boomers—shallow, selfish—they're the only generation not allowed to complain. And just as well, as complaints are the only area of national life where we have a surplus. But they are spiritually and financially holding the country together, and they're coming to terms with the fact that it's going to be that way for a good long time. They're going to take a keen interest in where Medicaid goes.
Romney-Ryan take note: this will arrive as an issue.
***
So: was it a good convention? We'll know by the polls, by the famous bounce, or lack of it. A guess? Dead-cat bounce. Just like the Republicans got.
Maybe Mr. Clinton made a bigger, more broadly positive impression than I suspect; maybe a sense the Democrats were extreme will take hold. People left both conventions talking about only one thing: the debates. They know they didn't move the needle in Tampa and Charlotte. The people in charge of politics aren't so good at politics anymore.
==============================
For all the spin and deception of politics, sooner or later every politician reveals his true purposes. For Barack Obama, one of those moments came when he declared shortly before the 2008 election that "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America." Above all else, the President who asked voters for a second term Thursday night sees himself as destined to transform America according to his own progressive dreams.
Related Video
Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg on President Obama's recent decline in the polls and whether he'll get a bump from the convention. Credit: Associated Press
.
.
For most of 2008, Mr. Obama was able to disguise this ambition behind his gauzy rhetoric of hope and post-partisanship. The fine print of his agenda betrayed his plans to expand and entrench the entitlement state, but most voters ignored that as they chose his cool confidence over John McCain's manic intensity amid a financial panic.
Candidate Obama was eloquent and likable. His personal story echoed of America's history as a land of opportunity. Voters put aside any worry about his ideology and took a chance on his promise of a better tomorrow.
Four years later the shooting liberal star, as we called him then, has come down to earth. What should have been a buoyant recovery coming out of a deep recession was lackluster to start and has grown weaker. The partisanship he claimed to want to dampen has become more fierce. The middle-class incomes he sought to lift have fallen. These results aren't bad luck or the lingering effects of a crash four years ago. They flow directly from his "transforming" purposes.
***
To our mind, two events amid hundreds stand out as defining President Obama's first term. The first is his go-for-broke pursuit of progressive social legislation instead of focusing on economic recovery. The second is his refusal to strike a budget deal with Speaker John Boehner in 2011. Both reveal a President more bent on transforming America than addressing the needs of our time.
Mr. Obama was elected first and foremost with a mandate to fix the economy. Yet when he found himself by rare confluence of luck with 60 votes in the Senate, he put nurturing a fragile recovery secondary to the pursuit of pent-up liberal social policies.
Enlarge Image
Corbis.
Consider the amazing course of ObamaCare. Rather than craft a White House proposal and draw in Republicans from the start, he let Pete Stark and the most liberal House Democrats write the bill. As public opposition built and the tea party rose in 2009, he doubled down with a September speech extolling the virtues of government.
Opposition continued to build. But when Rahm Emanuel and other advisers urged him to compromise on something smaller, he still pressed ahead. Even after Scott Brown's January 2010 victory to replace Ted Kennedy gave the GOP 41 Senators, Mr. Obama endorsed an effort to abuse Congressional procedure to ram the bill through.
The result is a monster that will transform a sixth of the U.S. economy, but at huge cost to growth, political comity and America's long-term fiscal health. Never before has a new entitlement passed on such narrowly partisan lines. The new taxes and burdens on small business in particular have helped to slow job creation. Voters reacted by imposing historic losses on House Democrats.
After that 2010 "shellacking," as Mr. Obama called it, he had another chance to steer a more moderate course. Believing that bipartisan cover offered a unique chance to control the deficit, House Speaker Boehner agreed to back-room talks to pursue a grand budget bargain.
The Republican put tax increases on the table that might have cost him his Speakership, even as Mr. Obama refused to consider any modifications to ObamaCare and would allow only tinkering around the edges of other entitlements. As the deadline neared for raising the national debt limit, Mr. Obama demanded $400 billion more in revenue, and Mr. Boehner had little choice but to walk away.
This episode is all the more remarkable because the deal Mr. Boehner was offering would have divided Republicans, helped Mr. Obama with independents, and probably guaranteed his re-election. Yet the President poisoned the deal for the sake of higher taxes.
***
So now Mr. Obama is seeking a second term by asking the voters to give him more time to finish the job he started. But what job is that?
The President tried to reprise the spirit of 2008 in his speech Thursday night, but the preoccupation of this week's nominating convention has been to portray Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan and Republicans as mummies from the crypt.
The second-term agenda he offered Thursday was a diminished and vague version of what he offered in 2008: More government spending disguised as "investment," more subsidies for green energy, more regulation for other parts of the economy. What he didn't mention was his goal of protecting ObamaCare at all costs and passing one of the largest tax increases in history.
In recent interviews, Mr. Obama has said that if he wins he believes a chastened GOP will have no choice but to strike a grand fiscal bargain on his terms. This assumes that the same Republicans he has savaged for 18 months will want to become the tax collectors for his agenda. We support immigration reform, but his executive branch actions have poisoned that prospect too.
The more likely forecast is for more gridlock and rancor. As an unnamed adviser recently told a Journal reporter, Mr. Obama thought he could work with Republicans but "he won't make that mistake again."
Yet by Mr. Obama's transforming lights, his Presidency would still be a success. Re-election guarantees the implementation of ObamaCare, which means he would join FDR and LBJ in the pantheon of progressives who expanded the reach of government to "spread the wealth." Republicans may cavil, but over time they would have no choice but to agree to a value-added tax or some other tap on the middle class to finance a permanently larger, European-sized welfare state.
***
Were he a man of lesser ideological ambition, President Obama would now be presiding over a stronger economy and probably be cruising to re-election. He gambled instead that he could use the economic crisis as a political lever to achieve his progressive policy goals, and he now finds himself struggling to be re-elected with a campaign based almost entirely on savaging his opponents. Americans who are disappointed with Transformers 1 aren't likely to enjoy the sequel any better.
-
Looks like others can cover adequately Obama's speech. Politico called it lame, Bob Schieffer: "that soaring rhetoric that we heard in the speech in 2008, I didn’t hear that tonight", "that soaring rhetoric that we heard in the speech in 2008, I didn’t hear that tonight", Washington Post: "Mr. Obama’s hazy agenda for a second term".
What he can't and didn't do is lay out a credible economic theory about how adding 50,000 new regulations in 42 months and promising to raise taxes on virtually all new employers will ever make the economy grow faster than 0.0%.
--------
Crafty wrote regarding Bill Clinton's speech: "Unencumbered by its variances from reality and the facts, unfortunately Clinton gave a politcally masterful speech last night IMHO, well designed to appeal to fence sitters."
I listened on the radio and Crafty I am guessing watched the speech. On the radio, reduced to words, it was one notch less impressive, especially if one has a full grasp on reality. Here is the text of Clinton's speech, interrupted in bold from time to time:
-------
Bill Clinton on stage the DNC: "We're here to nominate a President, and I've got one in mind.
I want to nominate a man whose own life has known its fair share of adversity and uncertainty. A man who ran for President to change the course of an already weak economy and then just six weeks before the election, saw it suffer the biggest collapse since the Great Depression. A man who stopped the slide into depression and put us on the long road to recovery, knowing all the while that no matter how many jobs were created and saved, there were still millions more waiting, trying to feed their children and keep their hopes alive.
I want to nominate a man cool on the outside but burning for America on the inside. A man who believes we can build a new American Dream economy driven by innovation and creativity, education and cooperation. A man who had the good sense to marry Michelle Obama.
I want Barack Obama to be the next President of the United States and I proudly nominate him as the standard bearer of the Democratic Party.
As I said to a liberal during the RNC, you have to endorse the candidate to get on the stage.
In Tampa, we heard a lot of talk about how the President and the Democrats don't believe in free enterprise and individual initiative, how we want everyone to be dependent on the government, how bad we are for the economy.
The Republican narrative is that all of us who amount to anything are completely self-made. One of our greatest Democratic Chairmen, Bob Strauss, used to say that every politician wants you to believe he was born in a log cabin he built himself, but it ain't so.
We Democrats think the country works better with a strong middle class, real opportunities for poor people to work their way into it and a relentless focus on the future, with business and government working together to promote growth and broadly shared prosperity. We think "we're all in this together" is a better philosophy than "you're on your own."
It is a straw argument of course to say of Republicans who will support $4trillion/yr of federal spending that ANYONE is completely on his or her own.
Who's right? Well since 1961, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24. In those 52 years, our economy produced 66 million private sector jobs. What's the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 million!
Crafty wrote part of this earlier, and I agree, by today's standards JFK was one of ours, same for the 6 years of Gingrich. Nixon and Ford turned out to be two of theirs, look at the record. The first two years of W. Bush before his policies were enacted were runners left on base by Obama's own standard, and during the two years preceding the Obama administration it was most certainly the Pelosi-Reid-Obama congress in charge of domestic economic policies. Do the math on that and you will find that nearly all economic growth is tied to pro-growth policies no matter the name of party affiliation on the oval office door.
It turns out that advancing equal opportunity and economic empowerment is both morally right and good economics, because discrimination, poverty and ignorance restrict growth, while investments in education, infrastructure and scientific and technological research increase it, creating more good jobs and new wealth for all of us.
Though I often disagree with Republicans, I never learned to hate them the way the far right that now controls their party seems to hate President Obama and the Democrats. After all, President Eisenhower sent federal troops to my home state to integrate Little Rock Central High and built the interstate highway system. And as governor, I worked with President Reagan on welfare reform and with President George H.W. Bush on national education goals. I am grateful to President George W. Bush for PEPFAR, which is saving the lives of millions of people in poor countries and to both Presidents Bush for the work we've done together after the South Asia tsunami, Hurricane Katrina and the Haitian earthquake.
Through my foundation, in America and around the world, I work with Democrats, Republicans and Independents who are focused on solving problems and seizing opportunities, not fighting each other.
When times are tough, constant conflict may be good politics but in the real world, cooperation works better. After all, nobody's right all the time, and a broken clock is right twice a day. All of us are destined to live our lives between those two extremes. Unfortunately, the faction that now dominates the Republican Party doesn't see it that way. They think government is the enemy, and compromise is weakness.
One of the main reasons America should re-elect President Obama is that he is still committed to cooperation. He appointed Republican Secretaries of Defense, the Army and Transportation. He appointed a Vice President who ran against him in 2008, and trusted him to oversee the successful end of the war in Iraq and the implementation of the recovery act. And Joe Biden did a great job with both. He appointed Cabinet members who supported Hillary in the primaries. Heck, he even appointed Hillary! I'm so proud of her and grateful to our entire national security team for all they've done to make us safer and stronger and to build a world with more partners and fewer enemies. I'm also grateful to the young men and women who serve our country in the military and to Michelle Obama and Jill Biden for supporting military families when their loved ones are overseas and for helping our veterans, when they come home bearing the wounds of war, or needing help with education, housing, and jobs.
Cooperation? Good God. Obama's signature achievement by his own measure included reaching out to NO republicans for their vote. Now it still suffers from widespread disapproval. Clinton pivoted with the voter after 1994; Obama said fck you to the voters of 2010 and the majority party with whom they chose for him to share power.
President Obama's record on national security is a tribute to his strength, and judgment, and to his preference for inclusion and partnership over partisanship.
He also tried to work with Congressional Republicans on Health Care, debt reduction, and jobs, but that didn't work out so well. Probably because, as the Senate Republican leader, in a remarkable moment of candor, said two years before the election, their number one priority was not to put America back to work, but to put President Obama out of work.
Senator, I hate to break it to you, but we're going to keep President Obama on the job!
In Tampa, the Republican argument against the President's re-election was pretty simple: we left him a total mess, he hasn't cleaned it up fast enough, so fire him and put us back in.
In order to look like an acceptable alternative to President Obama, they couldn't say much about the ideas they have offered over the last two years. You see they want to go back to the same old policies that got us into trouble in the first place: to cut taxes for high income Americans even more than President Bush did; to get rid of those pesky financial regulations designed to prevent another crash and prohibit future bailouts; to increase defense spending two trillion dollars more than the Pentagon has requested without saying what they'll spend the money on; to make enormous cuts in the rest of the budget, especially programs that help the middle class and poor kids. As another President once said – there they go again.
I like the argument for President Obama's re-election a lot better. He inherited a deeply damaged economy, put a floor under the crash, began the long hard road to recovery, and laid the foundation for a modern, more well-balanced economy that will produce millions of good new jobs, vibrant new businesses, and lots of new wealth for the innovators.
Are we where we want to be? No. Is the President satisfied? No. Are we better off than we were when he took office, with an economy in free fall, losing 750,000 jobs a month. The answer is YES.
We lost 3 million jobs and what they call job growth now is below the rate of population increase. Aka negative growth, aka decline.
I understand the challenge we face. I know many Americans are still angry and frustrated with the economy. Though employment is growing, banks are beginning to lend and even housing prices are picking up a bit, too many people don't feel it.
I experienced the same thing in 1994 and early 1995. Our policies were working and the economy was growing but most people didn't feel it yet. By 1996, the economy was roaring, halfway through the longest peacetime expansion in American history.
President Obama started with a much weaker economy than I did. No President – not me or any of my predecessors could have repaired all the damage in just four years. But conditions are improving and if you'll renew the President's contract you will feel it.
I believe that with all my heart.
President Obama's approach embodies the values, the ideas, and the direction America must take to build a 21st century version of the American Dream in a nation of shared opportunities, shared prosperity and shared responsibilities.
So back to the story. In 2010, as the President's recovery program kicked in, the job losses stopped and things began to turn around.
The Recovery Act saved and created millions of jobs and cut taxes for 95% of the American people. In the last 29 months the economy has produced about 4.5 million private sector jobs. But last year, the Republicans blocked the President's jobs plan costing the economy more than a million new jobs. So here's another jobs score: President Obama plus 4.5 million, Congressional Republicans zero.
Over that same period, more than more than 500,000 manufacturing jobs have been created under President Obama – the first time manufacturing jobs have increased since the 1990s.
The auto industry restructuring worked. It saved more than a million jobs, not just at GM, Chrysler and their dealerships, but in auto parts manufacturing all over the country. That's why even auto-makers that weren't part of the deal supported it. They needed to save the suppliers too. Like I said, we're all in this together.
Now there are 250,000 more people working in the auto industry than the day the companies were restructured. Governor Romney opposed the plan to save GM and Chrysler. So here's another jobs score: Obama two hundred and fifty thousand, Romney, zero.
The agreement the administration made with management, labor and environmental groups to double car mileage over the next few years is another good deal: it will cut your gas bill in half, make us more energy independent, cut greenhouse gas emissions, and add another 500,000 good jobs.
If Crony capitalism is your game and avoiding restructuring equals restructuring, then this makes perfect sense.
President Obama's "all of the above" energy plan is helping too – the boom in oil and gas production combined with greater energy efficiency has driven oil imports to a near 20 year low and natural gas production to an all time high. Renewable energy production has also doubled.
Pres. Obama's energy policy is called None of the above.
We do need more new jobs, lots of them, but there are already more than three million jobs open and unfilled in America today, mostly because the applicants don't have the required skills. We have to prepare more Americans for the new jobs that are being created in a world fueled by new technology. That's why investments in our people are more important than ever. The President has supported community colleges and employers in working together to train people for open jobs in their communities. And, after a decade in which exploding college costs have increased the drop-out rate so much that we've fallen to 16th in the world in the percentage of our young adults with college degrees, his student loan reform lowers the cost of federal student loans and even more important, gives students the right to repay the loans as a fixed percentage of their incomes for up to 20 years. That means no one will have to drop-out of college for fear they can't repay their debt, and no one will have to turn down a job, as a teacher, a police officer or a small town doctor because it doesn't pay enough to make the debt payments. This will change the future for young Americans.
College, like healthcare, is overpriced BECAUSE of 3rd party pay.
I know we're better off because President Obama made these decisions.
That brings me to health care.
The Republicans call it Obamacare and say it's a government takeover of health care that they'll repeal. Are they right? Let's look at what's happened so far. Individuals and businesses have secured more than a billion dollars in refunds from their insurance premiums because the new law requires 80% to 85% of your premiums to be spent on health care, not profits or promotion. Other insurance companies have lowered their rates to meet the requirement. More than 3 million young people between 19 and 25 are insured for the first time because their parents can now carry them on family policies. Millions of seniors are receiving preventive care including breast cancer screenings and tests for heart problems. Soon the insurance companies, not the government, will have millions of new customers many of them middle class people with pre-existing conditions. And for the last two years, health care spending has grown under 4%, for the first time in 50 years.
So are we all better off because President Obama fought for it and passed it? You bet we are.
The only popular provisions in Obamacare were also in the Republican alternative plan.
There were two other attacks on the President in Tampa that deserve an answer. Both Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan attacked the President for allegedly robbing Medicare of 716 billion dollars. Here's what really happened. There were no cuts to benefits. None. What the President did was save money by cutting unwarranted subsidies to providers and insurance companies that weren't making people any healthier. He used the saving to close the donut hole in the Medicare drug program, and to add eight years to the life of the Medicare Trust Fund. It's now solvent until 2024. So President Obama and the Democrats didn't weaken Medicare, they strengthened it.
The only proposal on the table to save and strengthen Medicare belongs to Paul Ryan. Instead of running from it, Romney chose him as his running mate.
When Congressman Ryan looked into the TV camera and attacked President Obama's "biggest coldest power play" in raiding Medicare, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. You see, that 716 billion dollars is exactly the same amount of Medicare savings Congressman Ryan had in his own budget.
At least on this one, Governor Romney's been consistent. He wants to repeal the savings and give the money back to the insurance companies, re-open the donut hole and force seniors to pay more for drugs, and reduce the life of the Medicare Trust Fund by eight years. So now if he's elected and does what he promised Medicare will go broke by 2016. If that happens, you won't have to wait until their voucher program to begins in 2023 to see the end Medicare as we know it.
But it gets worse. They also want to block grant Medicaid and cut it by a third over the coming decade. Of course, that will hurt poor kids, but that's not all. Almost two-thirds of Medicaid is spent on nursing home care for seniors and on people with disabilities, including kids from middle class families, with special needs like, Downs syndrome or Autism. I don't know how those families are going to deal with it. We can't let it happen
Now let's look at the Republican charge that President Obama wants to weaken the work requirements in the welfare reform bill I signed that moved millions of people from welfare to work.
Here's what happened. When some Republican governors asked to try new ways to put people on welfare back to work, the Obama Administration said they would only do it if they had a credible plan to increase employment by 20%. You hear that? More work. So the claim that President Obama weakened welfare reform's work requirement is just not true. But they keep running ads on it. As their campaign pollster said "we're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers." Now that is true. I couldn't have said it better myself – I just hope you remember that every time you see the ad.
Clinton is supposed to be quite the advocate for welfare reform, unless you remember he vetoed it twice before feeling forced to accept the stronger version they are now dismantling. It isn't all about details of the policy, it is also about one branch undoing what took quite an effort by two branches to enact.
Let's talk about the debt. We have to deal with it or it will deal with us. President Obama has offered a plan with 4 trillion dollars in debt reduction over a decade, with two and a half dollars of spending reductions for every one dollar of revenue increases, and tight controls on future spending. It's the kind of balanced approach proposed by the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission.
I think the President's plan is better than the Romney plan, because the Romney plan fails the first test of fiscal responsibility: The numbers don't add up.
It's supposed to be a debt reduction plan but it begins with five trillion dollars in tax cuts over a ten-year period. That makes the debt hole bigger before they even start to dig out. They say they'll make it up by eliminating loopholes in the tax code. When you ask "which loopholes and how much?," they say "See me after the election on that."
People ask me all the time how we delivered four surplus budgets. What new ideas did we bring? I always give a one-word answer: arithmetic. If they stay with a 5 trillion dollar tax cut in a debt reduction plan – the – arithmetic tells us that one of three things will happen: 1) they'll have to eliminate so many deductions like the ones for home mortgages and charitable giving that middle class families will see their tax bill go up two thousand dollars year while people making over 3 million dollars a year get will still get a 250,000 dollar tax cut; or 2) they'll have to cut so much spending that they'll obliterate the budget for our national parks, for ensuring clean air, clean water, safe food, safe air travel; or they'll cut way back on Pell Grants, college loans, early childhood education and other programs that help middle class families and poor children, not to mention cutting investments in roads, bridges, science, technology and medical research; or 3) they'll do what they've been doing for thirty plus years now – cut taxes more than they cut spending, explode the debt, and weaken the economy. Remember, Republican economic policies quadrupled the debt before I took office and doubled it after I left. We simply can't afford to double-down on trickle-down.
President Obama's plan cuts the debt, honors our values, and brightens the future for our children, our families and our nation.
Romney's plan calls in every way for economic growth. Economic growth by Clinton's own words is the only way to balance this budget. Obama's policies in every way cry out for economic decline which causes revenues to shrink, spending to accelerate and deficits and debt to soar. LOOK AT THE RECORD.
My fellow Americans, you have to decide what kind of country you want to live in. If you want a you're on your own, winner take all society you should support the Republican ticket. If you want a country of shared opportunities and shared responsibilities – a "we're all in it together" society, you should vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden. If you want every American to vote and you think its wrong to change voting procedures just to reduce the turnout of younger, poorer, minority and disabled voters, you should support Barack Obama. If you think the President was right to open the doors of American opportunity to young immigrants brought here as children who want to go to college or serve in the military, you should vote for Barack Obama. If you want a future of shared prosperity, where the middle class is growing and poverty is declining, where the American Dream is alive and well, and where the United States remains the leading force for peace and prosperity in a highly competitive world, you should vote for Barack Obama.
The American dream is not Julia growing from government program to government program. It is a freedom that makes every individual believe anything is possible.
I love our country – and I know we're coming back. For more than 200 years, through every crisis, we've always come out stronger than we went in. And we will again as long as we do it together. We champion the cause for which our founders pledged their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor – to form a more perfect union.
If that's what you believe, if that's what you want, we have to re-elect President Barack Obama.
God Bless You – God Bless America.
Missing in the above, that everything wrong today is because of Obama's predecessors and the housing-led financial crisis, is that Bill Clinton was the architect of the CRAp and the push for lenders to lend on criteria other than creditworthiness, while Sen Obama was the number one recipient of Fannie Mae contributions opposing ANY reform during the year of the housing meltdown.
Four more years? Four fewer would have been smarter.
-
And lets not forget that the reason Clinton balanced the budget was because of the largest stock market boom since 1929 casuing taxs revenues to skyrocket and then went bust two months after he left office leaving W with a recession.
You know I just read a shortened biography about WC Fields. It describes with deep sympathetic detail how Fields ran away from home at 11 after in self defense he smashed his cruel father over the head with a crate. And how this child had to live on the streets in holes, in empty sewer pipes, surviving off the streets. Then I read on Wikipedia a report that this was all bullshit. He really left home at 18, had a decent middle class upbringing, and his supported his juggling career. I don't know which story is accurate yet I know how people in entertainment can completely make up histories, and biographies.
There must be something about rocesea that makes people into fabulous bullshit artists.
It is bad enough when entertainers lie, and Lord knows (as do I) how they do, but when we have leaders of our country who we entrust.....
I disagree with Noonan on Clinton's speech. It doesn't make him look small. It is quite the opposite. He is a little man who speaks with phoney gradiosity. Once a liar - always a liar. Indeed, even if he ever does tell the truth how would we know?
-
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-07/democrats-said-to-end-convention-15-million-short.html
:lol: :lol: :lol:
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=o8R5GvwUFU8#!
-
The Democrats’ GM Fiction
By The Editors - National Review Online
September 10, 2010
The Democrats have decided to run in 2012 as the bailout party. It is an odd choice — the 2008–09 bailouts were deeply unpopular among the general public, and even their backers were notably conflicted about the precedent being set and the ensuing moral hazard. But Democrats have nonetheless made one of the most abusive episodes in the entire bailout era their economic cornerstone: the government takeover of General Motors.
The GM bailout was always an odd duck: The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was created in order to preserve liquidity in the financial markets by heading off the collapse of key financial institutions that had made catastrophically bad bets on real-estate securities — nothing at all to do with cars, really. GM’s financial arm, today known as Ally Financial, was in trouble, but GM’s fundamental problem was that its products were not profitable enough to support its work-force expenses. A single dominant factor — the United Auto Workers union’s extortionate contracts with GM — prevented the carmaker from either reducing its work-force costs or making its products more efficiently. And its hidebound management didn’t help.
Admirers of the GM bailout should bear in mind that it was the Bush administration that first decided to intervene at the firm, offering a bridge loan on the condition that it draw up a deeply revised business plan. President Obama’s unique contribution was effectively to nationalize the company, seeing to it that the federal government violated normal bankruptcy processes and legal precedent to protect the defective element at the heart of GM’s troubles: the financial interests of the UAW. It did this by strong-arming GM’s bondholders into taking haircuts in order to sweeten the pot for the UAW. The Obama administration also creatively construed tax law to relieve GM of tens of billions of dollars in obligations — at the same time that Barack Obama & Co. were caterwauling about the supposed lack of patriotism of firms that used legal means rather than political favoritism to reduce their tax bills.
Mitt Romney’s proposal for a structured bankruptcy would have necessitated considerable federal involvement, too, but with a key difference: The UAW contracts would have been renegotiated, and GM’s executive suites would have been cleaned out, placing the company on a path toward innovation and self-sufficiency rather than permanent life support. Which is to say, Obama did for GM what he is doing by un-reforming welfare: creating a dependent constituency.
The Democrats cling to the ridiculous claim that the bailout of GM and its now-Italian competitor, Chrysler, saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs. This preposterous figure is based on the assumption that if GM and Chrysler had gone into normal bankruptcy proceedings, the entire enterprise of automobile manufacturing in the United States would have collapsed — not only at GM and Chrysler but at Ford and foreign transplants such as Toyota and Honda. Not only that, the Democrats’ argument goes, but practically every parts maker, supplier, warehousing agency, and services firm dedicated to the car industry would have collapsed, too. In fact, it is unlikely that even GM or Chrysler would have stopped production during bankruptcy: The assembly lines would have continued rolling, interest and debt payments would have been cut, and — here’s the problem — union contracts would have been renegotiated. Far from having saved 1.5 million jobs, it is not clear that the GM bailout saved any — only that it preserved the UAW’s unsustainable arrangement.
Bill Clinton bizarrely tried to claim that the bailout has been responsible for the addition of 250,000 jobs to the automobile industry since the nadir of the financial crisis. Auto manufacturers and dealerships have indeed added about 236,000 jobs since then, but almost none are at GM, which has added only about 4,500 workers, a number not even close to offsetting the 63,000 workers that its dealerships had to let go when the terms of the bailout unilaterally shut them down.
Ugly as the bank bailouts were, the federal government appears set to make its money back on most of them, with the exception of some smaller regional banks and CIT. Even AIG, one of the worst of the financial basket cases, is set to end up being a break-even proposition for U.S. taxpayers. But tens of billions of dollars will be lost on GM. The federal government put up more for a 60 percent interest in the firm than GM is worth today.
At their convention, Democrats swore that GM is “thriving,” but the market doesn’t think so: GM shares have lost half their value since January 2011. And while the passing of the Great Recession has meant growing sales for all automakers, GM is seriously lagging behind its competitors: Its sales are up 10 percent, a fraction of the increases at Kia, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Porsche. With its sales weak, its share price crashing, and its business model still a mess, some analysts already are predicting that GM will return to bankruptcy — but not until after the election.
The Obama administration talks up all of the “jobs” it saved at GM — but jobs doing what? Manufacturing automobiles that are not competitive without a massive government subsidy? Propping up an economically unviable enterprise just long enough to get Barack Obama reelected? As much as it will pain the hardworking men and women of GM to hear it, it is not worthwhile to save jobs at enterprises that cannot compete on their own merits. So long as the federal government is massively subsidizing the operation, a job at GM is a welfare program with a fairly robust work requirement. (And we all know how the Obama administration feels about work requirements.)
We have bankruptcy laws and bankruptcy courts for a reason. It may make sense to expedite the proceedings for very large firms such as GM in order to prevent disruptions in the supply chain that would, as Ford’s executives argued, harm other, healthier firms. But bankrupt is what GM was, and bankrupt is what GM is, a fact that will become blisteringly apparent should the government ever attempt to sell off the shares it owns in the company.
The GM bailout was a bad deal for GM’s creditors, for U.S. taxpayers, and, in the long run, for the U.S. automobile industry and our overall national competitiveness. No wonder the Democrats are campaigning on a fictionalized account of it.
-
Romney's Great New Ads
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on September 9, 2012
Printer-Friendly Version
Now that the dust has settled from the two conventions, the Romney campaign has started to "carpet bomb" swing states with a fabulous new ad! (And I have often been critical of their past efforts).
The ads, different in each of the swing states, each open with Romney's speech at the Convention saying: "This president can ask us to be patient. He can say it is somebody else's fault. But he cannot tell us that we are better off now than when he took office." The ads each then speak about the problems of the state in question and then go to the Romney Plan for each state.
The focus on the key question of whether we are better off now than four years ago is brilliant. It thoroughly exploits the opening Obama -- and particularly -- Clinton left for Romney at their convention. By telling Americans they are better off now than four years ago, the Democrats are really asking us to believe their speeches, not the evidence of our own eyes. Americans won't fall for it and the Democrats have left themselves open to their devastating answer: "Hell no! We are not better off! Not by a long shot! And if you think we are, you're living on another planet."
Then the ads go into the specific issues facing each state. Particularly impressive is how they target Obama's failure to stand up to China. By making China a key issue in the election (see our chapter on China in Screwed), Romney leads with his strength and undermines the outsourcing argument of the Democrats. In other states, he speaks of losses through defense cuts and, in Florida, on stopping home foreclosures.
Good for the Romney campaign! These ads will move the numbers.
You can view all of Romney's "A Better Future" ads by state below:
Click Here to view the Florida Home Values ad!
Click Here to view the Florida Defense ad!
Click Here to view the Virginia Defense ad!
Click Here to view the Virginia Families ad!
Click Here to view the Virginia Energy ad!
Click Here to view the Ohio Manufacturing ad!
Click Here to view the Ohio Defense ad!
Click Here to view the North Carolina Manufacturing ad!
Click Here to view the North Carolina Defense ad!
Click Here to view the Colorado Defense ad!
Click Here to view the Colorado Overregulation ad!
Click Here to view the Iowa Deficit ad!
Click Here to view the Iowa Overregulation ad!
Click Here to view the New Hampshire ad!
Click Here to view the Nevada ad!
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/why-obamas-convention-will-doom-his-re-election-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
Apparently because there is some documentary here in the US that upset Muslim sensisbilities in Libya, Egypt, and elsewhere in the Arab world. So yesterday, 911 Day, our embassy in Libya was attacked (apparently with loss of a life!) and our embassy in Cairo was attacked and its flag mutilated by a crowd waving AQ flags. We did not defend US soil and tear gas/shoot/whatever the fuckers as they came over the wall. The President did not deliver a righteous defense of our free speech in our country, nor in defense of the sanctity of US soil in the form of our embassy. Instead the State Dept. grovelled with a statement deploring how some people abuse free speech by hurting Muslim sensibilites and the President blew off requests by Israeli PM Netanyahu to meet with him while he, Netanyahu was in town :-o :x :x , , , and Romney has not the wit to jump all over this. :-P :-P :-P
-
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/12/13820723-romney-slams-obama-over-attacks-on-us-officials-in-libya-egypt?lite
-
Thanks BD, I had not seen that Romney had said anything-- though I score Sarah Palin the winner in the wittiest response category :lol: Romney might have a chance with "Hey! We Mormons come in for plenty of disrespectful guff without getting all mob-on-a-rampage.
-
Dunno how permanent the contents of this page may be, but at the moment there's several pertinent entries
http://twitchy.com/2012/09/11/us-embassy-in-cairo-quietly-deletes-its-we-stand-by-our-apology-tweet/
Apparently, in response to enraged commentary such as mine above, the White House has disavoved the US Egypt Embassy's apology.
Apprently it was our AMBASSADOR who was killed in Libya http://twitchy.com/2012/09/12/unconfirmed-graphic-death-photos-of-us-ambassador-stevens-circulating-on-twitter/
:x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x
-
Even though this is from Pravda on the Hudson, it makes what I think are good points; indeed maybe the author has read some of my posts :lol:
The Elephant in the Room
By ROSS DOUTHAT
If a polling lead in the first week of September were a guarantee of victory two months later, then John McCain and Al Gore would have both been sworn in as president of the United States. So no, President Obama’s convention bounce has not – repeat, has not — sealed the election for the Democrats.
What the Obama bounce has done, though, is dramatically reduce the possibility that this election will turn out like 1980 or 1992, when the electorate broke hard against the incumbent in the last few months of the campaign. The convention period was Mitt Romney’s best chance to pull substantially ahead of the president and set himself up to pull away. If Romney wins, it will probably be by a whisker, not a lap.
Judging by the last week’s worth of conservative commentary, this post-convention reality – a narrower path to victory for Romney and a stronger likelihood of defeat – comes as a shock to many of his backers. Not that they expected an outright landslide, necessarily. But there’s a strong consensus on the right that we should be headed for a much more decisive repudiation of this administration than the current polls suggest is possible.
“If the Republican Party cannot win in this environment,” George Will told his fellow panelists on ABC’s “This Week on Sunday,” “it has to get out of politics.” He was echoed by the popular radio host Laura Ingraham: “If you can’t beat Barack Obama with this record,” she told her listeners, “then shut down the party.” Likewise the historian and prominent Romney backer Niall Ferguson, who told Newsweek’s readers that Obama’s robust poll numbers proved that “the law of political gravity has been suspended.”
In their quest to explain the president’s resilience, conservatives haven’t just done the obvious thing and piled all the blame on Romney himself. They’ve started reaching for structural explanations for Romney’s underperformance, from “the left-controlled education system that has profoundly shaped the Millennials” (in the words of National Review’s Stanley Kurtz) to liberalism’s success at making the “government economy” of “federal welfare benefits” seem more important than the real economy of job creation (to quote the influential conservative blogger John Hinderaker).
Like Kurtz and Hinderaker, I think there are very interesting conversations to be had about conservatism’s inherent disadvantages in a welfare-state society with a liberal-tilting cultural establishment. But before we lose ourselves in sociology and poli-sci, it’s worth looking yet again at the most obvious explanation for Republican underperformance: The recent presidency of George W. Bush.
Vincent Laforet/The New York TimesGeorge W. Bush was sworn into office for a second time on January 20, 2005.
Eight years ago this November, Bush was re-elected with 51 percent of the popular vote, and his party gained four seats in the Senate, bringing their majority to 55 seats. Despite the controversy surrounding the Iraq War, the Republican Party of 2004 still retained the reputation that it had gained during the Reagan boom and the successful winding-down of the Cold War: A majority of Americans trusted Bush’s party to provide effective leadership abroad and to pursue broadly-shared prosperity at home, and Karl Rove’s vision of an enduring Republican majority seemed viable, if not inevitable.
Four years later, the dream was dead, and the public’s trust on both fronts was all-but-exhausted. The mismanagement of the Iraq occupation, piled on top of the W.M.D. fiasco, cost Bush’s party its reputation for foreign policy competence, while the Bush boom, such as it was, delivered weaker returns to the middle class than either the Reagan or the Clinton expansion – and then the financial crisis undid even those meager gains.
Since Bush left office, conservatives have been willing to acknowledge his failures as a fiscal conservative and to promise more responsibility on deficits and debt. This has been a necessary and important shift, responsible both for the energy of the Tea Party in the 2010 midterm elections and for the current Republican ticket’s (relatively) brave proposals on entitlement reform.
But the shift toward fiscal rectitude is the easy part, in a sense, because it just involved calling conservatives back to their principles, without necessarily acknowledging the places where ideology might need to adapt itself to new realities. It’s made the Republicans more serious than they were in January of 2008, but it’s left the party’s post-Bush weaknesses on the economy and foreign policy conspicuously unaddressed.
A presidential nominee could have filled this breach with fresh rhetoric and creative policy, but Romney, compromised and uncourageous, hasn’t been the right man for that job. On economics, he’s shifted awkwardly between a message that focuses (sensibly) on the struggles of the middle and working classes and a much more conventional right-wing celebration of entrepreneurs and “job creators.” On national security, he’s campaigned as a by-the-numbers hawk, with barely a hint that hawkishness might have delivered America into difficulties during the last Republican administration.
With unemployment still over 8 percent, he may be able to win with this kind of uncreative message. But the economy is stagnant, not collapsing, which means he’s not going win a big majority just by showing up.
To win the kind of victory that conservatives seem to think they should be winning, the Republican Party needs two things: A domestic agenda that offers more to hard-pressed families than just generic conservative rhetoric about the genius of capitalism, and a foreign policy program that reflects the hard lessons learned in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This is the simple reality of presidential politics in 2012. Americans don’t want to give the White House back to the Republicans because they remember the Bush era all too well. If they continue to be disappointed at the polls, conservatives will eventually recognize this problem, and grope toward some sort of solution. Until then, the fault for their party’s underperformance will lie not in the stars or the structure of our society, but in their own stubborn selves.
-
The Obama Bounce Fades
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on September 12, 2012
Printer-Friendly Version
The post convention bounce that led to jubilation in the mainstream media has exhausted itself and Romney is coming back strongly. Having shown Obama as much as four points ahead of Romney in the immediate aftermath of the Conventions, Rasmussen now has the president down to a one point margin: Obama: 46 Romney: 45.
Instead, the fundamental flaws of the Democratic strategy are emerging: By tying the race to unrealistic expectations of economic recovery, Obama has mortgaged his re-election campaign to the dismal monthly and weekly economic data that assaults us constantly.
And the days after his convention recessed have not been good for President Obama. Instead of strong executive leadership, we are seeing a world and a country in chaos while the president campaigns.
• Libya, which we liberated at a cost of over one billion dollars and at the risk of our military men and women, now fails to protect our embassy against Islamist extremists. Our ambassador is assassinated in a terrorist attack.
• Egypt, the recipient of $1.3 billion of U.S. aid permits a mob to storm our embassy in Cairo and burn our flag. Our embassy issues a statement calling an independent film privately produced in the United States "an abuse of the First Amendment" rather than making clear that free speech in America is nobody's business but our own.
• The president, continuing to bet on improving our image in the Muslim world, refuses to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu during his forthcoming visit to the United States.
• Meanwhile, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who masqueraded as a friend of Israel when she served in the Senate from New York, declares that there are no "red lines" constraining Iranian nuclear ambitions. They can, essentially, do whatever they want without triggering an American military response. And, despite Egyptian re-militarization of the Sinai and its increasing repudiation of the Camp David Accords, she approves additional aid and credits for Cairo.
• The Federal Reserve Board warns of an impending economic catastrophe as Bob Woodward's new book excoriates the Administration for failing to conclude -- or even seriously to pursue -- a long term debt and deficit reduction agreement.
• In Chicago, Obama's political base, the schools are closed and the teachers -- among the most highly paid in America -- are on strike to protest the Mayor's outrageous demand that their pay be based on their performance.
And through it all, there is no presidential leadership. He's too busy raising money to run ads so he can tell us what a great leader he is.
Everywhere we see, in ruins, Obama's plans for our country. His foreign policy has encouraged revolutions that have brought our worst enemies to power in the Middle East while his environmental policies have tried -- fortunately without success -- to limit our domestic production of energy. His education reforms have no teeth and he sits by passively as they are challenged by his own local teachers union.
Credit much of the quick end to his bounce to Romney's ads which, right off the bat after the Democratic Convention closed, rapped Obama for trying to convince us that we are better off than we were four years ago. Obama's campaign essentially poses the question: What will you believe -- your own eyes or my speeches?
And the polls show that the spellbinding power of his teleprompter-eloquence has a shorter and shorter half life.
-
A point from the panel on Bret Baeir's Special Report:
The Obama Doctrine itself for the middle east is in question. If Romney wants to take that on, then he should do so-- but just taking a hurried pot shot at the pre-emptive dhimmitude statement by the Embassy in Egypt and then going back to the economy is rather pointless.
-
FWIW:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/foreign-policy-hands-voice-disbelief-at-romney-cai
http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/springboard-or-setback-romney-sought-now-faces-foreign-policy-test-20120912
If Romney follows through, it will set him on a course to accomplish two goals: deflect criticism of his foreign-policy inexperience leveled by Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., at the Democratic National Convention, and force Obama to defend his handling of Islamic extremism and his vision of what the Arab Spring means to the region and U.S. interests there.
-
Quite a plehtora of anonymous sources in that first piece, though I can name one of my own: Peggy Noonan (who gets wobbly from time to time) said that MR "did himself no favors".
I myself have said here more than once that Romney has "a tin ear" on foreign affairs. I think Douthat's "Elephant in the Room" piece, posted yesterday by me, is on target. That much of what has gone wrong is due to left/liberal/progressive/Democrat/media disohonorable disruption, the facts remains IMHO that Bush made some major errors and public trust in Republican foreign affairs competence is very low.
It now looks like Romney will have to put up or shut up. Platitudes from our squandered uni-polar moment will not address the deep questions now presented the new realities of a once again multi-polar world. Nor will sounding like Bush. No one wants to double down on Afpakia, BO threw away Iraq (without getting blamed yet for what will prove to be a grievious error), and saying that we should have stayed with dying Mubarak is not a real vote winner either. Oh yes, we broke and headed for bankruptcy now too , , ,
The fecklessness of BO's foreign policy has been recorded and discussed here at length, but the fact is that the awareness and votes against it are not there and as BD's post lastnight/this morning on the Military Sciene thread indicates, MR is not showing a deft hand so far on these issues.
This could get interesting , , ,
-
"the facts remains IMHO that Bush made some major errors and public trust in Republican foreign affairs competence is very low."
In retrospect yes.
Hillary came out well in explaining the position better today.
The middle east is an inferno with no really great solution for the US or Israel.
Adding, if anyone has any doubts about Hillary running for 2016 you only need look at her today.
-
http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/249319-gop-pivots-to-broad-assault-on-obamas-foreign-policy
-
Sen. McCain is the kiss of death. I wish he would STFU even when he is right.
-
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/249469-romney-to-receive-intelligence-briefings-starting-next-week
-
Maybe Baraq can begin showing up for his briefings on a consistent basis too , , , :-P
====================
Why Mitt Will Win
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on September 11, 2012
Printer-Friendly Version
Now that both conventions are over, the dimensions of the likely Romney triumph are becoming clear. Both through an analysis of the polling and an examination of the rhetoric, the parameters of the victory are emerging.
Start with the polling. It appears that the bulk of the Obama post-convention bounce has been in blue states where his left-oriented convention stirred up the enthusiasm of an already committed group of voters. Among likely voters identified in the Washington Post poll -- taken after the conventions -- Obama holds a slim, 1-point edge. And an analysis of Rasmussen's state-by-state likely-voter data indicates a tie in the battleground states (according to Breitbart).
But it's not really a tie at all. All pollsters are using 2008 models of voter turnout. Some are combining '04 and '08 but skewing their samples to '08 numbers. African-Americans cast 11 percent of the national vote in '04, but their participation swelled to 13 percent in '08. These 2 million new black voters backed Obama overwhelmingly. Will they come out in such numbers again? Will college and under-30 voters do so as well? Will Latino turnout be at historic highs? All these questions have to be answered in the affirmative for the polling samples so widely published to be accurate.
For example, when a poll shows an Obama lead among likely voters of, say, 47 percent to 45, it is based on an assumption that blacks will cast 13 percent of the vote. But the lack of enthusiasm among Obama's base for his candidacy and their doubts about the economy make an 11 percent black turnout more likely. In this event, Romney would actually win 46 percent to 45.
And then there is the enthusiasm gap. All recent polling suggests that Republican and GOP-leaning independents are 13 points more enthusiastic and following the race more closely than their Democratic counterparts. If the grass roots do their job, this will yield a stronger Romney vote.
Finally, when every poll among every sample has Obama below 50 percent of the vote, it is most likely that the undecideds have, in fact, decided not to back his reelection.
But to crawl out of the statistical weeds, let's examine the state of the partisan dialogue. Former President Clinton made a huge blunder when he accepted the Republican challenge and flatly -- and loudly -- asserted that we are, in fact, better off than we were four years ago. Polls show that only about 33 percent of voters agree while close to half do not see the world that way.
Finally, both parties seemed happy to embrace the same formulation of the difference between them. Both agreed that the Republican Party is based on a philosophy of individual responsibility. Obama articulated it as "you're on your own." Republicans put it differently: "We'll get government off your back." Democrats said theirs was a party that would lend you a hand.
Gallup measured these two options and voters chose "leave me alone" over "lend me a hand" by 54 percent to 35.
Over the long haul, these are the questions that will dominate voting intentions. The function of the conventions is to formulate and articulate each party's view of the world. The fact that they were so similar and that each was willing to trust its fate to the question of "Are you better off?" means that the Romney message will have a very strong advantage. The decision by the Democrats to embrace this choice and not to move to the center will make it impossible for them either to reelect their president or to command a majority in the new Senate.
-
This should add to our security by forcing the President to receive intelligence briefings too - for political purposes.
The President's team is saying he reads them instead of having then presented in person more often than not and that he is perhaps the smartest person to have ever read them.
Clods like Reagan and George W bush were slower; sometimes when told a summary of all the complexities of all the greatest threats in the world against the United States they even had to ask ... a FOLLOWUP QUESTION.
-
There are follow up questions. Don't only read half of it. He reads, and then there ARE discussions held, though usually electronically.
-
D
There are follow up questions. Don't only read half of it. He reads, and then there ARE discussions held, though usually electronically.
Are you satisfied with that in a time of war?
Same for the jobs council? What if he misread the part about 50,000 new regulations killing job creation. An error smaller than that in national security could cost a Consulate.
-
I'm remembering that this is the CiC who appointed a new general to head things up in Afpakia, and then was unavailable to him for something like six months.
-
I've been saying this since the man was elected. He is not interested in American exceptionalism or American military superiority in the world. The man has been a great success in enacting his agenda - which is clear from his actions, but never stated. He has contempt for America - that is the fact of the matter. Most people don't want to believe that - but then - most Germans didn't want to believe that Hitler was as evil as he turned out to be either.
I urge everyone to see Dinesh D'Souza's film 2016 - NOW. It explains everything about what motivates Obama. I can assure you it isn't love of this country.
-
Brietbart reporting chaos at State Dept. Hillary ordered no bullets, no marines at Benghazi.
Who is her boss and how much time does he spend overseeing her work?
I reported earlier Amb Huntsman never met with the Pres in person or otherwise regarding China policy. Add to that Crafty's point about the Afghan commander and the cluelessness on jobs and growth, this man does not want the job; he wants the perks.
-
Last night Bret Baier again stated that the no ammo story was false.
-
Ok but there was still NO security. Was the boss aware of this?
It would have taken Axelrod telling him it affected his reelection to get his attention. MHO
-
"But sources have told the BBC that on the advice of a US diplomatic regional security officer, the mission in Benghazi was not given the full contract despite lobbying by private contractors."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19605322
This is an interesting story, and raises the possibility of an informant, which would not be surprising given what occurred.
Ok but there was still NO security. Was the boss aware of this?
It would have taken Axelrod telling him it affected his reelection to get his attention. MHO
-
Lets take this over to the Libya thread.
-
I agree w/ obj he is not interested in Am. exceptionalism or military superiority.
He enacted the beginning of his agenda and the results are horrible. He is just wrong about economics. You don't help the poor and the middle class this way.
He has contempt for much of what is great about America.
Hitler analogies fail unless someone has murdered 6 million Jews.
The delicate part is to get at the voting pattern of the very few among us who are truly swing voters.
-
Also the Pres. does not understand the nature of the enemy. He believed his own rhetoric. They hated the Texas swagger of George Bush and cannot resist his apologies and charm , but in fact they hate us because we exist and understanding that is crucial to our security.
-
I agree that the Hitler reference was a bad idea, for a number of reasons. It's rarely a good idea in any circumstance, since he's the lazy man's poster boy for evil. My point stands nonetheless - I believe we are living in a period which is in many ways analogous to 1938 - except that 74 years later, the world's leaders ought to know better.
It's illustrative of just how ignorant of history the masses are, and in many cases - our leaders are equally as ignorant, or unwilling to see and take proper action. Netanyahu is a notable exception.
Where are the rest? I don't believe Romney fully grasps the imminent danger, either. He seems a bit detached, and has never really understood the malignant cancer that is Islam.
Obama is a Marxist at heart. My suspicion is that he is not a religious man at all - he views Islam simply as a means to an end - a useful tool right now for bringing about the decline of America as a superpower - which he feels is long overdue. Most Americans are unwilling to believe this is possible - that we've elected a man who despises this nation as founded - who believes it is illegitimate and inherently corrupt - and who wants to destroy and remake it in his utopian image. That is the truth - we deny it at our peril.
-
National Review
Disgrace in Benghazi
By Mark Steyn
September 15, 2012 4:00 A.M.
So, on a highly symbolic date, mobs storm American diplomatic facilities and drag the corpse of a U.S. ambassador through the streets. Then the president flies to Vegas for a fundraiser. No, no, a novelist would say; that’s too pat, too neat in its symbolic contrast. Make it Cleveland, or Des Moines.
The president is surrounded by delirious fanbois and fangurls screaming “We love you,” too drunk on his celebrity to understand this is the first photo-op in the aftermath of a national humiliation. No, no, a filmmaker would say; too crass, too blunt. Make them sober, middle-aged midwesterners, shocked at first, but then quiet and respectful.
The president is too lazy and cocksure to have learned any prepared remarks or mastered the appropriate tone, notwithstanding that a government that spends more money than any government in the history of the planet has ever spent can surely provide him with both a speechwriting team and a quiet corner on his private wide-bodied jet to consider what might be fitting for the occasion. So instead he sloughs off the words, bloodless and unfelt: “And obviously our hearts are broken . . . ” Yeah, it’s totally obvious.
And he’s even more drunk on his celebrity than the fanbois, so in his slapdashery he winds up comparing the sacrifice of a diplomat lynched by a pack of savages with the enthusiasm of his own campaign bobbysoxers. No, no, says the Broadway director; that’s too crude, too ham-fisted. How about the crowd is cheering and distracted, but he’s the president, he understands the gravity of the hour, and he’s the greatest orator of his generation, so he’s thought about what he’s going to say, and it takes a few moments but his words are so moving that they still the cheers of the fanbois, and at the end there’s complete silence and a few muffled sobs, and even in party-town they understand the sacrifice and loss of their compatriots on the other side of the world.
But no, that would be an utterly fantastical America. In the real America, the president is too busy to attend the security briefing on the morning after a national debacle, but he does have time to do Letterman and appear on a hip-hop radio show hosted by “The Pimp with a Limp.” In the real State Department, the U.S. embassy in Cairo is guarded by Marines with no ammunition, but they do enjoy the soft-power muscle of a Foreign Service officer, one Lloyd Schwartz, tweeting frenziedly into cyberspace (including a whole chain directed at my own Twitter handle, for some reason) about how America deplores insensitive people who are so insensitively insensitive that they don’t respectfully respect all religions equally respectfully and sensitively, even as the raging mob is pouring through the gates.
When it comes to a flailing, blundering superpower, I am generally wary of ascribing to malevolence what is more often sheer stupidity and incompetence. For example, we’re told that, because the consulate in Benghazi was designated as an “interim facility,” it did not warrant the level of security and protection that, say, an embassy in Scandinavia would have. This seems all too plausible — that security decisions are made not by individual human judgment but according to whichever rule-book sub-clause at the Federal Agency of Bureaucratic Facilities Regulation it happens to fall under. However, the very next day the embassy in Yemen, which is a permanent facility, was also overrun, as was the embassy in Tunisia the day after. Look, these are tough crowds, as the president might say at Caesar’s Palace. But we spend more money on these joints than anybody else, and they’re as easy to overrun as the Belgian consulate.
As I say, I’m inclined to be generous, and put some of this down to the natural torpor and ineptitude of government. But Hillary Clinton and General Martin Dempsey are guilty of something worse, in the secretary of state’s weirdly obsessive remarks about an obscure film supposedly disrespectful of Mohammed and the chairman of the joint chiefs’ telephone call to a private citizen asking him if he could please ease up on the old Islamophobia.
Forget the free-speech arguments. In this case, as Secretary Clinton and General Dempsey well know, the film has even less to do with anything than did the Danish cartoons or the schoolteacher’s teddy bear or any of the other innumerable grievances of Islam. The 400-strong assault force in Benghazi showed up with RPGs and mortars: That’s not a spontaneous movie protest; that’s an act of war, and better planned and executed than the dying superpower’s response to it. Secretary Clinton and General Dempsey are, to put it mildly, misleading the American people when they suggest otherwise.
One can understand why they might do this, given the fiasco in Libya. The men who organized this attack knew the ambassador would be at the consulate in Benghazi rather than at the embassy in Tripoli. How did that happen? They knew when he had been moved from the consulate to a “safe house,” and switched their attentions accordingly.
How did that happen? The United States government lost track of its ambassador for ten hours. How did that happen? Perhaps, when they’ve investigated Mitt Romney’s press release for another three or four weeks, the court eunuchs of the American media might like to look into some of these fascinating questions, instead of leaving the only interesting reporting on an American story to the foreign press.
For whatever reason, Secretary Clinton chose to double down on misleading the American people. “Libyans carried Chris’s body to the hospital,” said Mrs. Clinton. That’s one way of putting it. The photographs at the Arab TV network al-Mayadeen show Chris Stevens’s body being dragged through the streets, while the locals take souvenir photographs on their cell phones. A man in a red striped shirt photographs the dead-eyed ambassador from above; another immediately behind his head moves the splayed arm and holds his cell-phone camera an inch from the ambassador’s nose. Some years ago, I had occasion to assist in moving the body of a dead man: We did not stop to take photographs en route. Even allowing for cultural differences, this looks less like “carrying Chris’s body to the hospital” and more like barbarians gleefully feasting on the spoils of savagery.
In a rare appearance on a non-showbiz outlet, President Obama, winging it on Telemundo, told his host that Egypt was neither an ally nor an enemy. I can understand why it can be difficult to figure out, but here’s an easy way to tell: Bernard Lewis, the great scholar of Islam, said some years ago that America risked being seen as harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend. At the Benghazi consulate, the looters stole “sensitive” papers revealing the names of Libyans who’ve cooperated with the United States.
Oh, well. As the president would say, obviously our hearts are with you.
Meanwhile, in Pakistan, the local doctor who fingered bin Laden to the Americans sits in jail. In other words, while America’s clod vice president staggers around pimping limply that only Obama had the guts to take the toughest decision anyone’s ever had to take, the poor schlub who actually did have the guts, who actually took the tough decision in a part of the world where taking tough decisions can get you killed, languishes in a cell because Washington would not lift a finger to help him.
Like I said, no novelist would contrast Chris Stevens on the streets of Benghazi and Barack Obama on stage in Vegas. Too crude, too telling, too devastating.
— Mark Steyn, a National Review columnist, is the author of After America: Get Ready for Armageddon. © 2012 Mark Steyn
-
As I have repeatedly stated: This President and his administration loathe the idea of American exceptionalism. These disastrous results are the predictable outcome of policies designed to weaken our defenses. This is not - I repeat - this is NOT an accident. As Steyn strongly implies, this administration is deliberately weakening this nation - domestically and around the world with regard to our foreign policy. This is by design. When will those Americans in denial about this - including many conservatives - give up their pollyanna-ish fantasy that this president, like any other - wants what is best for the United States as founded, and for her people? We have an enemy-in-chief.
-
Romney's Tax Plan Fails to Gain a Foothold
Conservatives Worry GOP Nominee is Losing Messaging Battle to Obama on an Issue They Say Should Favor Republicans.
By JOHN D. MCKINNON
Mitt Romney, who has proposed new cuts to individual and corporate taxes, has lost his recent lead over President Barack Obama on the question of which presidential candidate would best handle taxation, a reversal that turns up in several polls and presents a worrisome trend for the GOP nominee.
Republicans who favor tax cuts as a way to boost the economy, and who believe the issue should be a political winner for the GOP, are wondering why Mr. Romney hasn't gained traction with his tax-cut plan. Some say he simply isn't promoting it well or arguing forcefully that it would bring economic benefits.
Other Republicans say Mr. Obama is winning the message war by focusing on a simple idea with wide appeal—ending tax breaks for wealthier taxpayers—while Mr. Romney pushes a broader cut to marginal rates for all income brackets. That plan would be coupled with an overhaul of the tax code to narrow breaks and loopholes to offset the proposed cuts, although Mr. Romney hasn't offered many specifics.
At least four polls in recent weeks have found Mr. Obama holding an edge over Mr. Romney on who would best handle the issue of taxes. An ABC/Washington Post poll last week found Mr. Obama with a seven-point advantage on taxes among registered voters, after Mr. Romney had led in that survey in August. A Gallup poll in late August found Mr. Obama holding a nine-point lead on the issue of taxes, after Mr. Romney led in July.
Some conservatives suggest the Romney campaign hasn't done enough to convince voters that his plan would boost economic growth.
"I think there's an educational effort that needs to be made with the public," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former economic adviser to GOP Sen. John McCain's 2008 campaign. "I don't think sufficient effort has been made on that front" by the Romney campaign.
Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, a group that pushes for lower taxes, said the Romney campaign "would be better off focusing more on taxes. It's a clear winner." Mr. Norquist said taxes and federal spending issues brought many voters to the polls for the big GOP wave of 2010 and could help the party again. "I find it hard to believe you can overplay them," he said.
Others suggest the Obama team's call for the Bush-era tax cuts to expire for couples on income exceeding $250,000 a year is proving politically potent.
As recently as this past weekend, Mr. Obama's campaign unveiled a TV spot that says the president wants "millionaires to pay a little more to help invest in a strong middle class, clean energy and cut the deficit."
The ad also repeats Mr. Obama's assertion that Mr. Romney would reduce tax rates so much for the wealthy that middle-class tax bills would have to rise, a claim Mr. Romney says is untrue.
When tax cuts are linked to the loss of benefits or services, "the idea of reducing taxes…loses a lot of its political appeal," said Michael Graetz, a top Treasury tax official in the administration of President George H.W. Bush.
In addition, he said, "I think people are more aware that those at the top are doing well while people in the middle are running as hard as they can to stay in place. That makes the idea of tax cuts for everyone less appealing than they were, for example in 2000, when George W. Bush made them a centerpiece."
A Romney campaign spokeswoman, Amanda Henneberg, said Mr. Romney's plan would "fundamentally reform the tax system by lowering marginal tax rates across-the-board to jumpstart our economy." In contrast, she said, Mr. Obama's plan includes "massive tax increases that would hurt millions of businesses." She also said Mr. Romney would continue to trumpet his tax plan.
Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, said Mr. Romney was "out of step on taxes." He said the president already has cut taxes for middle-income families and that Mr. Romney would raise taxes on such families to pay for tax cuts for wealthier taxpayers.
Wall Street Journal polling this summer found support for raising taxes on the highest-income households, as Mr. Obama proposes. While a plurality of voters—37%—said in a July survey that the Bush tax cuts were good for the economy rather than bad, 50% of those polled said the Bush tax cuts should end for households earning more than $250,000 a year.
In its original form, Mr. Romney's tax plan called for extending Bush-era tax cuts and eliminating tax on investments for people earning less than $200,000. But when faced with GOP primary challengers, Mr. Romney expanded his plan, calling for eventually reducing marginal tax rates by an additional 20% and making other changes.
-
second post
http://www.dickmorris.com/democratic-convention-bounce-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
I almost feel sorry for Republicans. :-)
The economy is in the tank, world affairs are in disarray, and we're going broke. You would think it would be easy to beat Obama.
But along come Romney. Obama's savior. I mean even if what Romney says is true (others here have said the same) is this smart politics?
The man is shooting himself; Obama just needs to stay out of the way.
"“There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care of them, who believe that they are entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you name it,” Romney said in a videotaped speech to donors that was given to the news organization Mother Jones, which posted it online Monday.
“That's an entitlement," Romney said. "And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. … These are people who pay no income tax.”
In the remarks, Romney said he had no hope of swaying those people to his side and would instead focus on unaligned voters.
"[M]y job is not to worry about those people,” Romney said, referring to Obama supporters. “I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
The Obama campaign immediately lashed out at Romney, saying that he had effectively written off half the population.
“It's shocking that a candidate for president of the United States would go behind closed doors and declare to a group of wealthy donors that half the American people view themselves as ‘victims,’ entitled to handouts, and are unwilling to take ‘personal responsibility’ for their lives,” said Obama campaign manager Jim Messina. “It’s hard to serve as president for all Americans when you’ve disdainfully written off half the nation.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-obama-supporters-victims-20120917,0,1578696.story
Or another story; Romney's meltdown. Sorry, he was the wrong choice if you want to beat Obama. :-D
"For students of journalistic feeding frenzies in presidential politics, the Romney campaign-meltdown story merits close study.
The first striking feature is that the flashpoint story that pulled together his missteps -- the bungled foreign trip, his lackluster convention, his widely denounced response to the Libya carnage, to name a few -- appeared in the new media. It was on the Politico website Sunday under the headline "Inside the Campaign: How Mitt Stumbled," rather than in mainstream newspapers or on the networks' evening news shows, the traditional pacesetters in campaign coverage."
"First there was a series of early warning signs. Since the GOP convention, Romney has been getting blasted by his ought-to-be fellow travelers, notably the Weekly Standard, the Wall Street Journal, and freelance radio right-wingers. Where others have bludgeoned the Republican nominee, Fox News has nibbled, as if to indicate that telling the real, whole news would let too much water through the Titanic-like hole in the U.S.S. Romney."
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/17/opinion/raines-romney-media/index.html?hpt=po_c2
-
"Sorry, he was the wrong choice if you want to beat Obama."
You must be new around here. Old timers here can tell you that most everyone here, like most of the Republican electorate in the primaries, was looking for someone, anyone instead of Romney.
-
Famous people reading the forum, I thought Romney was just commenting on a CCP post made here. :wink:
No one could survive a remark like bitter clingers, 47% are dependent on government or that "I will have more flexibility after my election" to negotiate against the best interest of Americans? An interesting question would be, what would the vote result have been in 2008 if candidate Obama had not gotten caught ripping the bitter clingers? About the same.
The candidate better than Romney was ... Huntsman? With 1/10th of the support, a tax plan to the right of Romney and a little less charisma than Pawlenty? The Republicans had an open contest and Romney won. Dems suppressed theirs. No one is asking who should have been the Dem candidate to change the course of this American-led, global decline.
The Romney remark is imprecise, but the problem is real. It is not the exact same group that are both dependent and are the hard core Dem vote. Obama also wins with liberal elites, trust fund babies, the college professor crowd, the rich mainstream media, and also the anti-government felon vote. And quite a few of those receiving a check or not paying in are Republicans who understand the balance of keeping opportunity alive while taking care of those in real need.
Romney is the only person in the world right now capable of replacing Obama as President and preventing a second Obama, decline by design, Presidential term. Rip him at your own peril.
-
Romney's messages are too canned.
It will be a shame if Repubs lose the election because they do not have a mouthpiece who can spin like Clinton.
Then again they are up against the MSM, they are against a party that uses tax money to bribe as much electorate as they can.
Ari Fleischer was defending Romney and clearly pointing out the obvious. That 47 % paying no income taxes is a huge problem. Yet Andersan Cooper could not see to focus on this very valid and accurate point. Instead it was all about seniors who make up some of this group, it is about payroll tax (which we all know does not go into a lockbox account to pay for what it is supposed to but gets spent for other programs), and the "victimhood" remark.
As though the 47% are not happy to keep sticking it to the rich and taking their checks. They are all so insulted. Just more political correctness.
So will Obama be Carter or Romney Dole? It seems they are both.
What Romney said is exactly true. The country has become dependent, expecting the government to take care of them.
Case - proof in point - single mothers. They are overwhelmingly for the Democrats.
The country clearly is on the wrong track. But people don't care about ideology. They care about their bills.
-
COSTA MESA, Calif. — Mitt Romney, speaking to reporters Monday evening at a hastily called news conference meant to blunt the impact of a newly released video, said that he chose his critical words about Obama’s supporters poorly but did not back down from their substance.
“It’s not elegantly stated, let me put it that way. I’m speaking off the cuff in response to a question and I’m sure I can state it more clearly and in a more effective way than I did in a setting like that,” he said, before calling on the source of the video to release the full recording."
Now THAT'S an understatement!. :-o
-
HOW you say it IS important; not just what you say. That is an important reason why Reagan was so successful.
Here's Obama....
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- It’s never easy for a candidate to distill wonky debates about tax policy into terms voters can easily understand. Of late, the Obama campaign has borrowed heavily from the master, using former President Clinton's line about “arithmetic” to make the case that the Romney-Ryan plan doesn’t add up.
But Monday in Columbus, President Obama took a stab at explaining it in terms Ohio State University football fans would understand.
“Imagine the sellout crowd for a Buckeyes' football game at the Horseshoe,” he began, referring to a stadium with a seating capacity in excess of 100,000.
"Under my opponent's tax plan, 106 fans at the game would get an average tax cut of $250,000, and about 100,000 fans would have to pay for it," he said. “And by the way, the ones who would get the tax break are the guys in the box seats.
The sports analogy came after a weekend in which aides say the president watched quite a bit of football, in addition to receiving briefings on the situation in the Middle East, phoning heads of missions at diplomatic posts in affected nations, and potentially some debate prep.
The president told a crowd of 4,500 at a local park that it was tax breaks targeted to the middle class that were most likely to spur the economy.
“When I cut taxes on middle-class families, why did I do that? Because when you guys have a little more money in your pocket, what happens?” he asked. Spend it, was the crowd’s response.
On the other hand, “if you give a tax break to a billionaire, you can only buy so many yachts,” he said.
-
Inelegant, yes. It also gives an indication to his backers that he gets the political challenge we face. What is missing in the 'gotcha' film is how he would cut those SOB's money off as soon as he gets in. In fact, the baseline for a zero increase in spending is a ten trillion increase in spending, and the Ryan budget for one goes above that.
Whether you want a job, a good economy to open a new business in, or the security of knowing a legitimate safety net entitlement check will be funded into the future, you should be choosing the candidate with the best plan to grow the economy.
------------------
Yesterday in my studies of the dependency crowd I took the opportunity to visit a liquor store in one of the seediest areas of our inner city. In the center front of the store sidewalk was the Obama - register the vote table with one paid worker ready to help. I must say from my short period of observation coming and going that this is not 2008. People came and went with their liquor purchases but no one showed any interest in the table or even offered a sign of approval. Sure, if polled, the demographic is Dem or left of Dem. There is a strong racial pride (in all of us) that America in 2008 elected Barack Obama as President. But there is zero enthusiasm or optimism left from 2008 that 4 more years of Obama will make a personal and positive difference in their lives.
For one thing, poor people already had free government health care. Obama chose a middle class entitlement for his signature achievement; money that could have gone to the poor. The poor gained nothing, the middle class was the group that lost the most in terms of income, wealth, opportunity and jobs in the 6 years since Dems took over Washington in Nov. 2006, and the rich are openly targeted. Who is left to get excited about a second term?
-
JDN, I am surprised you quote Obama still showing no grasp of economics and offering no plan for solving any of our problems. He is still willing to lie and deceive in the hope of getting 4 more years of aircraft privileges.
"Under my opponent's tax plan, 106 fans at the game would get an average tax cut of $250,000, and about 100,000 fans would have to pay for it," he said.
- There is no Republican proposal to raise taxes on the middle class tax.
"the ones who would get the tax break are the guys in the box seats."
- The Romney plan will take away deductions for the upper income earners. Don't let facts get in the way of a great opportunity to build and exploit class hatred for his own personal power gain.
Elegant.
-
Romney's tax plan? It's a give to to rich and take from the middle class plan. So he and his friends can all own their own private aircraft AND deduct it from their taxes.
"Mitt Romney has proposed huge tax cuts that principally benefit the wealthy, while refusing to say how he would pay for them by closing unspecified loopholes (emphasis added). This lacks credibility and may become one of the rare tax-cut promises that is a political loser."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/us/17iht-letter17.html?_r=0
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Tax-VOX/2012/0830/Romney-plan-would-cut-taxes-for-the-rich-Romney-adviser-confirms
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/09/09/816841/romney-says-his-plan-to-cut-taxes-on-the-rich-doesnt-actually-cut-taxes-on-the-rich/
-
JDN., Links to falsehoods published in the media ought to go in media issues, no?
Do you have a link to Romney proposing to raise tax rates on the middle class? Oh, you don't. Just political opponents including our biased media lying to suggest what isn't so is so.
On the other side of your ignorance, JFK, Reagan, Clinton/Gingrich and George W Bush all increased revenues by cutting the marginal tax rates. The most recent example was a 44% surge over 4 years ending with the election of the Pelosi-Reid-Obama congress. This inconvenient truth has been posted many times on many threads. You ignore the content but confronted again with these facts do you still deny the truth?
Barack Obama, NY Times and JDN, all pyromaniacs in a field of straw men. Apologies to Geo. Will.
-
As many mainstream media personalities erupt in a hissy fit over what Romney said MONTHS AGO at a fundraiser (Mother Jones strategically released it now precisely to create such a frenzy), let's get some sane, factual analysis, shall we?
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/09/18/the-data-behind-romneys-47-comments/
-
Romney has got to stop being such a vagina to those pricks at the Pravdas.
He started a fight over the kitty attitude of Baraq et al, and now he runs from it because the media is having a snit.
ESCALATE!!!
This forum has been full of juicy facts and zingers he could be using.
BTW, I'm calling an "I called it" with regards to the Rep void on foreign affairs and with regard to Romney having a tin ear. Vague bromides that echo of Bush are not a winner. We are being run out of the mid-east and the man, who did not address Afpakia at the convention, has nothing to say and instead does the gotcha dance with the media. Oy vey!
IMHO this is why he fears to come to blows over this issue-- he has not the conceptual overview to speak of a uni-polar moment that has passed and what is to come, just like he has failed to articulate the why of the eco mess we are in: the housing bubble and how it was caused.
-
That IS his problem,
"and now he runs from it because the media is having a snit"
He runs a DIFFERENT direction every month because some interest group, be it right or left is having a snit. What does he stand for? Does HE even know anymore? He's not a "bad person", but not being a "bad person" doesn't make you presidential material. "Vague bromides" are not an answer.
Obama may/will win this whole thing, not because of his record or competency, but because of Romney's perceived incompetence.
This is the best the Republicans could do? :-o
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/us/politics/romney-campaign-cautious-with-ad-budget-even-in-key-states.html?_r=2ref=politics&
-
Noonan: Romney Needs a New CEO How to save a listing campaign, the Baker Way
By PEGGY NOONAN
"Nothing is written." That was T.E. Lawrence to the Arab tribesmen in Robert Bolt's screenplay, a masterpiece, of "Lawrence of Arabia." You write no one off. Nothing is inevitable. Life is news—"What happened today?" And news is surprise—"You're kidding!"
But you have to look at the landscape and see the shape of the land. You have to see it clearly to move on it well.
So here's one tough, cool-eyed report on what is happening in the presidential race. It's from veteran Republican pollster, now corporate strategist, Steve Lombardo of Edelman public relations in Washington. Mr. Lombardo worked in the 2008 Romney campaign. He's not affiliated with any candidate. This is what he wrote Thursday morning, and what he sees is pretty much what I see.
"The pendulum has swung toward Obama." Mitt Romney has "a damaged political persona." He is running behind in key states like Ohio and Virginia and, to a lesser extent, Florida. The president is reversing the decline that began with his "You didn't build that" comment. For three weeks he's been on a roll. The wind's at his back.
How did we get here? What can turn it around?
1. Mr. Romney came out of the primaries "a damaged and flawed candidate." Voters began to see him as elitist, rich, out of touch. "Here the Democrats' early advertising was crucial." Newt Gingrich hurt too, with his attacks on Bain.
2. The Democrats defined Mr. Romney "before he had a chance to define himself." His campaign failed in "not doing a substantial positive media buy to explain who Mitt Romney is and what kind of president he might be."
3. "Perceptions of the economy are improving." Unemployment is high, but the stock market has improved, bringing 401(k)s with it.
4. Obama's approval ratings are up five to six points since last year. He is now at roughly 49% approval, comparable to where President Bush was in 2004.
5. "The president had a strong convention and Romney a weak one." The RNC failed "to relaunch a rebranded Romney and create momentum."
6. Team Romney has been "reactive," partly because of the need for damage control, but it also failed to force the Obama campaign to react to its proposals and initiatives.
7. The "47%" comment didn't help, but Mr. Romney's Libya statement was a critical moment. Team Romney did not know "the most basic political tenet of a foreign crisis: when there is an international incident in which America is attacked, voters in this country will (at least in the short term) rally around the flag and the President. Always. It is stunning that Team Romney failed to recognize this."
But, says Mr. Lombardo, nothing is over, much remains fluid. The president and his campaign know it. "Among likely voters nationally only two-three points separate the two candidates." The debates are critical. "If Romney clearly wins the first debate" Oct. 3, "he has a good chance of reversing the trajectory of the last three weeks."
Why? "Because support for Obama remains lukewarm." That's why "he is not running away with this thing even after Romney's myriad stumbles."
Finally, "the economy is still weak and the jobs report on October 5th will be pivotal. A strong one may ensure an Obama victory. On the other hand, a poor one on the heels of a Romney debate win could re-align this race."
***
It is true that a good debate, especially a good first one, can invigorate a candidate and lead to increased confidence, which can prompt good decisions and sensible statements. There is more than a month between the first debate and the voting: That's enough time for a healthy spiral to begin.
But: The Romney campaign has to get turned around. This week I called it incompetent, but only because I was being polite. I really meant "rolling calamity."
A lot of people weighed in, in I suppose expected ways: "Glad you said this," "Mad you said this." But, some surprises. No one that I know of defended the campaign or argued "you're missing some of its quiet excellence." Instead there was broad agreement with the gist of the critique—from some in the midlevel of the campaign itself, from outside backers and from various party activists and officials. There was a perhaps pessimistic assumption that no one in Boston would be open to advice. A veteran of a previous Romney campaign who supports the governor and admires him—"This is a good man"—said the candidate's problem isn't overconfidence, it's a tin ear. That's hard to change, the veteran said, because tin-earness keeps you from detecting and remedying tin-earness.
Peggy Noonan's Blog
Daily declarations from the Wall Street Journal columnist.
.
There were wistful notes from the Republicans who'd helped run previous campaigns, most of whom could be characterized as serious, moderate conservatives, all of whom want to see Mr. Romney win because they believe, honestly, that the president has harmed the country financially and in terms of its position in the world. They're certain it will only get worse in the next four years, but they're in despair at the Romney campaign. Some, unbidden, brought up the name James A. Baker III, who ran Ronald Reagan's campaign in 1984 (megalandslide—those were the days) and George H.W. Bush's in 1988 (landslide.)
What they talked about, without using this phrase, is the Baker Way.
This was a man who could run a campaign. Twice in my life I've seen men so respected within their organizations that people couldn't call them by their first names. That would be Mr. Paley, the buccaneer and visionary who invented CBS, and Mr. Baker, who ran things that are by nature chaotic and messy—campaigns and White Houses—with wisdom, focus, efficiency, determination and discipline. And he did it while being attacked every day from left, right and center—and that was in the Reagan White House, never mind outside, which was a constant war zone.
Mr. Baker's central insight: The candidate can't run the show. He can't be the CEO of the campaign and be the candidate. The candidate is out there every day standing for things, fighting for a hearing, trying to get the American people to listen, agree and follow. That's where his energies go. On top of that, if he's serious, he has to put in place a guiding philosophy that somehow everyone on the plane picks up and internalizes. The candidate cannot oversee strategy, statements, speechwriting, ads. He shouldn't be debating what statistic to put on slide four of the Powerpoint presentation. He has to learn to trust others—many others.
Mr. Baker broke up power centers while at the same time establishing clear lines of authority—and responsibility. When you screwed up, he let you know in one quick hurry. But most of all he had judgment. He delegated, and only the gifted were welcome: Bob Teeter, Dick Darman, Roger Ailes, Marlin Fitzwater. He didn't like hacks, he didn't get their point, and he knew one when he saw one.
A campaign is a communal exercise. It isn't about individual entrepreneurs. It's people pitching in together, aiming their high talents at one single objective: victory.
Mitt Romney needs to get his head screwed on right in this area. Maybe advice could come from someone in politics who awes him. If that isn't Jim Baker then Mitt Romney's not awe-able, which is a different kind of problem.
-
"Maybe advice could come from someone in politics who awes him. If that isn't Jim Baker then Mitt Romney's not awe-able, which is a different kind of problem. "
Jim Baker is one of those guys who is ALWAYS the smartest guy in the room. He knows more about more than, well, anyone I can think of. He is also humble and kind, and approachable. In other words, this is a great article with sage advice. If Romney can get Baker, even if just as a "surrogate," Romney could back on track.
-
It would help if Romney had the instinct to connect his criticism of the dhimmi attitude of the State Dept in Cairo with the dhimmi attitude that drove the perp walking of the maker of the "film" with the dhimmi attitude that drove the "request" to Google to see if it should delete the "film" from youtube. Basic, basic stuff and it just isn't happening. Ugh.
-
This has been produced by the "Let Freedom Ring" PAC, and is running starting today in several key swing states:
www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DQkSFU75LC0
-
Not bad. It would have fit to include Morsi's call for the US to release the Blind Sheik too.
-
2012 Tipping Point?
Center for Security Policy | Sep 17, 2012
By Frank Gaffney, Jr.
History is replete with examples of strategic miscalculations in which an over-reach - usually born of contemptuous disdain for a foe - led to disaster for the aggressor. Think Napoleon's invasion of Russia in 1812. Or Hitler's of the Soviet Union 131 years later. We may look back at September 11, 2012 as the kick-off date for such a tipping point in our time.
To be sure, the Muslim Brotherhood and its fellow Islamists - notably, al Qaeda franchises throughout the Middle East and beyond, other so-called "Salafists," Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia and the mullahs of Iran - were becoming increasingly aggressive towards us even before last week's mayhem in Libya, Egypt, Yemen, etc. Team Obama (notably in the person of its hapless and overexposed UN Ambassador, Susan Rice) and its running dogs in the elite media would nonetheless have us believe that the upset is the by-product of an amateurish short video that disparages Mohamed.
In fact, as most sentient beings have realized by now, that film is but the latest pretext for Islamists to demand our adherence to what they call shariah blasphemy laws. [Such laws are but a part of the larger, brutally repressive Islamic political, military and legal doctrine that prohibits any expression that offends, or otherwise is unhelpful to, their faith.]
Unfortunately, the Obama administration has repeatedly conveyed a willingness to accommodate - or at least tolerate - this threat to one of our most fundamental constitutional liberties: freedom of speech. That willingness is part of a pattern of submissive behavior that has encouraged the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies to believe that America is in retreat and that shariah's inevitable, divinely-directed and global triumph is at hand. Their response, predictably, is to redouble efforts to make us, in the Quran's words, "feel subdued."
Examples of such behavior abound. Consider just a few of the more telling cases-in-point (for more, visit www.MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com):
In May 2009, President Obama insisted that Muslim Brotherhood representatives be in the audience for his first speech directed at the Islamic world. It was delivered at Cairo University and freighted with apologies for past U.S. policies and efforts to associate himself with the beliefs and priorities of his audience.
Interestingly, Mr. Obama had already operationalized that policy approach two months before, by having the U.S. delegation to the UN Human Rights Council co-sponsor with Egypt a resolution drafted by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The object of the exercise was to further the OIC's longstanding objective of forcing UN member nations to prohibit and criminalize expression that offends Islam.
In July 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton launched a formal effort with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation dubbed the "Istanbul Process" to explore ways in which our First Amendment rights could accommodate shariah blasphemy laws. (Some of those playing an influential role in this exercise are discussed in a booklet about "The Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama Administration" I just published with the David Horowitz Freedom Center: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/frontpagemag-com/the-muslim-brotherhood-in-the-obama-administration/.)
In December 2011, the Istanbul Process achieved an ominous milestone: The odious UN Human Rights Council adopted, with strong U.S. support, Resolution 16/18 committing member nations to adopt "measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief." Lest anyone think this a clever finesse, more or less in alignment with current U.S. law, the OIC's secretary general made clear that his organization did not view it as "the end of the road." And, indeed, developments of the past week - both here and abroad, official and non-governmental - suggest that Team Obama is prepared to go farther, too.
Given such encouragement, it is not surprising that the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies would respond by demanding further accommodations to them and their shariah agenda. What is a surprise, though, is that they are acting out their ambitions at this juncture - not after November 6th, when President Obama will, in his words, "have more flexibility." It suggests that the Islamists have reached their tipping point, propelled to seek decisive domination by President Obama's perceived weakness, irresolution and submissiveness.
In the face of our enemies' overreaching aggressiveness, however, the American people now face a tipping point of their own. If they arrive at the only sensible conclusion - namely, that four more years of the Obama administration's malfeasance with respect to jihadism of both the violent and the stealthy, pre-violent kind - they may just respond by refusing to re-up a presidency that enables and emboldens our foes and undermines our liberties and friends. And should such a tipping point be realized, it will be one of truly epic historic proportions and prized by freedom-loving peoples forever.
-
According to the Gainesville Sun, Cain said he would have a "substantial lead" over President Barack Obama if he were the Republican nominee instead of Mitt Romney.
"The reason is quite simple: I have some depth to my ideas," he said.
Poor Romney.... I couldn't have said it better myself! :-D
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/21/cain-says-hed-be-winning/
-
Cain got a receptive hearing in these parts when he was running.
==================================
Why The Polls Under State Romney Vote
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on September 21, 2012
Printer-Friendly Version
Republicans are getting depressed under an avalanche of polling suggesting that an Obama victory is in the offing. They, in fact, suggest no such thing! Here's why:
1. All of the polling out there uses some variant of the 2008 election turnout as its model for weighting respondents and this overstates the Democratic vote by a huge margin.
In English, this means that when you do a poll you ask people if they are likely to vote. But any telephone survey always has too few blacks, Latinos, and young people and too many elderly in its sample. That's because some don't have landlines or are rarely at home or don't speak English well enough to be interviewed or don't have time to talk. Elderly are overstated because they tend to be home and to have time. So you need to increase the weight given to interviews with young people, blacks and Latinos and count those with seniors a bit less.
Normally, this task is not difficult. Over the years, the black, Latino, young, and elderly proportion of the electorate has been fairly constant from election to election, except for a gradual increase in the Hispanic vote. You just need to look back at the last election to weight your polling numbers for this one.
But 2008 was no ordinary election. Blacks, for example, usually cast only 11% of the vote, but, in 2008, they made up 14% of the vote. Latinos increased their share of the vote by 1.5% and college kids almost doubled their vote share. Almost all pollsters are using the 2008 turnout models in weighting their samples. Rasmussen, more accurately, uses a mixture of 2008 and 2004 turnouts in determining his sample. That's why his data usually is better for Romney.
But polling indicates a widespread lack of enthusiasm among Obama's core demographic support due to high unemployment, disappointment with his policies and performance, and the lack of novelty in voting for a black candidate now that he has already served as president.
If you adjust virtually any of the published polls to reflect the 2004 vote, not the 2008 vote, they show the race either tied or Romney ahead, a view much closer to reality.
2. Almost all of the published polls show Obama getting less than 50% of the vote and less than 50% job approval. A majority of the voters either support Romney or are undecided in almost every poll.
But the fact is that the undecided vote always goes against the incumbent. In 1980 (the last time an incumbent Democrat was beaten), for example, the Gallup Poll of October 27th had Carter ahead by 45-39. Their survey on November 2nd showed Reagan catching up and leading by three points. In the actual voting, the Republican won by nine. The undecided vote broke sharply -- and unanimously -- for the challenger.
An undecided voter has really decided not to back the incumbent. He just won't focus on the race until later in the game.
So, when the published poll shows Obama ahead by, say, 48-45, he's really probably losing by 52-48!
Add these two factors together and the polls that are out there are all misleading. Any professional pollster (those consultants hired by candidates not by media outlets) would publish two findings for each poll -- one using 2004 turnout modeling and the other using 2008 modeling. This would indicate just how dependent on an unusually high turnout of his base the Obama camp really is.
-
I supported Herman Cain from the beginning. I've known about and admired him for many years here in the Atlanta area. He was my number one choice, but sadly - the media attack machine took a serious toll on his wife - who has a heart condition - and he made the only honorable decision by bowing out of the race. I don't believe ANY of the sexual harassment accusations had any merit, having met the man, and knowing people personally who have known him for many years. I agree that he'd be a vastly superior candidate to Romney, but all that is water over the dam at this point. As Mark Levin (never a fan of Romney) said repeatedly during the primary season: "If Romney wins the nomination, we're going to have to fight like hell to drag him across the finish line, and then continue to fight like hell if he is elected to pull him to the right. The bottom line is - Obama MUST be defeated if this nation is to survive as founded. I'd vote for an orange juice can over Obama."
-
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/09/23/chris-wallace-asks-obama-adviser-president-has-time-whoopi-goldberg-n#ixzz27Iq8zOCR
-
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/whats-wrong-with-pennsylvania/?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120924
-
Romney is within margin of error in latest PA poll. Watch for headfakes from the campaigns.
Meanwhile for Obama, Israel's right to exist is "noise" and a murdered Amb. is a bump in the road.
Inelegant is a pretty good understatement for the past 4 years.
-
http://ivn.us/common-sense/2012/09/23/gary-johnson-files-anti-trust-lawsuit-for-entry-to-debates/
-
"60 Minutes" Contrast Between Romney, Obama on Entitlements
From The Heritage Foundation - September 25, 2012.
The official, head-to-head debates begin next week, but Sunday’s “60 Minutes” appearances by President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) provided a contrast in the ideas offered on the nation’s entitlements and spending crisis.
For his part, the President punted on a serious question about the nation’s concern over spending—blaming everything on President George W. Bush. Instead of addressing the spending question, he waited for the next question about the national debt, which has increased more than 50 percent since he took office. Then came the familiar refrain of why he’s not responsible for Washington’s overspending or the country’s abysmal fiscal situation:
When I came into office, I inherited the biggest deficit in our history. And over the last four years, the deficit has gone up, but 90 percent of that is as a consequence of two wars that weren’t paid for, as a consequence of tax cuts that weren’t paid for, a prescription drug plan that was not paid for, and then the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
These continued excuses ignore the massive increases since the President took office. According to Heritage expert Emily Goff: By fiscal year 2008, the deficit had reached $458.6 billion. The deficit was increasing as Obama came into office, mainly driven by the recession and the first wave of TARP bailouts. But his Administration’s massive stimulus bill sent spending into overdrive and led to a record $1.4 trillion deficit for fiscal year 2009. Deficits have stayed at more than $1 trillion each year since then.
America’s entitlement programs are the major driver of out-of-control spending. Without reform, they would push federal spending to nearly 36 percent of the economy within a generation. Debt held by the public would explode to nearly 200 percent. Serious structural reforms are inevitable—it is merely a question of how we change what we are doing.
In his “60 Minutes” interview, Obama glossed over Obamacare’s cuts to Medicare and the resulting costs for seniors.
Romney, when asked how he would change Social Security, first made clear there should be no changes to benefits for those in or near retirement.
But he went on:
What I’d do with Social Security is say this: that again, people with higher incomes won’t get the same high growth rate in their benefits as people with lower incomes. People who rely on Social Security should see the same kind of growth rate they’ve had in the past. But higher income folks would receive a little less.
As Heritage expert Alison Fraser explains, Social Security is already income-adjusted today. This is called means testing. Benefits are capped for high-income earners, and the calculation of initial benefits a new retiree receives is based on his or her past income. Upper-income retirees pay a much higher tax than those with lower incomes. Romney proposes to extend this income adjusting so that upper-income retirees receive a bit less than they do now.
While many politicians claim that the only way to address entitlements is to raise taxes or cut benefits, expanding means testing is a serious and sound way to pursue reform.
These kinds of solutions can be found in Saving the American Dream, Heritage’s blueprint for solving our spending and debt crises. Saving the American Dream lays out solutions like slowly moving to a flat Social Security benefit that keeps seniors out of poverty, means testing Social Security so that very affluent seniors have a reduced benefit, and moving to a more robust means-tested premium support mechanism for Medicare that offers seniors choice and control over their health dollars and better health outcomes.
Without reforms, entitlement programs will push spending to untenable levels and put undue pressure on vital areas of government such as national defense. The Obama Administration’s comments about reform, like "now is not the time" for fixing Social Security and the need for a "balanced approach," have been proven hollow by its push for tax hikes on job creators. We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem, and the longer Washington wastes time, the harsher the changes will have to be.
This debate is vital. To save the American economy and sustain the safety net for those who need it, spending must be reined in and entitlement programs must be reformed.
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/romney-gaining-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
My 2 cents on this lawsuit story that BD posted yesterday:
I have sympathies with the Libertarian Party, but that movement needs IMO to fight for market share within the Republican and Democratic parties in order to succeed.
There is no constitutional basis for a two party system in the first place; all parties have rights and opportunities to compete.
The advantage of a two party dominated reality is that the winner has to try to surpass 50% of the vote to win. In a split multi-party environment, a candidate can target a much smaller segment for victory. In other countries for example, coalitions are then formed in back room deals. That is not better IMO than our system.
Gary Johnson chose to debate and compete in the Republican primaries, then seeing virtually no support he went the 'third party' route http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70727.html. The general election does not need to included a consolation or losers bracket. If you can get on the ballot, fine. If you can get a news camera to film you, all the better, but we are not obligated to watch you.
It looks to me like the debate commission, operating under a freedom of association, offers a very open and objective standard for inclusion beyond the two largest current parties:
"...have achieved ballot access in a sufficient number of states to win a theoretical Electoral College majority in the general election; and have demonstrated a level of support of at least 15 percent of the national electorate..."
That standard could be tighter, it could require getting on the ballot in all 50 states, or looser, it could require polling support of 10% or 5%. Still none of these other candidates would qualify at this point. 15% is still less than half the support needed to win in a 3-way contest. If you make the standards too low and the stage too wide, the meaning and importance of the event is lost. We saw that in the early debates that DID include Gary Johnson.
When there has been a serious 3rd party challenge in the past, the candidate was included in the debates, see Ross Perot 1992. In a state example, the MN rule was that if a party won 15% in the previous election, they earn major party status in the next election. A previous independent candidate for Senate, Dean Barkley, made it possible for Jesse Ventura to stand on the podium while Hubert H Humphrey III and Norm Coleman were bickering and win election as an Independent Party Governor.
The fall debates are not designed for publicizing a large list of unknowns, the purpose is to put a final, public focus on the finalists who have already qualified as contenders. There is no legal requirement that any serious contender must participate as we are apparently seeing in the one party state of Calif with Sen. Stalin, I mean Feinstein. Add in too much dilution and the major candidates could easily opt out.
There is nothing stopping other parties from forming through freedom of association their own debates or other events sponsored by whatever organizations and media outlets that they can they arrange, just like Republicans and Democrats did.
Gary Johnson wants a level of viewership and attention that he has not earned.
-
Doug, while I happen to agree with you, you took the opposite side of the argument when we discussed Feinstein and whether she should debate her opponent.
Basically, your point now was my point then.
Feinstein's opponent "wants a level of viewership and attention that he (she) has not earned."
-
Doug, while I happen to agree with you, you took the opposite side of the argument when we discussed Feinstein and whether she should debate her opponent.
Basically, your point now was my point then.
Feinstein's opponent "wants a level of viewership and attention that he (she) has not earned."
You would argue that the Republican candidate for US Senate is a minor party candidate, beneath a 15% support threshold? That was the question posed.
The irony I was pointing out in yours was treating Romney and Feinstein differently. Difference on my side is that income details of previous years is arguably PRIVATE information already reviewed by the IRS and others while positions on issues and being pinned down in a debate on how you will vote and held to defend your votes in the senate is RELEVANT to the election. Neither is a requirement for office. I said shame on her. In a debate she would have to answer to a couple of liberal reporters and the viewers, not just to the 15% candidates. I wouldn't vote for her either way, nor will you for Romney.
-
No, I was arguing that the Republican candidate for US Senate in CA ""wants a level of viewership and attention that he (she) has not earned."
As for tax returns, we agree to disagree. If you are running for President, and if you are worth a quarter of a billion dollars, and further, much of your income is generated
offshore, I think the American people would like to know more details. It's not a "requirement", but it is a debatable point. And I think it has hurt Romney's credibility and image
by not turning them over a long time ago.
As for Feinstein, she doesn't need your vote, she is going to win easily. As for Romney, even if he had my vote I doubt he will win.
-
Romney Pulls Ahead
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on September 25, 2012
The published polling in this year's presidential race is unusually inaccurate because this is the first election in which who votes determines how they vote. Obama's massive leads among blacks, Latinos, young people, and single women vie with Romney's margin among the elderly, married white women, and white men. Tell me your demographic and I'll tell you who you're voting for and I'll be right at least two times out of three!
Most pollsters are weighting their data on the assumption that the 2012 electorate will turn out in the same proportion as the 2008 voters did. But polling indicates a distinct lack of enthusiasm for the president among his core constituency. He'll still carry them by heavy margins, but the turnout will likely lag behind the 2008 stats. (The 2008 turnout was totally unlike that in other years with all-time historic high turnouts among Obama's main demographic groups).
Specifically, most pollsters are using 2008 party preferences to weight their 2012 survey samples, reflecting a much larger Democratic preference than is now really the case.
In my own polling, I found a lurch to the Democrats right after their convention, but subsequent research indicates that it has since petered out. Indeed, when one compares party identification in the August and September polls of this year in swing states, the Democratic Party identification is flat while the ranks of Republicans rose by an average of two points per state.
Pollster Scott Rasmussen has the best solution to the party id problem. He weights his polls to reflect the unweighted party identification of the previous three weeks, so he has a dynamic model which adjusts for sampling error but still takes account of gradual changes in the electorate's partisan preferences.
Finally, with Obama below 50% of the vote in most swing states, he is hitting up against a glass ceiling in the high 40s. He can't get past it except in heavily Democratic states like New York or California. The first time Obama breaks 50 will not be on Election Day. Either he consistently polls above 50% of the vote or he won't ever get there in the actual vote.
So here's where the race really stands today based on Rasmussen's polling:
• Romney leads decisively in all states McCain carried (173 electoral votes).
• Romney is more than ten points ahead in Indiana - which Obama carried. (11 electoral votes)
• Romney leads Obama in the following states the president carried in 2008: Iowa (44-47) North Carolina (45-51), Colorado (45-47), and New Hampshire (45-48). He'll probably win them all. (34 electoral votes).
This comes to 218 of the 270 Romney needs. But...
• Obama is below 50% of the vote in a handful of key swing states and leads Romney by razor thin margins in each one. All these states will go for Romney unless and until Obama can show polling support of 50% of the vote:
• Obama leads in Ohio (47-46) and Virginia (49-48) by only 1 point (31 electoral votes)
• Obama leads in Florida (48-460) and Nevada (47-45) by only 2 points (35 electoral votes)
If Romney carries Ohio, Virginia, and Florida, he wins. And other states are in play.
• Obama leads in Wisconsin (49-46) by only 3 points (10 electoral votes)
• Obama's lead in Michigan is down to four points according to a recent statewide poll
• Obama is only getting 51% of the vote in Pennsylvania and 53% in New Jersey. And don't count out New Mexico.
It would be accurate to describe the race now as tied. But Romney has the edge because:
• The incumbent is under 50% in key states and nationally. He will probably lose any state where he is below 50% of the vote.
• The Republican enthusiasm and likelihood of voting is higher
• The GOP field organization is better.
That's the real state of play today.
-
http://www.humanevents.com/2012/09/26/gingrich-how-to-debate-obama/
-
(http://1-ps.googleusercontent.com/h/www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2012/09/399x282xCatholics-for-Obama-copy.jpg.pagespeed.ic.lzvuiVxAxC.jpg)
-
http://www.rollcall.com/news/jim_webb_dings_mitt_romney_on_veterans_military_service-217866-1.html?pos=htmbtxt
-
Ouch.
And, moving BD's post in the Libya thread to here:
http://nationaljournal.com/politics/romney-cautiously-eyes-foreign-policy-opening-with-libya-20120928?page=1
-
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/barack-obama-rally-cold-open/1418895
-
Romney missed the word veterans in his acceptance speech. I'm assuming Obama's writers gave them a shout out. I doubt the veteran unemployment problem has ever been worse.
President Obama omitted the word 'constitution' in speech defending no congress authorization for the war in Libya. Oops. Webb's 2011 criticism of the Libyan war forgotten in 2012? http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/defense-homeland-security/168505-sen-webb-has-serious-problems-with-obamas-handling-of-libya
Jim Webb, John Kerry and John McCain served in Vietnam. Romney did not serve in Vietnam. No President ever has. The correlation I see is that Webb endorses Democrats, not veterans.
Jim Webb thinks Romney is thinking about veterans when he says too many people are dependent on government. Insincere IMHO.
Word count can be telling though. From President Obama's bin Laden operation announcement:
I: 9
me: 2
my: 3
That is 14 first person pronouns on a day he played golf to make sure the enemy didn't think anything unusual was up.
Gas prices doubled under Obama. Obama consumed 53,300 gallons on an Earth Day trip. http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/04/22/earth-day-ends-obamas-53300-gallon-trip His acceptance speech missed any reference to 'energy' or gas prices. Time constraints?
Jim Webb's idea of a person who spent his young adult life preparing to be Commander in Chief is Barack Obama - of the Choomg gang?
I understand Jim Webb is leaving politics. Maybe endorsements like this have taken a toll on him.
-
Alexander's Column – September 27, 2012
The FDR Model for Buying Presidential Elections
Redistributing Wealth and Entitlements for Votes
"[N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt." --Samuel Adams (1749)
In the conservative and business media, there is much perplexity and vexation over the inverse relationship between Barack Hussein Obama's rising job approval ratings and our nation's failing economic status. Typifying the confusion is this missive from The Wall Street Journal: "The paradox of this presidential campaign is that the worse the economic news gets, the more Barack Obama seems to climb in the polls. The lousy unemployment numbers in May, June, July and August corresponded with a slight rise in Mr. Obama's approval rating. Ditto with the abysmal poverty numbers released two weeks ago."
However, given a little insight into human nature, there is nothing contradictory about Obama's polling and the economies decline. The only thing that perplexes me about these popularity metrics is why anyone would be perplexed.
Now that the latest data on median household income indicates it declined by $4,520, or 8.2 percent, since Obama took office, and U.S. economic growth has been revised downward to a meager 1.3 percent, Obama's lead over the Romney-Ryan ticket will likely increase another point.
Why?
A majority of the voters who decide presidential elections -- those in the murky middle between Republicans and Democrats -- are experiencing significant distress about the future of their livelihoods. Thus, they are gravitating toward the more convincing promise of safety and security. In the context of the current presidential campaign, however defiant of logic, the "undecided" are being lured by the greatest of lies -- that socialist statism will protect them.
Some erudite analysts suggest that the upcoming election will mirror the 1980 contest between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. However, unlike the Carter v. Reagan paradigm of the last great recession, when Ronald Reagan devoted his campaign to restoring the grassroots optimism necessary for reversing the crisis of confidence miring our economy in the mud, Romney is facing a much more menacing foe -- an ideological socialist who is operating on the FDR paradigm.
In 1932, in the midst of the Great Depression, more than 20 percent of the workforce was idle. At that time, Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt launched a campaign against Republican Herbert Hoover that was built on the populist socialism themes that had spread like a blight over Eastern Europe. The key elements of that paradigm were classist disparity and wealth redistribution -- precisely the themes Obama used during the precipitous economic decline of 2008 to defeat John McCain.
FDR, in his defense of Democratic Socialism, offered this dubious classist assertion: "Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle." Of course, Roosevelt was paraphrasing the doctrine of Karl Marx, whose maxim declared, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
FDR was able to implement far more of his statist New Deal solutions in his first four years than Obama -- who has faced stiff opposition from the House of Representatives since Republicans retook the majority in 2010. But Obama, like FDR, is a master propagandist, and his populist socialist appeals resonate beyond the cadres of his state-dependent cult.
Some might argue that FDR had more fertile ground in which to plant his socialist seeds of dissension, but the fact is that real unemployment today is closing in on that of the Great Depression -- 19 percent rather than the current 8.1 percent figure trotted out by Obama's Bureau of Labor Statistics. The latter figure, which is much less alarming, simply ignores the millions of Americans who've given up looking for work and are thus no longer counted in the workforce, and millions more who are underemployed.
Fact is, everyone in America knows someone who has been adversely affected by our economic decline, and most Americans, regardless of political identification, are concerned about their ability to support themselves and their families. In such times of widespread economic distress, the innate tendency to gravitate toward perceived safety, toward even the fantasy of "Hope and Change" in order to move "Forward," is very strong.
As Patrick Henry observed at the dawn of our nation, "It is natural for man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth -- and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts."
Moreover, Obama has a propaganda tool FDR could not even imagine -- the mass-Leftmedia conduit into the psyche of the American people, which he uses to dupe the ignorant into trading their votes for socialist entitlements from redistributed wealth.
FDR, in his second presidential campaign, had amassed a powerful coalition of Leftist protagonists that included leaders of urban political machines and unions, the intelligentsia and glitterati, and religious and ethnic minorities. His opponent was a Republican governor who had, in his tenure, embraced some of FDR's statist policies, but who objected to the adverse impact those policies had on private enterprise, and the resulting accumulation of national debt and inherent government waste.
Does anything in that campaign contest sound familiar?
FDR won a historic landslide victory in 1936 -- receiving almost 61 percent of the vote, and went on to win unprecedented third and fourth presidential terms. While the economic efficacy of his New Deal policies did little to restore the economy (the build up for World War II ended the Great Depression), the populist political efficacy of his socialist doctrines proved very effective during a time of pronounced economic decline.
So what is Mitt Romney to do?
I'm not suggesting that Romney can't defeat Obama's socialist propaganda, but in order to win this election, he can't only rely on the 1980 political paradigm based on the question, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"
Romney must exit the role of "diplomat" and assume the part of a warrior. He must articulate the threat to Liberty inherent to Obama's ideology.
He must devote the remaining weeks of this election not only to the primacy of free enterprise over socialism, but to the greater cause of Liberty over tyranny. Paul Ryan gets it -- but he is not at the top of the ticket.
Romney must go on the offensive and take the high ground.
For example, Romney wasted most of last week ducking and covering for his remarks about the fact that a large percentage of Obama's electoral support is bought with redistributed wealth and entitlements. Romney should have instead noted that the Left was howling because they believe that ALL Americans are dependent on government -- which is precisely what Obama himself recently proclaimed in his now-infamous assertion, "You didn't build that. Somebody else [read: "government"] made that happen."
Time is not on the side of Liberty. There is little distinction between Marxist Socialism, Nationalist Socialism and Democratic Socialism. Socialism irrevocably results in state tyranny, and another Obama term may prove the end of the Constitutional Republic established by our Founders and supported by generations of Patriots since.
Though our Constitution's 22nd Amendment, if still applicable in 2016, may exclude Obama from seeking a third and fourth term, he has already laid the foundation in his first term for "fundamentally transforming the United States of America" into the ObamaNation Plantation. He only needs one more term of economic decline to ensure the systemic subjugation of the American people -- at least until the next insurrection to restore Liberty.
Obama recently remarked, "The most important lesson I've learned is you can't change Washington from the inside." Those words may prove more prophetic than he intended.
Pro Deo et Constitutione — Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9577744/Hugo-Chavez-Id-vote-for-Barack-Obama.html
-
Political Futures
"For six months, [Mitt Romney's] been matching Obama small ball for small ball. A hit-and-run critique here, a slogan-of-the-week there. His only momentum came when he chose Paul Ryan and seemed ready to engage on the big stuff: Medicare, entitlements, tax reform, national solvency, a restructured welfare state. Yet he has since retreated to the small and safe. When you're behind, however, safe is fatal. Even his counterpunching has gone miniature. Obama has successfully painted Romney as an out of touch, unfeeling plutocrat whose only interest is to cut taxes for the rich. Romney has complained in interviews that it's not true. He has proposed cutting tax rates, while pledging that the share of the tax burden paid by the rich remains unchanged (by 'broadening the base' as in the wildly successful, revenue-neutral Reagan-O'Neill tax reform of 1986). But how many people know this? Where is the speech that hammers home precisely that point, advocates a reformed tax code that accelerates growth without letting the rich off the hook, and gives lie to the Obama demagoguery about dismantling the social safety net in order to enrich the rich? ... Make the case. Go large. About a foreign policy in ruins. About an archaic, 20th-century welfare state model that guarantees 21st-century insolvency. And about an alternate vision of an unapologetically assertive America abroad unafraid of fundamental structural change at home. It might just work. And it's not too late." --columnist Charles Krauthammer
Opinion in Brief
"At home, unemployment is stuck above 8 percent. Twenty-three million are out of work. Millions of others have given up looking for jobs. One American in six is on food stamps. Small businesses are terrified of ObamaCare. The economy ran out of gas four years ago and the president still thinks the only way to get it going again is to fill up the tank with trillions of dollars of debt and make successful people pay for the tow truck. Overseas, we have a dead ambassador and three other dead Americans in Libya. Dozens of our embassies are being threatened by mobs. Iran is building a nuke. Syria is mired in a bloody civil war. Egypt's new democracy is turning against us. ... Meanwhile, what does President 'Eye Candy' do [last] week? He goes before the United Nations and can't bring himself to even mention the words 'Islamic extremists.' ... But in their perverse way of thinking, the Obama Gang wants the American people to believe Romney is a bad guy for creating wealth and being a successful businessman. Americans are supposed to be angry with Romney for paying 'only' 14 percent in taxes or reducing his federal tax bite by giving $4 million to charity in 2011. ... Mitt needs to show us how angry he is at what Obama has done to America. He needs to show us he's as 'mad as hell' and can't take it for another four years. Come on, Mitt -- get as mad as the rest of us." --columnist Michael Reagan
-
Danger: Obama Outspending Romney On TV
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on October 1, 2012
Printer-Friendly Version
For the week just ended, the Obama campaign outspent Romney by a significant margin in key swing states. In Iowa, Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin, the Obama campaign spent $16.6 during the week of September 24th while Romney spent only $12.5 million.
Despite the widespread assumption that Romney would have more television funding in this critical final six weeks, it appears that Obama is, in fact, seizing the advantage.
The following table shows the Obama media superiority by state:
COMPARISON OF MEDIA SPENDING
OBAMA ROMNEY
Iowa $1.2 mil $755,000
Colorado $1.3 mil $777,000
Florida $3.9 mil $2.9 mil
NC $700,000 $1.2 mil
NH $1.3 mil $188,000
Nevada $885,000 $639,000
Ohio $3.2 mil $2.9 mil
Va $3.4 mil $2.2 mil
Wisc $771,000 $816,000
TOTAL $16.6 mil $12.5 mil
(Analysis courtesy of Smart Media Group)
It is particularly disconcerting that Romney is running a full million dollars behind Obama in the crucial state of Florida and is behind 2:1 in Iowa and Colorado. (In New Hampshire, Obama appears to be buying Boston TV heavily while Romney is either not purchasing any or doing so very lightly.
What are we to make of this disparity?
Romney must be burning cash for non-media purposes at a fierce rate.
But, more important, what are we going to do about it?
GIVE MONEY TO ROMNEY!
No matter how you read the polls, this election is balanced on a knife edge. A recent Gravis poll shows less than one point separating them in Florida!
Even if you've given to Romney before, do it again!
Our nation is at stake! If we lose this election, there is no tomorrow!!!!
-
A serious George Will column from a few days ago with good suggestions for the moderator. I like that he puts questions about the judiciary first including a question about 'Kelo', the horrible public taking for private purposes ruling and a question on Citizens United. The last question is pretty funny.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-debate-questions-for-the-presidential-candidates/2012/09/28/231ff27e-08fb-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_story.html
Debate questions for the candidates
By George F. Will, Published: September 28
The spectacles we persist in dignifying as presidential “debates” — two-minute regurgitations of rehearsed responses — often subtract from the nation’s understanding. But beginning Wednesday, these less-than-Lincoln-Douglas episodes might be edifying if the candidates could be inveigled into plowing fresh ground.
Concerning the judiciary
Although the average age of the Supreme Court justices (66) is less than that of the Rolling Stones (68), three justices will be in their 80s before the next presidential term ends, so the next president probably can solidify today’s conservative majority or create a liberal majority.
For Mitt Romney: Many conservatives advocate “judicial restraint.” They denounce “judicial activism” and define it as not properly deferring to decisions by government’s majoritarian branches. Other conservatives praise “judicial engagement” and define it as actively defending liberty against overbearing majorities. Do you favor “restraint” or “engagement”? Do you reject the Kelo decision, in which the Supreme Court deferred to governments’ desire to seize private property and give it to wealthier private interests who would pay higher taxes?
For Barack Obama: You deplore the court’s Citizens United decision. What is your constitutional basis for rejecting the decision’s principle that Americans do not forfeit their First Amendment rights when they come together in corporate entities (mostly nonprofit advocacy corporations such as the Sierra Club) to speak collectively? You say you would “seriously consider” amending the First Amendment to empower Congress to regulate political speech. Explain why you would choose to make the Bill of Rights less protective.
For Romney: The Republican platform endorses using “whatever legislative method is most feasible” to ban flag desecration. Can you distinguish this from the anti-blasphemy laws in some Islamic countries? Should we criminalize expressive acts that offend?
Concerning foreign policy
For both: On Oct. 7, we begin the 12th year of the war in Afghanistan, and 51 recent NATO fatalities have been at the hands of our supposed Afghan allies, causing U.S. commanders to indefinitely suspend many joint operations. Why are we staying there 27 more months?
For Romney: You envision “countervailing duties” to punish China for manipulating the value of its currency. Do the “quantitative easings” by Ben Bernanke’s Federal Reserve, which vastly expanded the money supply, constitute currency manipulation? Would duties increasing the prices Americans pay for Chinese imports violate your vow to not raise taxes?
For Obama: Your campaign boasts about increasing the number of unfair-trade charges against China. How would Americans’ welfare be enhanced by raising the prices they pay for consumer goods and production materials from China?
For both: You are correct that China subsidizes politically connected businesses. Does not our Export-Import Bank do this?
For Obama: Are GM and Chrysler subsidized? Are they politically connected businesses?
Concerning domestic policy
For Obama: Your opponent proposes cutting income tax rates 20 percent and implies that he would pay for this partly by means-testing some deductions (e.g., mortgage interest payments and charitable giving). Do you oppose his plan for making the income tax more progressive?
For Romney: You say “redistribution” has “never been a characteristic of America.” You’re kidding, right? Is redistribution not one purpose of progressive taxation? Is not most of what government does — from agriculture subsidies to subsidized student loans to entitlements — the redistribution of wealth from one cohort or region to another?
For Obama: You recently said that changing Washington “from the outside” is “how some of our biggest accomplishments like health care got done — mobilizing the American people.” You’re kidding, right? A majority of the American people never supported passage of Obamacare. Did you not secure passage by deals with Big Pharma and other inside-Washington players?
For both: Do you agree that a financial institution that is too big to fail is too big to exist? If not, why not? The biggest banks emerged from the Great Recession bigger. At the end of 2011, the five biggest (JPMorgan, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs) held more than $8.5 trillion in assets, which is 56 percent of the 2011 gross domestic product. Why should they not be broken up?
For Obama: Your deep-blue Illinois — like another essentially one-party Democratic state, California — is buckling under the weight of its portion of the estimated $2.5 trillion in unfunded state pension obligations. Will you promise to oppose attempts to force the taxpayers to bail out badly governed states?
For both: Do you assume that the Almighty is not paying attention whenever you say “I approve this message”?
-
Romney's Middle-Class Tax Sale
How the Republican can win the debate he's now losing by default..
Article Video Comments (558) more in Opinion | Find New $LINKTEXTFIND$ ».
smaller Larger facebooktwittergoogle pluslinked ininShare.0EmailPrintSave ↓ More .
.
smaller Larger
In this peculiar election year, President Obama is pulling off the small miracle—no, make that the kind of thing that happens in Lourdes—of winning the tax debate. This should be impossible, and Mitt Romney has to turn that around if he wants to win.
Despite a tax platform that is a Walter Mondale replay, polls show that Mr. Obama has sanded off the traditional GOP tax edge and the lead Mr. Romney held as recently as late summer. An ABC-Washington Post poll gives Mr. Obama a 49%-44% advantage on taxes, with Mr. Romney's credibility slipping from 48% in August, and Mr. Obama's surging from 43%. The same poll has 57% of registered voters saying Mr. Romney would do more to favor the wealthy than the middle class and merely 35% believing the opposite.
Related Video
Human Events columnist David Harsanyi on what Mitt Romney needs to do and say in tomorrow night's debate. Photo: Getty Images
.
.The main cause of this role reversal is that Mr. Obama has driven a relentless tax message—albeit a wildly deceptive one: That Mr. Romney is a sleeper agent who wants to raise taxes on middle-class families by $2,000 to finance tax cuts for him and his fellow tycoons. Mr. Obama invokes this putative secret plot at every rally, and so does every surrogate down to dogcatcher, plus his TV commercials.
As a factual matter, the claim is as bogus as any in years because Mr. Romney has proposed no such thing. The claim hangs on an August 1 report by the liberal Tax Policy Center that even its authors have since admitted was merely "stylized."
The outfit's gnomes concluded that Mr. Romney's actual reform proposal—cutting rates across the board by 20%, combined with closing loopholes at the higher end—was "mathematically impossible." They then imagined multiple details for a "Romney" tax plan that existed only in their own minds and that would raise taxes among the lower brackets by $86 billion.
In a recent paper, Alex Brill of the American Enterprise Institute pointed out errors that—by the Tax Policy Center's own reasoning—would take that figure down to $41 billion, then to $12 billion, then to a net tax cut. Numerous other critiques have forced the Tax Policy Center to walk back its assumptions or disavow them entirely or change the subject, even if the Obama campaign continues to quote them and the press corps plays dumb.
Amid this barrage, Mr. Romney has also played dumb, as in silent. Only this week has Boston rolled out a response ad to Mr. Obama's middle-class tax hike TV buy, which ran unanswered for a month in a half-dozen swing states.
Enlarge Image
Close
Associated Press
.
The new Romney ad throws back the charge, noting that Democrats have already raised taxes on the middle class through ObamaCare's 18 separate tax hikes totaling some $836.3 billion over the next decade. He ought to throw in the individual mandate to buy insurance that Chief Justice John Roberts explicitly called a "tax" in order to hold it constitutional.
This is modest progress, but Mr. Romney's larger failing is that he hasn't even tried to sell his own proposals, much less their broader pro-growth, practical and moral foundations. Sometimes he's added to the public confusion, such as his defensive concession in Ohio a few days ago that voters shouldn't "be expecting a huge cut in taxes, because I'm also going to lower deductions and exemptions."
A better argument would begin by explaining how lower rates and a more efficient tax code—simpler, stabler, more transparent—would increase economic growth that would raise incomes for everyone. According to the Census Bureau, U.S. median income has fallen by 4.1% since the recession ended three years ago. Simply increasing after-tax take-home pay would help, but so would improving the incentives to work, save, invest and create jobs.
To refute Mr. Obama's class-warfare obsession, Mr. Romney could also point out that there aren't a lot of taxpayers like Mitt Romney out there, he of the $1,935,708 tax bill in 2011. Only about 13% of taxpayers earn more than $100,000. The total annual after-tax income of all millionaires and billionaires today is about $709 billion, according to IRS data.
What this means is that even if he increased tax rates on the rich to 100%, Mr. Obama would still have to find more revenue to pay for his spending ambitions. This means he's inescapably going to have to tee up the middle class for a tax wallop unlike anything in U.S. history. Mr. Romney should say that, having taken federal spending to a quarter of GDP, a second Obama Administration would make a European-style value-added tax, carbon tax or another money maker inevitable.
As for "fairness," Mr. Romney could point out that high tax rates inevitably lead Congress to pass loopholes that the wealthiest are best able to exploit. Middle-class Americans can't afford lobbyists on Capitol Hill, but Mr. Obama's rich friends at Solyndra and Goldman Sachs can. Tax reform will improve growth and fairness, which is what happened after Ronald Reagan and Democrats in Congress united to pass reform in 1986.
So far this year's tax debate features one candidate with no credible plan running against a fake plan that his allies made up and another candidate with an admirable plan that for some reason he doesn't want to talk about. Mr. Obama is winning by default, but that doesn't mean Mr. Romney can't execute one of those turnarounds he's famous for, if he tries.
-
Details to follow, but I think Romney just won this election.
-
Details to follow, but I think Romney just won this election.
Not sure I'd go that far, but the debate? Absolutely.
-
Agreed-- very good night for Romney. Greta Van Susteren in the post debate commentary said that Bill Maher said that Obama looked like he needed his teleprompter :lol: :evil: :lol: and Dennis Miller wondered if Obama's kicked ass was covered by Obamacare :lol: :lol:
-
Transcript link: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/03/us/politics/transcript-of-the-first-presidential-debate-in-denver.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
Details to follow, but I think Romney just won this election.
Bigdog: Not sure I'd go that far, but the debate? Absolutely.
Of course it's not over with a month to go, but if Romney goes on to win I think we will be point back to this first debate.
Crafty: "Dennis Miller wondered if Obama's kicked ass was covered by Obamacare"
Glenn Beck says: MSNBC's flag is flying at half mast. Hey Mr. President, it's October, surprise!
Mark Schields on PBS, normally a total leftist shill, said the President looked "rusty".
Award winning observation: Al Gore? says it might have been the altitude of 5000 feet that hurt Obama. The President flew in 2 hours before the debate. Romney did his debate prep in Denver.
Good job by Jim Lehrer. He couldn't hold these guys to a clock but he kept the discussion steered toward substance. No slanted questions in either direction that I noticed.
Hats off to the kids at the University of Denver. They got to witness something historic and they kept quiet the whole time - something the adults have never been able to do.
Liberals and Obama supportede seem perplexed that Obama hardly got off any cheap shots, like repeating Romney's latest gaffe about the 47%. Romney led with the latest Biden gaffe: "Under the president’s policies, middle-income Americans have been buried."
Romney went only part way into selling his economic plan. His advisers must think it too wonkish to distinguish between taxes and tax rates, a big pet peeve of mine. But he kept following up and getting at that point in different ways, that he does not accept that lowering rates is a $5 trillion cut, it will grow revenues. Later on the deficit he nailed it with the 3 ways to close the gap: 1) raise taxes, 2) cut spending and 3) grow the economy, "because if more people work in a growing economy they’re paying taxes and you can get the job done that way". He left room on the table for Paul Ryan to follow up on the concepts of growth economics.
You can bet the campaign is not confident in knowing the next major event coming is Biden v. Ryan with 90 more uninterrupted minutes on national television.
The Ryan/Biden debate will turn the generational storyline on its ear. Ryan is a sharp young guy with a mastery of both policy and vision. He goes up against an old guy with neither, who lacks a notable accomplishment in 40 years in the Senate and White House. Richard Nixon defeated George McGovern in 1972 when Joe Biden was elected to the Senate.
In both cases, Pres Obama and VP Biden are not accustomed to having their talking points challenged. The President's only two real electoral victories came against Hillary with an identical ideology and McCain who refused to take off the gloves. Both live in a political bubble where rarely in their careers have they faced a tough question or a tough opponent challenging their talking points.
President Obama's lowest points IMO:
"we’ve tried both approaches. The approach that Governor Romney’s talking about is the same sales pitch that was made in 2001 and 2003. And we ended up with the slowest job growth in 50 years."
IN FACT WE HAD 52 MONTHS OF UNINTERRUPTED JOB GROWTH AND A 44% INCREASE IN FEDERAL REVENUES IN 4 YEARS.
The President continued:
"...Bill Clinton tried the approach that I’m talking about. We created 23 million new jobs. We went from deficit to surplus, and businesses did very well."
HE JUST TOOK CREDIT FOR BILL CLINTON'S PRESIDENCY WHILE PRETENDING THE LAST 4 YEARS DIDN'T HAPPEN. BILL CLINTON PIVOTED WHEN HIS POLICIES AND PROPOSALS FAILED, PRES. OBAMA DID NOT.
I'd like to pretend the last 4-6 years didn't happen too!
In another exchange: On healthcare, Romney proved his ability to reach across the aisle and Pres. Obama astonishingly claimed Obamacare without a single Republican vote "was a Republican idea".
Quite persuasively covering one of his weaknesses, Romney said "what we did in Massachusetts is a model for the nation, state by state" [not for the federal government].
Romney continued: "I said that at that time. The federal government taking over health care for the entire nation and whisking aside the 10th Amendment, which gives states the rights for these kinds of things, is not the course for America to have a stronger, more vibrant economy."
-
Romney's Real Debate Victories
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on October 4, 2012
Printer-Friendly Version
Obviously, Romney won last night's debate. His passion, charisma, energy, eye-contact, personality, force of argument, and earnest compassion showed through and contrasted with a washed out, tired, hesitant Obama.
But seeing the debate from a professional's eye, Romney scored a number of key victories in the turf wars that underlie this campaign. These victories are likely to last and shape the final month of this race long after the glow from Romney's performance has faded.
1. Romney got out from under Obama's character assassination negative ads. By failing to raise the Cayman Islands bank account, the 47% speech, Bain Capital or the tax return issue in the debate, he almost dismissed them from the campaign. Good-bye two hundred million dollars in advertising.
If Obama really believed that Romney was as callous, heartless, and dishonest as his ads make him out to be, he would have raised the issues in the debate. It almost belies the statement, "I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message," that begins or ends every one of his negative ads. If the candidate doesn't believe in his own negative attacks enough to articulate them in a debate, why should the rest of us base our vote on them?
2. Romney insulated himself -- with Obama's consent -- from the doubts of the elderly about his policy on their benefits. After the 47% comments, Romney risked losing the elderly for fear that he meant to curtail their entitlements. But Obama helpfully agreed that his Social Security policy did not differ from Romney's at all and that either way the benefits would be ok. And he agreed that neither he nor his opponent would cut Medicare for those now over 65 or those closing in on retirement. So the 47% is now aimed at welfare, food stamps, and Medicaid which is the target Romney originally intended and Obama let him get away with it.
3. Obama let Romney sell the notion that he was cutting Medicare for current beneficiaries by $716 billion and let Romney repeat that stat without contradiction. And he let Romney inject the 15 member board -- the rationing board -- into the debate without trying to blunt Romney's accusation that it would decide on who gets what treatment. Obama could have embarrassed Romney by pointing out that Ryan kept that cut in his budget (since backed away from it) but didn't do so. Now this campaign will be about two issues, not just one. Now the economy and Obamacare will be the fulcrums on which this race with hinge.
4. Romney was able to make the debate, and therefore the race, about big issues like the size of government, the impact of taxes on growth, the need to drill for oil, Obamacare and rationing. He elevated not just his game but the race to these fundamental questions on all of which Republicans and Romney have an advantage.
5. He explained well how a tax increase for the "wealthy" was really a tax increase on small businesses that hire half of all American workers. By explaining that these owners are taxed as individuals not as corporations (Subchapter S) without getting into the weeds, he made us understand that fighting these taxes is not about battling for yachts and private planes but about creating jobs.
Therefore, Romney took away Obama's negative campaign, his class warfare, his entitlement issue, the Medi-scare tactic, and much of the president's case. In subsequent debates, Obama will be bound by what he said last night. He cannot undo his concessions and without doing so, it will be very hard for him to reconquer the ground he has lost.
-
Dick Morris has this right: "Romney took away Obama's negative campaign, his class warfare, his entitlement issue, the Medi-scare tactic, and much of the president's case."
This wasn't a typical candidate vs candidate comparison. Each had something very specific they needed to accomplish.
Obama needed to convey how the next 4 years if he is reelected will be any better than the last 4 years. He didn't even try to make the case: In closing he said, "I’ll fight just as hard in a second term". Huh?? Obama also needed to bump up the enthusiasm gap of his base, and he took a giant step backward.
Romney needed to make a small numbers of swing voters comfortable seeing him as their President, and with a decent shot at turning things around. That is what I think happened.
The mainstream missed a part of the story. Romney had a great convention that softened and humanized his image and Obama had a vacuous one that bumped the polls but didn't answer the question of how things get better without changing course.
Obama and his campaign have been running against a straw man. In the debate he faced a real man with an exceptional background, talent and turnaround skills.
Romney in Presidential demeanor described how bad things are under Obama without using the F-word. F is for failure.
-
Swing State Polls Are Rigged
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on October 5, 2012
Printer-Friendly Version
After Wednesday night's smashing debate victory for Romney, we may expect the national and swing state polls to change in the Republican's direction. But not by as much as they should. These polls are biased in favor of Obama and here's the data to prove it:
From noted Republican pollster John McLaughlin comes a clear and convincing exposé of the bias of media polls in the swing states of Florida, Ohio, and Virginia.
McLaughlin reviewed exit polls in each state for the past four elections. From this data about who actually voted, he found that the party divisions manifest on election day have little to do with the samples upon which the media is basing its polling. And, coincidentally, it is always the Republican vote that tends to be undercounted.
In Florida, for example, McLaughlin finds that the average of the last four elections produced a turnout of 37% Democrats and 38% Republicans. But here is the partisan distribution of the most recent Florida media polls:
9-26: CBS/NY Times = 36% Dem / 27% Rep
9-23: Wash Post = 35% Dem / 29% Rep
So the media polls reflect a 9 point and six point Democratic edge even though the actual experience of the past four elections has been a 1 point Republican advantage.
Things are no better in Ohio. Here, McLaughlin finds a 2 point Democratic edge in the past four elections (38% Dem, 36% Rep). But the media polls show vastly more Democrats and fewer Republicans in their samples:
9-26: CBS/NY Times = 35% Dem / 26% Rep
9-23: Wash Post = 35% Dem / 27% Rep
9-11: NBC/Wall St Journal = 38% Dem / 28% Rep
Once again, the actual exit poll-measured vote in Ohio shows a 2 point Democratic edge, but the polls reflect Democratic advantages of 9 points, 8 points, and 10 points respectively.
In Virginia, it's the same story. The last four elections have a combined 1 point Republican edge, 37-36. But the media polls show a big pro-Democratic bias:
10/2: Roanoke College = Dem 36% / Rep 27%
9/17: CBS/NYTimes = Dem 35% / Rep 26%
9/16: Washington Post = Dem 35% / Rep 24%
9/11: NBC/Wall St Journal = Dem 31% / Rep 26%
So instead of showing a 1 point Republican edge, these media poll samples show Democratic advantages of 9,9,11, and 5.
The correct conclusion to draw from all these polls is that Romney is comfortably ahead in Virginia and Florida while he holds a slight lead in Ohio. And, remember these polls are all pre-debate!
Also, bear in mind that the undecided vote in all of these polls usually goes against the incumbent.
That's the real story.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_1ZT1hwpng&feature=player_embedded
-
It is my understanding that foreign donations are illegal. Not that I understand what the hell it is, but it is my understanding that the proper way of doing things is to have a "verifcation firewall"on one's website to screen out foreign donations. Obama did not have this in 2008, nor does he in 2012. Romney does.
One would think that there would be mass outrage about foreign interference in our democratic process, but of course the pravdas have nothing to say about this.
I know he is busy, but perhaps our own GM can get on this for us.
GM?
-
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/441e
2 USC § 441e - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
Current through Pub. L. 112-131. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 434 (f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
(b) “Foreign national” defined
As used in this section, the term “foreign national” means—
(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611 (b) of title 22, except that the term “foreign national” shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101 (a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101 (a)(20) of title 8.
-
Laws are for the little people. Oh, I'm sure Holder will get right on this.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/441e
2 USC § 441e - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
Current through Pub. L. 112-131. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 434 (f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
(b) “Foreign national” defined
As used in this section, the term “foreign national” means—
(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611 (b) of title 22, except that the term “foreign national” shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101 (a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101 (a)(20) of title 8.
-
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/10/08/exposing_barack_obamas_illegal_foreign_campaign_money_loophole
Corruption: Exposing Barack Obama’s Illegal Foreign Campaign Money Loophole
Katie Pavlich
News Editor, Townhall Oct 08, 2012 08:15 AM EST Sign-Up A new report obtained by Townhall from the non-partisan Government Accountability Institute [GAI] shows the Obama campaign has potentially violated federal election law by failing to prevent the use of fraudulent or foreign credit card transactions on the official Obama for America [OFA] donation webpage.
For the past eight months, GAI has been investigating the potential influence of foreign online campaign donations in House, Senate and presidential elections. The report was conducted using spidering software and found thousands of foreign sites linking to campaign donation pages. The investigation was conducted with the guidance of a former U.S. attorney. GAI is led by Peter Schweizer, who recently exposed congressional insider trading in his book Throw Them All Out.
“As FBI surveillance tapes have previously shown, foreign governments understand and are eager to exploit the weaknesses of American campaigns,” the report says. “This, combined with the Internet’s ability to disintermediate campaign contributions on a mass scale, as well as outmoded and lax Federal Election Commission rules, make U.S. elections vulnerable to foreign influence.”
OFA seems to be taking advantage of a “foreign donor loophole” by not using CVV on their campaign donation page. When you donate online to the Obama campaign using a credit card, the contribution webpage does not require donors to enter a secure CVV number (also known as CSC, CVV2 or CVN), the three-digit securing code on the back of credit cards. This code, although not 100 percent effective, is used to ensure a person making a purchase physically possesses the card. According to the report, 90 percent of e-commerce and 19 of the 20 largest charities in the United States use a CVV code, making its use standard industry practice in order to prevent fraud. Another anti-fraud security measure includes software, better known as an Address Verification System, to verify a donor’s address matches the address on file with the credit card company. The investigation could not determine whether OFA is using this type of software to prevent fraudulent or illegal donations.
Because of the lack of a CVV code requirement, the door is opened for OFA to accept robo-donations, or in other words, large numbers of small and automatic donations made online to evade FEC reporting requirements. Although it isn’t illegal to decline the use of a secure CVV credit card code for campaign donations, it is illegal to accept campaign donations from foreign sources. Campaigns are required under criminal code not to solicit, accept or receive foreign donations in any amount. The Federal Elections Commission doesn’t require campaigns to disclose the names of donors making contributions of less than $200 unless audited. In addition, FEC rules don’t require campaigns to keep records of those giving less than $50. These rules combined with the lack of a CVV numbers make it easy for campaigns to get away with taking foreign donations.
According to GAI, it is the duty of the campaign to “ensure compliance with the law. Indeed, they risk criminal prosecution for the conscious failure to do so. This means that whether or not the FEC requires it to be reported, campaigns have an independent duty under the law to discover and protect against criminal campaign contributions.” Protecting against criminal campaign contributions is easily accomplished by requiring a CVV code on the campaign donation page.
OFA has specifically touted its “grassroots” success by showcasing the majority of its donations coming from those giving less than $200. It appears the campaign also solicits funds for less than $200 in order to avoid having to report the name of the person making a donation under FEC rules. The GAI documents included the following email from Barack Obama to campaign supporters:
(http://s847.photobucket.com/albums/ab40/katiepavlich/?action-view¤t=ScreenShot2012-10-07at61140PM.png)
IT ALL ADDS UP
A large part of the Team Obama operation is outsourced. More than 200 domain names with the word “Obama” in the web address have been purchased. The most significant of these websites may be Obama.com, which is owned by an Obama bundler in Shanghai, China with “questionable business ties to state-run Chinese enterprises,” according to the report.
Obama.com was purchased in 2008, and, although Obama.com is owned by a third party, not the campaign itself, the site redirects its foreign traffic, a whopping 68 percent, directly to the official Obama for America campaign donation page. The Obama campaign’s official and main website, BarackObama.com, sees 43 percent of its traffic coming from foreign IP addresses, according to web metrics firm Markosweb and noted in the report.
According to industry leading web analytics site Markosweb, an anonymously registered redirect site (Obama.com) features 68 % foreign traffic. Starting in December 2011, the site was linked to a specific donation page on the official BarackObama.com campaign website for ten months. The page loaded a tracking number, 634930, into a space on the website labeled "who encouraged you to make this donation." That tracking number is embedded in the source code for Obama.com and is associated with the Obama Victory Fund. In early September 2012, the page began redirecting to the standard Obama Victory Fund donation page. Search engine optimization (SEO) efforts, using common spamming techniques, may have been undertaken by unknown third-parties, generating foreign traffic to Obama.com.
China has a long history of trying to illegally influence American elections. Their efforts were most prominent in the 1990s.
In the past, foreign governments have relied on middlemen to transfer illegal campaign contributions. With the explosion of Internet campaign fundraising, the prospect of foreign powers, criminal gangs, foreign individuals, or domestic fraudsters making direct campaign contributions to American elections becomes far more likely. Put simply, campaign fundraising crimes are now just a click away. Rather than risking detection or relying on a middleman, donations can be anonymously donated through campaign websites. The state of Internet security of many political campaigns’ websites leaves American elections vulnerable to fraud or foreign influence.
AN HONEST MISTAKE, OR SOMETHING MORE?
Is the non-use of CVV code verification simply an oversight or mistake made by Obama for America? Most likely, no. The Obama campaign is willing to pay millions in fees in order to accept unsecured contributions on their donation page without the CVV code. Attorney Kenneth Sukhia analyzed the GAI’s findings and this revelation in the following way in a separate report.
“As GAI points out, if a campaign is truly seeking to do all it can to prevent illicit contributions, there is no reason not to employ these basic fraud prevention tools. First, these tools are easily installed, and once set up, operate with a minimum of administrative oversight by the vendor. They are fully automated, but can be easily re-calibrated as called for. “
“Under these circumstances, a campaign’s decision to turn off either of these systems despite the increased fees raises legitimate questions as to a campaign’s knowing failure to use its best efforts to comply with the laws prohibiting foreign contributions. Indeed, it’s reasonable to ask why any campaign would ever opt to pay card issuers more for less information and less security. More importantly, why pay card issuers more when doing so lessens a campaign’s ability to comply with the law? It’s hard to imagine any campaign would pay extra for less security and marketing intelligence, unless it stood to benefit in some way from doing so.”
“Because a campaign’s decision to opt out of the standard security measures and to pay more to receive less information about their contributors defies all conventional campaign logic, and because it is difficult to identify a more plausible motive, there is reason to suspect that such decisions may be motivated by the belief that more money could be raised through foreign contributions than lost in added fees by declining security tools designed to stop them.”
OFA isn’t run by amateurs and has a highly sophisticated online presence. OFA is known as the “gold standard” in online technology with a Facebook co-founder, veteran YouTube videographer and an award-winning CNN producer keeping everything running smoothly.
Not to mention, the campaign obviously sees the benefits in using a CVV code to prevent fraud. After all, OFA uses a CVV security code for merchandise purchases. To purchase a sweatshirt or other item in the OFA store, a CVV code must be entered at check out, but the donation page does not require a credit card security code to be used. In addition, the chief technology officer of the Obama campaign, Harper Reed, is a former chief technology officer of the T-shirt company Threadless. Threadless requires a CVV code for online purchases. They clearly know how CVV codes work.
THE NUMBERS
As of September 26, 2012, the Obama campaign has raised $271,327,755 in contributions under $200 for the 2012 cycle. In 2008, it was $335,139,233. The Romney campaign has raised just $58,456,968 in contributions under $200 and has all CVV and online security measures in place. In total, the Obama campaign raised $500 million online in 2008 with $335 million in contributions--more than half--falling under the $200 reporting requirement. Obama has raised more online funds than any campaign in history.
As reported over the weekend, the Obama campaign raised $181 million in September alone--only 2 percent of those donations are required to be reported to the FEC.
The campaign said that just over 1.8 million people made donations to the campaign last month. According to the campaign, over 500k of these were brand-new donors, having neither given in 2008 nor 2012. 98% of contributions were under the reporting threshold of $250. Of these, the average contribution was $53. [It's] really a tale of two worlds. 35k people gave an average of $2,600, while just over 1.7 million people gave an average of $53. Half the campaign's haul came from people giving around the maximum amount and half from people who don't have to be disclosed. Seems a bit odd. The average of $53 from small donors is particularly noteworthy. Contributions under $200 don't have to be disclosed, but the campaign still has to keep track of the donor's name, in case subsequent donations push their contribution over the reporting threshold. For contributions under $50, however, the campaign doesn't even have to keep track of the donor's name. It is effectively considered a "petty cash" donation. A person could theoretically make 10 $49 donations and never be reported, even though their total contributions are above the FEC's reporting threshold. With an average donation of $53 from small donors, Obama has A LOT of donors who will never be disclosed and whose names aren't even known to the campaign. Tens of millions of dollars worth.
HOW LIABLE?
As previously mentioned, the GAI report mentions campaigns have an obligation to protect against illegal campaign contributions. The law under U.S. Code makes it illegal for campaigns or political committees to accept direct or indirect contributions of money from foreign nationals. It is also illegal for a campaign or committee to “solicit, accept, or receive a contribution from a foreign national." Penalties for violations are stiff, according to the report.
While no person can be held accountable under the law for violations he or she is powerless to prevent or for violations of which a person had no knowledge, the law recognizes that to permit meaningful enforcement a person cannot escape responsibility for a crime by deliberately ignoring facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that a crime is most likely being committed. Moreover, the FEC regulations make it clear that a campaign official cannot avoid criminal culpability by ignoring facts that would lead a reasonable person to inquire whether foreign nationals are contributing funds to the campaign.
DIRECT SOLICITATIONS FROM OFA TO FOREIGN NATIONALS AND THE ONLINE PAPER TRAIL
The internet for the Obama campaign has proved to be a cash cow, but it's also provided a digital paper trail of potential illegal activity for investigators. When foreign bloggers received donation solicitations from the Obama campaign, they wrote about it online. GAI found their sites and documented their experiences. Social media accomplished the same thing--an online trail of Obama campaign solicitations to foreign nationals.
1. In July and August, a Chinese blogger reposts letters he has received from the Obama campaign, each of which contains a solicitation for $3 or $5 (note that these smaller donations don’t require the campaign to keep any record of them).118 Markosweb states that 87.8% of the traffic flowing to the site comes from China while only 4.5% is from the United States. The website contains hyperlinks that lead to the campaign’s donation page. The website also contains graphics showing the disparity between Romney’s and the President’s fundraising and a countdown clock to the date of the election. Other than the campaign solicitation letters, the website is in Chinese characters.
2. On August 9th, 2012 the Obama campaign sent a solicitation letter to “Hikemt Hadjy-Zadh,” an Azerbaijani citizen. His email address is on an Azerbaijani domain and he posts numerous solicitation letters he has received from the Obama campaign. Mr. Hadjy-Zadh reposts the complete letters on a discussion forum, including numerous hyperlinks that go directly to the campaign’s donation page.
3. A writer in Vietnam writes on a website for the Vietnam Institute for Development Studies (a government-backed think tank) and posts emails he has received from my.barackobama.com with more than 24 total links to the campaign’s donate page embedded in the emails. The website is in the Vietnamese language, hosted on a Vietnamese server, and uses a Vietnamese domain address. In one instance, a letter from Mitch Stewart, Director of the Obama campaign’s “Organizing for America,” asks for donations. Ironically, Stewart laments that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is reportedly taking money from foreign sources. The reader is then prompted to give his name and email address and thereafter begins receiving solicitation letters for donations.
4. A Dutch blogger writing in Dutch on a Dutch website reprints an email from March 22, 2010 in which President Obama thanks his supporters for their help. “You’re welcome, Mr. President,” he writes back.
5. The Dutch blog “His Dirk” received a donation request from the campaign. Aware of the U.S. law, the blogger decided not to contribute. The blogger observed, “I imagine many non- Americans have money transferred to the Obama campaign. It’s just too easy.”
6. A member of the Italian Radical Socialist movement and an administrator of their website reposts solicitations from the Obama campaign which he reports receiving regularly for three years. “And because we are three years in his mailing list...But frankly after 3 years his letters excite me much less...”
7. A Japanese blogger named Isogaya posts a link to the Obama campaign’s donation page. When posting the link, Isogaya notes that an option in giving would be to give a gift card.
8. A Norwegian blogger posts a solicitation from the Obama campaign, including the link to the donate page. When another blogger opines that non-U.S. citizens cannot contribute because of American law, the blogger responds in Norwegian,“I have in practice given money to Obama, I had done it.”
9. A blogger in Egypt who serves on the board of the Union of Arab Bloggers posts the solicitation letters he reports to regularly receive from the Obama campaign.127 “We as Arabs and Muslims” support the “Democratic party, compared to the Republican Party,” but notes his objection to the President’s stand on gay marriage.
WIDESPREAD CORRUPTION
Although GAI's findings were most prominent with Obama for America, the “CCV loophole” is a problem across the political spectrum. The report found nearly half of Congress is at least vulnerable to fraud and foreign donations.
Of the 446 House and Senate members who have an online donation page, 47.3% do not require the three or four digit credit card security number (officially called the Card Verification Value, or the CVV) for Internet contributions.
During his run for U.S. Senate, then Republican candidate Marco Rubio’s campaign donation website didn’t have CVV protection. The protection was put in place in May 2012 after the campaign was over. The report alleges the connection to foreign websites could be a violation of the Federal Election Commission solicitation laws and at minimum put Rubio at risk for fraud in his campaign.
The Government Accountability Institute found considerable international interest in the Rubio campaign, including significant foreign traffic going to the website marcorubioforussenate.com. Links on foreign websites often took the form of videos that featured links to “donate” to the Rubio campaign.
Sukhia also mentioned the Rubio campaign in his anaylsis of the report.
“The Government Accountability Institute found considerable international interest in the Rubio campaign, including significant foreign traffic going to the website marcorubioforussenate.com.”
“GAI found numerous video links on foreign websites that featured running ads to “donate” to the Rubio campaign.”
Although campaigns may have CVV in place, organizations they take money from often times do not. For example, Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren has accepted more than $5.7 million from ActBlue, a fundraising organization that does not require U.S. citizenship verification or a CVV code when accepting contributions.
Because the problems of potential fraud due to a lack of CVV use are so widespread, GAI created a 50-state interactive map to show which members of Congress lack standard secure campaign donation websites.
SOLUTION FOR OBAMA CAMPAIGN
In his 2010 State of the Union Address, President Obama said, “I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities.”
In this situation, the foreign donation problem coming from online sources can be solved and President Obama’s promise of transparency can be kept in one click by enabling all security protections and releasing the names and records on all transactions under $200 to verify Obama for America is a clean campaign operating within FEC law.
Overall, major reforms are needed to ensure foreign contributions are not interfering with or influencing elections in the United States.
Obama for America did not return calls for comment.
-
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/twitter-explodes-after-black-actress-endorses-romney-as-the-only-choice-for-your-future/
-
Thank you GM, that is exactly the sort of thing I was looking for.
Turning now to the low vote enabling efforts by the Pentagon for our nation's military (IIRC a drop of over 90% from previous levels) this previously mysterious aberration is now explained:
http://militarytimes.com/news/2012/10/military-times-poll-romney-bests-obama-2-1-100712/
-
2 big questions raised in the debate I think were the lie about Romney's tax cut costing $5 trillion and the dispute over his whether his plan addresses pre-excisting conditions.
Paul Krugman took a strong shot at Romney in the NY Times and on ABC's This Week calling Romney a liar for his statement on pre-existing conditions and ripping Obama for not taking him to task for it. John Hinderaker thinks Krugman must have missed the debate:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/10/mitt-romney-vs-paul-krugman-whos-lying.php
Mitt Romney Vs. Paul Krugman: Who’s Lying?
Stung by their man’s miserable performance in Wednesday’s debate, the Democrats have tried to change the subject by claiming that Mitt Romney “lied” repeatedly during the debate. But they have had a tough time coming up with any actual lies. The chronically truth-challenged Paul Krugman somewhat ironically stepped up to the plate in a New York Times column on Thursday that was titled “Romney’s Sick Joke.” You can always count on Krugman for understatement. This was Krugman’s contribution to the “Romney lied” theme:
Krugman: “No. 1,” declared Mitt Romney in Wednesday’s debate, “pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan.” No, they aren’t — as Mr. Romney’s own advisers have conceded in the past, and did again after the debate.
Was Mr. Romney lying? Well, either that or he was making what amounts to a sick joke. Either way, his attempt to deceive voters on this issue was the biggest of many misleading and/or dishonest claims he made over the course of that hour and a half. Yes, President Obama did a notably bad job of responding. But I’ll leave the theater criticism to others and talk instead about the issue that should be at the heart of this election.
So, about that sick joke: What Mr. Romney actually proposes is that Americans with pre-existing conditions who already have health coverage be allowed to keep that coverage even if they lose their job — as long as they keep paying the premiums. As it happens, this is already the law of the land. But it’s not what anyone in real life means by having a health plan that covers pre-existing conditions, because it applies only to those who manage to land a job with health insurance in the first place (and are able to maintain their payments despite losing that job).
This is what Romney said during the debate:
MR. LEHRER: Let’s let the governor explain what you would do if “Obamacare” is repealed. How would you replace it? What do you have in mind?
MR. ROMNEY: Let — well, actually — actually it’s — it’s — it’s a lengthy description, but number one, pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan. Number two, young people are able to stay on their family plan. That’s already offered in the private marketplace; you don’t have — have the government mandate that for that to occur.
But let’s come back to something the president — I agree on, which is the — the key task we have in health care is to get the costs down so it’s more affordable for families, and — and then he has as a model for doing that a board of people at the government, an unelected board, appointed board, who are going to decide what kind of treatment you ought to have.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: No, it isn’t.
MR. ROMNEY: In my opinion, the government is not effective in — in bringing down the cost of almost anything. As a matter of fact, free people and free enterprises trying to find ways to do things better are able to be more effective in bringing down the costs than the government will ever be.
It continues from there. So, what does Romney’s health care proposal, which is basically a set of bullet points, say about pre-existing conditions?
Prevent discrimination against individuals with pre-existing conditions who maintain continuous coverage.
Hinderaker:So does that “cover” pre-existing conditions, or not? I think it would have been clear to most listeners that Romney meant his plan would address or deal with the issue of pre-existing conditions, not that the federal government would buy insurance to cover them. (Romney’s plan does not involve the federal government buying health insurance for anyone, beyond the existing Medicare and Medicaid programs.) And Romney’s plan does indeed address the issue of pre-existing conditions, by banning discrimination against those who have them and who maintain health insurance continuously. The continuous insurance requirement is necessary to prevent the obvious dodge (which Krugman specifically acknowledges) of waiting until you get sick and then buying insurance.
So what we have here is a policy disagreement, not a lie. Krugman tries to suggest that Romney’s approach to pre-existing conditions is meaningless because “this is already the law of the land.” But here Krugman is wrong, not Romney. Krugman is referring to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which was adopted in 1996. HIPAA, as explained here, makes group health insurance portable because it “imposes limits on the extent to which some group health plans can exclude health insurance for pre-existing conditions.” But HIPAA “provides no protection if you switch from one individual health plan to another individual plan.” So Romney’s plan will indeed cover pre-existing conditions to a significantly greater degree than existing law. Moreover, Romney’s health care plan also proposes to “[e]nd tax discrimination against the individual purchase of insurance,” so the plan’s extension of portability to individual policies takes on added importance.
Health care policy can be debated endlessly, and Romney and Krugman obviously disagree. Krugman wants government-controlled medicine, and Romney wants to use the private sector and principles of competition to improve care and control costs. But for Krugman to say that Romney “lied” about his own health care proposal as it relates to pre-existing conditions is simply wrong.
Krugman trashes Obama’s debate performance in his column. In addition to the language quoted above, Krugman adds this at the end of the column:
One could wish that Mr. Obama had made this point effectively in the debate. He had every right to jump up and say, “There you go again”: Not only was Mr. Romney’s claim fundamentally dishonest, it has already been extensively debunked, and the Romney campaign itself has admitted that it’s false.
For whatever reason, the president didn’t do that, on health care or on anything else. But, as I said, never mind the theater criticism.
Hinderaker: What is odd about this is that in the debate, rather than being unaccountably silent, Obama made precisely the point that Krugman did in his column. When Romney completed his answer, Obama said:
But let’s go back to what Governor Romney indicated, that under his plan he would be able to cover people with pre-existing conditions. Well, actually, Governor, that isn’t what your plan does. What your plan does is to duplicate what’s already the law, which says if you are out of health insurance for three months then you can end up getting continuous coverage and an insurance company can’t deny you if you’ve — if it’s been under 90 days.
But that’s already the law. And that doesn’t help the millions of people out there with pre-existing conditions. There’s a reason why Governor Romney set up the plan that he did in Massachusetts. It wasn’t a government takeover of health care. It was the largest expansion of private insurance. But what it does say is that insurers, you’ve got to take everybody.
So Obama misrepresented the extent to which Romney’s plan would change existing law, exactly as Krugman did. To which Romney responded:
And with regards to health care, you had remarkable details with regards to my pre-existing condition plan. You obviously studied up on — on my plan. In fact, I do have a plan that deals with people with pre-existing conditions. That’s part of my health care plan. And what we did in Massachusetts is a model for the nation, state by state. And I said that at that time. The federal government taking over health care for the entire nation and whisking aside the 10th Amendment, which gives states the rights for these kinds of things, is not the course for America to have a stronger, more vibrant economy.
So the very point that Krugman thought was missing from the debate was, in fact, thoroughly hashed out by the participants. Apparently Krugman was not paying close attention during the debate, and didn’t bother to check the transcript to make sure that the claim he made was correct. This is consistent with my impression that Krugman dashes off his Times columns in a half hour or less. Next time, he should exercise more care before declaring that those who disagree with him on issues of public policy are liars.
-
Krugman a dishonest hack???
Shocker.
-
http://www.redstate.com/2012/10/08/i-donated-to-barack-obama/
I Donated to Barack Obama
By: Erick Erickson (Diary) | October 8th, 2012 at 05:11 PM | 143
The President has come under fire for the shoddy verification processing his campaign does for donations.
In light of this Newsweek story about the Illegal-Donor loophole with Team ObamaA while back, among conservatives, it was even a story that he was doing this shoddy credit card verification for overseas donors.
So, after talking with some lawyers about the process, etc. I donated to Barack Obama. Sort of.
It is rare that I do something where I feel the need to talk to lawyers first. But giving money to Barack Obama was one of those times.
I didn’t actually do it. I made up a name, made up a passport number, made up an address in Russia — hell I made everything up except my credit card number and expiration date.
Got that?
Everything was bull**** except the actual credit card number and expiration date. Everything.
Go try that with Target or Amazon or Apple or Mitt Romney’s campaign and see what happens. Here’s a hint: it’d get rejected.
When the zip code does not match, it would get rejected.
When the name on the card does not match, it will probably get rejected.
When nothing matches, it will get rejected.
Barack Obama’s campaign processed my very generous $5.00 donation.
-
(http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/rnc-campaigncount.jpg)
-
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/10/confirmed-obama-sent-same-form-letter-to-parents-of-all-fallen-soldiers-marines-seals/
Confirmed: Obama Sent Same Form Letter to Parents of All Fallen Soldiers, Marines, SEALs
-
http://washingtonexaminer.com/mother-of-fallen-seal-team-6-member-blames-wh-leaks-for-her-sons-death/article/2510124
Mother of fallen SEAL Team 6 member blames WH leaks for her son’s death
October 8, 2012 | 3:18 pm
Joel Gehrke
Commentary Writer
The Washington Examiner
President Obama’s team “put a target” on the backs of the Navy SEALs who killed Osama bin Laden, says Karen Vaughn in a video that suggests her son died three months later as a result of White House national security leaks.
“How dare they?” Mrs. Vaughn asks. “They put a target on my son’s back and even on my back. But a little over 90 days later, my son was dead.” Aaron Vaughn and 21 other Navy SEALs, “most of whom belonged to Team 6, the unit whose members were involved in the raid that killed Osama bin Laden,” according to ABC, died in Afghanistan when a helicopter he was riding on was shot down.
The video, released by the conservative Veterans for a Strong America, shows Vice President Joe Biden talking about the raid during a public event and Defense Secretary Robert Gates complaining that an agreement to keep the raid details secret “fell apart” as the result of such comments.
“Aaron called me,” Mrs. Vaughn says, referring to her son, Special Operations Chief Aaron Vaughn, who was killed on August 6, 2011. “He said, ‘Mom, you need to wipe your social media clean. Get rid of everything, any reference to me or my buddies, because there is chatter and all of our lives are possibly in danger, including yours.’”
Veterans for a Strong America, which previously released a video faulting Obama for politicizing the killing of bin Laden, encouraged voters to support the Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan ticket at the end of the video.
VSA executive director hinted that such a video might appear in this election cycle. “We’re looking to [put together] a coalition, to field SEALs and operators that want to come out publicly,” Arends told Buzzfeed after the release of the bin Laden video. “I’ve had a lot of discussions with former SEALs and current SEALs. I’ve been talking to operators in the community. There is palatable discontent.”
-
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2012/10/white-house-scientists-struggle-to-contain-outbreak-of-scrutonium.html
White House Scientists Struggle to Contain Outbreak of Scrutonium
WASHINGTON DC - Engaged a relentless battle against time and fatigue, a select group of message scientists assembled by the White House's Center for Narrative Control say they will take "all steps necessary" to contain a recent outbreak of scrutonium, a deadly poll-eating supervirus that attacks the immuno-hope system, leaving victims vulnerable to material facts.
"Failure is simply not an option," said an exhausted Mission Chief David Axelrod. "If left unchecked, this virus may actually force us to move back to Chicago."
The recent re-infection of scrutonium into the body politic has been a harrowing turn of fortune for Axlerod and his scientific team. In November 2008, they had declared scrutonium "all but extinct," although they kept small amounts of the strain for use in laboratory experiments with Republican tax returns. It was thought to be in containment as recently as five weeks ago, with scientists citing poll results showing resistance to doses of unemployment previously considered fatal.
All that changed on September 12 after an unexpected outbreak in Benghazi, Libya. Although it caught Axlerod and his team by surprise, they were temporarily able to keep it under control with a regimen of YouTube blame therapy and gaffe-meme injections. But the new Benghazi strain proved stubbornly resistant, and has continued to slowly spread.
Amid their battle to contain the Benghazi strain, a second - and even more deadly - outbreak appeared in Denver on October 3. Nicknamed "the Doomsday Strain", the Denver scrutonium virus has thusfar been impervious to any attempt at containment.
"We're dealing with the ultimate buzzkiller here," said Senior Narrative Engineer Stephanie Cutter. "This one directly attacks voters' ability to hallucinate happy thoughts, or even ignore the obvious - no matter how many squirrels we innoculate them with."
Despite all-out efforts to contain the virus, by Friday daily internal gauge readings at CNC headquarters indicated a public opinion disaster was in the making. In order to buy time, Axlerod called on reserves from the 101st Media Narrative Squadron.
"With a virus this aggressive, you need boots on the ground to help fight any new outbreak and sterilize the area with distractions," said CNC jounalistic affairs liaison David Plouffe. "Luckily, the 101st is highly trained, unquestioningly loyal, and completely immune to all known post-2008 strains of scrutonium."
"That Mitt Romney sure seemed awful testy, didn't he?" said hazmat-suit clad Lt. Ben Smith of the 101st's Politico Company, sweeping the rubble of Denver for trace readings of scrutonium.
While Smith and others work around the clock to quarantine the virus, Axlerod and his team remain deep beneath the White House in a specially constructed containment laboratory, racing to find a cure before it has a chance to wipe out Washington as we know it. Although all their experiments have thusfar proven unsuccessful, Axlerod refuses to concede.
"If I've learned anything in this job, it's that hope is a strategy," he said, wiping flopsweat from his combover.
"For instance, maybe Joe Biden will find a cure Wednesday night," he added.
-
I bet the kool-aid has gotten awful bitter for many. Iowahawk is hysterical as usual.
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2012/10/white-house-scientists-struggle-to-contain-outbreak-of-scrutonium.html
White House Scientists Struggle to Contain Outbreak of Scrutonium
WASHINGTON DC - Engaged a relentless battle against time and fatigue, a select group of message scientists assembled by the White House's Center for Narrative Control say they will take "all steps necessary" to contain a recent outbreak of scrutonium, a deadly poll-eating supervirus that attacks the immuno-hope system, leaving victims vulnerable to material facts.
"Failure is simply not an option," said an exhausted Mission Chief David Axelrod. "If left unchecked, this virus may actually force us to move back to Chicago."
The recent re-infection of scrutonium into the body politic has been a harrowing turn of fortune for Axlerod and his scientific team. In November 2008, they had declared scrutonium "all but extinct," although they kept small amounts of the strain for use in laboratory experiments with Republican tax returns. It was thought to be in containment as recently as five weeks ago, with scientists citing poll results showing resistance to doses of unemployment previously considered fatal.
All that changed on September 12 after an unexpected outbreak in Benghazi, Libya. Although it caught Axlerod and his team by surprise, they were temporarily able to keep it under control with a regimen of YouTube blame therapy and gaffe-meme injections. But the new Benghazi strain proved stubbornly resistant, and has continued to slowly spread.
Amid their battle to contain the Benghazi strain, a second - and even more deadly - outbreak appeared in Denver on October 3. Nicknamed "the Doomsday Strain", the Denver scrutonium virus has thusfar been impervious to any attempt at containment.
"We're dealing with the ultimate buzzkiller here," said Senior Narrative Engineer Stephanie Cutter. "This one directly attacks voters' ability to hallucinate happy thoughts, or even ignore the obvious - no matter how many squirrels we innoculate them with."
Despite all-out efforts to contain the virus, by Friday daily internal gauge readings at CNC headquarters indicated a public opinion disaster was in the making. In order to buy time, Axlerod called on reserves from the 101st Media Narrative Squadron.
"With a virus this aggressive, you need boots on the ground to help fight any new outbreak and sterilize the area with distractions," said CNC jounalistic affairs liaison David Plouffe. "Luckily, the 101st is highly trained, unquestioningly loyal, and completely immune to all known post-2008 strains of scrutonium."
"That Mitt Romney sure seemed awful testy, didn't he?" said hazmat-suit clad Lt. Ben Smith of the 101st's Politico Company, sweeping the rubble of Denver for trace readings of scrutonium.
While Smith and others work around the clock to quarantine the virus, Axlerod and his team remain deep beneath the White House in a specially constructed containment laboratory, racing to find a cure before it has a chance to wipe out Washington as we know it. Although all their experiments have thusfar proven unsuccessful, Axlerod refuses to concede.
"If I've learned anything in this job, it's that hope is a strategy," he said, wiping flopsweat from his combover.
"For instance, maybe Joe Biden will find a cure Wednesday night," he added.
-
Details to follow, but I think Romney just won this election.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/10/09/can_obamas_lead_resist_the_forces_of_gravity_115721-2.html
First, the bandwagon effect affects fundraising. Once you move outside the partisan core, people like to back winners. This is especially true of the business community. By assiduously cultivating its front-runner status, the Obama campaign has aided its ability to press future arguments.
Second, maintaining a lead allows greater leeway in the arguments it can make. Something like the “cancer ad” from August looks hard-hitting from a campaign that is leading (and I certainly include candidate super PACs as part of the “campaign”), but would probably be described as “desperate” from one that is losing.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it affects press portrayals of the candidates and party enthusiasm. This is the most important thing here: I still think the default expectation here has been that Obama should be losing. “Defying gravity” is hardly an original motif for this election, after all.
So the view that Obama is going to lose can -- or at least could have -- quickly become the conventional wisdom. If that happens, we would end up with a vicious cycle that looks something like this: The Democratic base becomes downtrodden, its enthusiasm falls, the right’s enthusiasm skyrockets, the likely-voter screens skew more Republican, and Obama falls even further behind in the polls. Instead, we have a campaign where everyone marvels at Obama's constant lead, further adding to the mythos surrounding his supposed inability to lose.
This is why the Oct. 3 debate really might have marked an important, structural change point in the campaign. Now, I’m emphatically not arguing that Obama can’t win the election after his poor performance (and Romney's strong performance) at that face-off. In fact, I still regard him as the slight favorite. But we’ve seen exactly the combination Team Obama worked assiduously to avoid: Romney re-consolidating his base, Republican enthusiasm skyrocketing, and the president’s aura of invulnerability pierced.
This leaves two important, unknown questions. First, to where does gravity pull Obama? Is the mean to which he regresses a narrow lead? Or is it a significant loss? Political science models are split, with the average model showing an Obama lead of a few 10ths of a point. We don't yet really know where gravity naturally drags the president to, although the bottoms he reached over the summer suggest that it would be at least a small Romney lead with likely voters.
Second, what else, if anything, does Team Obama have to push back against gravity? The 47 percent video seems like something that would normally be held until later in the campaign. Is there anything else it can use to push back against the natural trajectory of the race? We’ll find out, and if we get a few more polls like the Pew poll, I suspect that we will find out sooner rather than later.
-
Obama 'believed he had BEATEN Romney' in Denver debate - after ignoring advice of top aides on preparation
Obama believes he'd got the better of Romney as he walked off stage to the dismay of his aides, according to a Democrat close to the campaign
The President failed to prepare properly, opting instead to visit the Hoover Dam the day before the showdown
Democrat claims he was so disdainful of Romney that he didn't think he needed to even engage with him
Had one-liners on 47% prepared but chose not to use them
By Toby Harnden
PUBLISHED: 11:25 EST, 9 October 2012 | UPDATED: 16:52 EST, 9 October 2012
When President Barack Obama stepped off the stage in Denver last week the 60 million Americans watching the debate against Mitt Romney already knew it had been a disaster for him.
But what nobody knew, until now, was that Obama believed he had actually won.
In an extraordinary insight into the events leading up to the 90 minute showdown which changed the face of the election, a Democrat close to the Obama campaign today reveals that the President also did not take his debate preparation seriously, ignored the advice of senior aides and ignored one-liners that had been prepared to wound Romney.
Hubris: Obama's central problem was that he was so disdainful of Romney that the President, seen here boarding Air Force One in San Francisco today, didn't believe he needed to engage with him
A winning smile? Obama grins durign the debate with Romney full of confidence that he was going to win
The Democrat said that Obama's inner circle was dismayed at the 'disaster' and that he believed the central problem was that the President was so disdainful of Romney that he didn't believe he needed to engage with him.
'President Obama made it clear he wanted to be doing anything else - anything - but debate prep,' the Democrat said. 'He kept breaking off whenever he got the opportunity and never really focused on the event.
'He went into the debate armed with a number of one-liners to throw at Romney, including at least two about Romney not caring about 47 per cent of the country. But he decided not to use them.'
Anything but prep: Obama visited the Hoover Dam the day before the debate rather than prep
The Democrat, who is aligned with the Obama campaign and has been an unofficial adviser on occasions, said that David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist, was stunned that the President left the stage feeling that he had won the debate.
'To his credit, the President believes that debates are about substance rather than performance. He felt that his argument about the direction this country should take was much stronger than Romney's. Unfortunately, that's not the way modern debates work.'
During his debate preparation in Henderson, Nevada, Obama broke off to visit a campaign field office. There, he joked with a volunteer about how his advisers were 'keeping me indoors all the time' to practice. 'It's a drag. They're making me do my homework.'
More...Sesame Street tells Obama campaign to take down ad which mocks Romney by showing Big Bird as 'evil genius'
The scale of Obama's humilation revealed: Romney scores 52-point debate victory - the BIGGEST in Gallup poll history
Clueless star Stacey Dash accused of 'not being black enough' on Twitter for endorsing Romney
Where's the Secret Service when you need them? Over-zealous chef repeatedly wipes down the face of a shocked Mitt Romney during restaurant photo op
Waiter goes into hiding after he told President that Obamacare saved his mother during anniversary meal - and the president repeated the story at packed Hollywood fundraiser
Obama campaign 'may have violated federal election law by allowing foreign donors to funnel in cash via its website'
Obama also decided to take a break to visit the Hoover Dam. 'Its spectacular, and I've never seen it before,' he told reporters during the visit, which came about because an aide had mentioned the dam was nearby. I said, 'Well, we've got to go check it out".'
Even before the debate, some advisers were worried that Obama, who had been distracted and detached during some of the sessions in which Senator John Kerry had played Romney, would have an off night.
Looking for a way forward: Obama is all smiles as he lands in Rickenbacker Inland Port, in Columbus, Ohio, today to campaign in the swing state
But in his closing statement in Denver, Obama said that it had been 'a terrific debate and I very much appreciate it' - an upbeat comment that reflected his view that he had at the very least held his own against Romney.
But he then delivered a line that bemused his advisers: 'You know, four years ago, I said that I'm not a perfect man and I wouldn't be a perfect president. And that's probably a promise that Governor Romney thinks I've kept.'
The Democrat said: 'It was as bad as "likeable enough". The President thought he was being bitingly sarcastic about what he saw as Romney's overly-aggressive performance. But to your swing voter it was as if he was waving the white flag of surrender.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2215173/Obama-believed-beaten-Romney-Denver-debate-ignoring-advice-aides.html
-
My reaction: The moderator did okay, that's a tough job and she tried to ask tough questions both ways and tried to keep a little order.
I think both sides got what they wanted from their candidate. More interesting will be to find out what people in the middle thought of what they saw and heard.
Biden was annoying and obnoxious with distracting groans and interruptions, laughing at his opponent sometimes instead of listening. I think the anger in his passion will play better with the base than with the undecideds. Ryan was more restrained and respectful. They both appeared informed, passionate and energetic.
The real story is what you didn't hear. Biden like Obama gave no defense of why this economy is acceptable and failed to give any reason to believe the next 4 years will be any better.
Ryan's closing statement was particularly clear and effective.
------------
CBS reporting quickly that 50% think Joe Biden won this debate.
------------
Going back to the first debate, Gallup said Romney won by 50 points, 71 to 20%, the largest margin in Presidential debate polling history. We saw the painful picture of Michelle joining her defeated husband on stage. Now we find out the President did not know he lost. Vanity surpassed only by sending the Queen of England a DVD player as a gift pre-loaded with his best campaign speeches. Unbelievable.
-
My reaction: The moderator did okay, that's a tough job and she tried to ask tough questions both ways and tried to keep a little order.
An excellent point. A professional... :wink:
Biden was annoying and obnoxious with distracting groans and interruptions, laughing at his opponent sometimes instead of listening. I think the anger in his passion will play better with the base than with the undecideds. Ryan was more restrained and respectful. They both appeared informed, passionate and energetic.
Agreed. See my post on the Ryan thread.
Ryan's closing statement was particularly clear and effective.
I think he was clear and effective in several places. His discussion of Romney's philanthropy was excellent. Most importantly, he showed why he is on the ticket. Thoughtful, knowledgeable and consistent. Well done.
------------
CBS reporting quickly that 50% think Joe Biden won this debate.
------------
Going back to the first debate, Gallup said Romney won by 50 points, 71 to 20%, the largest margin in Presidential debate polling history. We saw the painful picture of Michelle joining her defeated husband on stage. Now we find out the President did not know he lost. Vanity surpassed only by sending the Queen of England a DVD player as a gift pre-loaded with his best campaign speeches. Unbelievable.
http://www.businessinsider.com/chris-wallace-joe-biden-debate-reaction-smiling-smirking-laughing-2012-10 (agreed)
http://www.businessinsider.com/gallup-pollster-romney-debate-bounce-obama-rasmussen-2012-10 (Obama lost the debate, but did he lose?
Thanks for the quick input, DMG.
-
I thought the moderator did a remarkably weak job with Biden's interruptions and that at certain points was decidedly more argumentative with Ryan. I wish Ryan had been more forceful in response to Biden's interruptions.
Biden did well motivating his base I think. I think Ryan showed himself to be a quick study on foreign affairs but that he stumbled with regard to exit from Afpakia; IMHO Joe definitely scored well on this. Across the spectrum the American people are tired of a poorly conceived war with no prospect of either party getting it right (the YA-Denny doctrine :lol: ) and wonder why not come home tomorrow. Though on certain issues Ryan did quite well I really wish he had gotten in Joe's face instead of letting him off the hook at several points.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/11/biden-mom-and-dad-taught-him-many-things-but-not-manners/
2 things about the above link: 1, I LOVE the title. 2, I would like to hear thoughts on the view of oft cited Dick Morris.
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/10/11/highlights-biden-ryan-spar-face-face
"I think the vice president very well knows that sometimes the words don't come out of your mouth the right way." My favorite, and the most factual, quote of the night.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/12/politics/debate-five-things-learned/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
I like that David Gergen and I agree (see my post debate view on the Ryan thread): "I think that Ryan was calmer and frankly more presidential."
Funny tweets: http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/12/tech/social-media/funniest-vp-debate-tweets/index.html
-
Will The Election Results Cause Massive Riots To Erupt All Over America?
Michael Snyder
The Economic Collapse
Oct 12, 2012
Will the most divisive campaign in modern American history culminate in massive riots in our major cities? Right now, supporters of Barack Obama and supporters of Mitt Romney are both pinning all of their hopes on a victory on November 6th. The race for the presidency is extremely tight, and obviously the side that loses is going to be extremely disappointed when the election results are finalized. But could this actually lead to violence? Could we actually see rioting in communities all over America? Well, the conditions are certainly ripe for it.
A whole host of surveys over the past few years have shown that Americans are very angry and very frustrated right now. In fact, a Pew Research Center poll from late last year found that 86 percent of all Americans are either angry or frustrated with the federal government. We have seen this frustration manifest in protest movements such as the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street, but right now things are fairly calm as liberals and conservatives both look forward to November 6th. Many Republicans started the countdown to the next election literally the day after John McCain lost back in 2008.
All of their hopes of getting Obama out of the White House are riding on a Romney victory. For many Democrats, Barack Obama is a “once in a generation” icon. Just the thought of Mitt Romney replacing Obama in the White House is enough to push many of them to the brink of insanity. In recent years we have seen horrible rioting erupt in cities after major sports championship games. How much worse could the rioting potentially be if this bitterly contested election is decided by a very narrow margin – especially if there are allegations that the election is “stolen”?
The election is nearly four weeks away, and many Obama supporters are already threatening to riot if Obama loses. The following are some very disturbing messages that were posted on Twitter recently that have been reposted on Twitchy.com….
“If Romney wins I’m Starting a Riot….Who’s WIT ME???”
“I Hope The USA Is Well Aware That If In The Event This Character Romney Wins The Election, The People Will Start A Country Wide Riot! #Power”
“If Romney is elected president, its gon be a riot its gon be a riot.”
“If ROMNEY GETS IN THE WHITE HOUSE …U MIGHT AS WELL KILL ME NOW …..CAUSE ITS GONNA BE A ************ RIOT !!!”
“If Romney became President and took away welfare Downtown Cincinnati would become a riot”
“If Romney takes away food stamps 2 Chainzz in this bit IMMA START A RIOT”
“If Romney wins. (which i highly doubt) THERE WILL BE A RIOT—”
The following are a few more tweets that I found which threaten a potential riot if Obama loses the election….
From @joecools_world….
“Need 2 come up wit a game plan if Romney win…. Riot all thru Newark”
From @killacate….
“I swear on everything I love if Romney wins ima riot. I don’t even care if its just me.”
Romney supporters are not really threatening to riot, but many of them are proclaiming that they may leave the country if Obama wins. Here are some examples….
From @BrentskiTheBoss….
“If Obama gets reelected I may leave the country”
From @AbbieFickes….
“im sorry but if obama were to win again, i might as well leave the country and live in zimbabwe”
This presidential campaign has been getting increasingly heated, and individuals on both sides have been committing some despicable acts.
For example, in a previous article I mentioned that some Romney campaign signs down in Virgina have been smeared with excrement.
Over in Ohio, a huge pile of manure was dumped right in front of Warren County Democratic headquarters early on Tuesday morning….
Volunteers at the Warren County Democratic headquarters, just north of Cincinnati, were shocked and disappointed by a political prank unloaded on them early Tuesday morning – someone dumped a pile of horse manure in the parking lot of the headquarters building on US 42, just north of Lebanon.
It appears that both sides have resorted to literally slinging crap around.
There is so much hate in America today, and this campaign is bringing a lot of it to the surface. It is even being reported that a bus driver told a 12-year-old boy that he should have been aborted because his family has a Romney campaign sign in their yard….
Belling read a letter from the 12-year-old boy’s mother, detailing the alleged abusive behavior by the bus driver.
Apparently, the Romney-Ryan yard sign bugs the bus driver and she’s been harassing the boy, making rude comments to him related to politics.
When the driver engaged the 12-year-old boy in a political conservation, he responded by saying that Obama is pro-abortion.
The bus driver allegedly said to the child, “Maybe your mom should have chosen abortion for you.”
How sick is that?
You can strongly disagree with someone without being mean and without being hateful.
Right now, the United States is a bubbling cauldron of frustration and anger that could be set off at any moment. This election could potentially be a “trigger point” which could end up unleashing a lot of that anger and frustration.
Already, there have been allegations that the Republicans have been committing voter registration fraud. Democrats are furious about this.
Evidence has also emerged that Democrats have been willing to assist voters in registering to vote in two different states. The following is from a recent article by Mac Slavo….
When undercover reporters visited various locations across the country they received the same response from Obama campaign staffers – that it’s basically okay to vote multiple times if you happen to be registered in two or more states.
In Houston, Texas, for example, the Project Veritas reporter made her intentions known, and rather than being rebuffed for her planned illegal activity, she was provided assistance with obtaining the proper forms to be registered in two states and was told to say “I don’t know” if the double-voting ever became an issue.
Similar situations unfolded at other DNC funded community organizations.
It appears quite probable that whichever side loses this election will accuse the other side of stealing the election.
And if millions of Americans feel that the election has been stolen from them, that will make it much more likely that we will see rioting.
Keep your ears open for phrases such as “voter fraud” and “election fraud” following this election. People are so angry already that even allegations that someone stole the election could be enough to set the streets of America on fire.
As always, let us hope for the best, but let us also prepare for the worst.
Read more of Michael Snyder’s reports at Economic Collapse Blog.
-
I missed what this article picks up concerning Biden's change of policy with Iran's nukes.
Biden's Intelligence
Nuclear Iran? Resurgent al Qaeda? 'Let's all calm down.'.
Joe Biden's unbounded id is the talk of the nation after Thursday's debate. But the Veep is also the elder Democratic statesman on international affairs, and in between his snickers, guffaws and "malarkey," he shed newsworthy light on Obama Administration foreign policy. Let's roll the tape.
On Iran, Mr. Biden broke new ground, though most of the media missed it. To a question about the Administration's willingness to stop the Tehran regime from going nuclear, he said what matters isn't Iran's ability to enrich uranium to weapons grade. It's whether it can build and deliver a bomb.
"They are a good way away," he said. "When my friend [Paul Ryan] talks about fissile material, they have to take this highly enriched uranium, get it from 20% up. Then they have to be able to have something to put it in. There is no weapon that the Iranians have at this point."
"Let's all calm down a little bit here," Mr. Biden said a few minutes later.
In other words, Iran may have made progress toward enriching enough uranium to sufficient strength to build a bomb in the past four years, but that's immaterial. Based on the Vice President's intelligence, Iran isn't close to getting the trigger mechanism, missiles and all the other things needed to deploy a weapon. So don't worry.
Hmmm. For a decade, the U.S. and Europe have focused on coaxing and coercing the Iranians to stop enrichment above all else. That's because this is the hardest thing about building a bomb. Iran has in any case worked to develop missiles and triggers with help from Russians, North Koreans and others. In a clearer moment this summer, Mitt Romney said he would insist that Iran not enrich any uranium, even ostensibly for peaceful purposes. He failed to repeat this demand in his foreign-policy speech this week.
Biden and Ryan dive into foreign policy, debate on what steps each platform will take with Iran in terms of military action.
.
To hear Mr. Biden tell it, the Obama Administration now has a new red line on Iran. The mullahs can enrich as much uranium as they wish as long as they "don't have something to put it in." This isn't the red line Israel's Bibi Netanyahu had in mind during his recent speech before the United Nations. Nor are Turkey, Saudi Arabia and others looking for proof of an Iranian ICBM before they decide to go nuclear themselves. Iran becomes a regional nuclear power when it demonstrates its ability to get the bomb at almost a moment's notice, which is when it has developed enough fuel for it.
The Veep made a spirited case as well for doing nothing in Syria—no "no fly" zones, direct arms supplies to the rebels, or any U.S. political lead in an intervention. "If, in fact, it blows up and the wrong people gain control, it's going to have impact on the entire region, causing potentially regional wars," he said of Syria. News stories suggest this is happening already without any U.S. involvement, as the Syrian war pulls in Iraq, Lebanon and Turkey.
Mr. Biden appeared to preview another Obama policy shift on Afghanistan. With a 2014 deadline to transition the security lead to the Kabul government, the discussion will shift to how large the American military footprint will be afterward—with up to 30,000 U.S. troops left behind to ensure the Taliban don't overrun Kabul again.
But Mr. Biden said something different: "We are leaving in 2014, period, and in the process we're going to be saving over the next 10 years another $800 billion." He added that Afghan forces are ready to defend the country themselves and lead the fight in the difficult east, another piece of intelligence that's news to us.
On the attacks in Benghazi, Mr. Biden turned uncharacteristically terse. A day before the debate, a House hearing revealed that the U.S. Embassy in Libya had been concerned about a rising al Qaeda-linked Islamist threat and had requested, but was denied, security reinforcements.
"Well, we weren't told they wanted more security again," said Mr. Biden, contradicting the testimony of State Department officials. He also blamed "the intelligence community" for the Administration's initial and false assertions that Ambassador Chris Stevens and three American colleagues were killed in a "spontaneous" protest against an anti-Islam video on YouTube. This is the same "intelligence community" he is sure can tell us with certainty when Iran has a bomb and the Taliban is defeated.
Asked Friday about Mr. Biden's claims, White House spokesman Jay Carney said: "He was speaking directly for himself and for the President. He meant the White House. . . . No one who testified about this matter suggested that requests for additional security were made to the President or the White House. These are issues appropriately that are handled by security professionals at the State Department. And that's what he was talking about." So blame State and the intelligence community.
Don't worry, be happy may be a good campaign theme for Mr. Biden. Don't worry about a resurgent al Qaeda in North Africa. Or the escalating war in Syria. Or Iran's mullahs with weapons grade uranium, or Vladimir Putin's increasingly anti-American policy, or China's muscular antics in the Pacific. Overseas, said Mr. Biden, this Administration has "repaired our alliances so the rest of the world follows up again." He clearly knows something the world doesn't.
-
I think Biden's hair plugs went in too deep.
-
Biden told a series of whoppers on Obama's "foreign policy," such as it is - during the debate. That neither Ryan nor the debate moderator called him on these obvious lies (particularly about Benghazi) is regrettable, to say the least. Look for this administration to throw Hillary Clinton under the bus next. It's very clear that this is their plan. Biden essentially said so in the debate. "No one told us." Oh, really? Bill Clinton was furious about having the "race card" pulled on him during the 2008 campaign. Now it's Hillary's turn to eat an excrement sandwich.
-
Biden told a series of whoppers on Obama's "foreign policy," such as it is - during the debate. That neither Ryan nor the debate moderator called him on these obvious lies (particularly about Benghazi) is regrettable, to say the least.
Professional.
-
Look for this administration to throw Hillary Clinton under the bus next. It's very clear that this is their plan. Biden essentially said so in the debate. "No one told us." Oh, really? Bill Clinton was furious about having the "race card" pulled on him during the 2008 campaign. Now it's Hillary's turn to eat an excrement sandwich.
The dowager empress won't take that lying down. It might be time to make some popcorn and enjoy the show.
-
Biden told a series of whoppers on Obama's "foreign policy," such as it is - during the debate. That neither Ryan nor the debate moderator called him on these obvious lies (particularly about Benghazi) is regrettable, to say the least.
Professional.
So now you want the moderator to get in a participant's face, at least figuratively. Please... be consistent. It is not as if Ryan was free of error, and it is not as if the so-called left leaning press hasn't made mention of the Biden discussion of Libya.
-
Biden told a series of whoppers on Obama's "foreign policy," such as it is - during the debate. That neither Ryan nor the debate moderator called him on these obvious lies (particularly about Benghazi) is regrettable, to say the least.
Professional.
So now you want the moderator to get in a participant's face, at least figuratively. Please... be consistent. It is not as if Ryan was free of error, and it is not as if the so-called left leaning press hasn't made mention of the Biden discussion of Libya.
I've already articulated how Raddatz spun her question to provide dems cover on Libya.
-
Check this out:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/us/politics/campaigns-mine-personal-lives-to-get-out-vote.html?smid=tw-share
-
"Campaigns Mine Personal Lives to Get Out Vote"
Very creepy. Dick Morris said give me your demographic info and I will tell you with 2/3 certainty how you vote. With martial arts and self defense I'll bet there is a heavy leaning conservative for self reliance and 2nd amendment rights. For inner city landlords who value property rights and have seen the failure of our welfare system up close and personal, the percentage leaning conservative approaches 100. Single women who see the government as provider and protector, someone who look out for you until death do you part, a role formerly known as husband, they lean heavily Democratic.
In 1988 at a Grateful Dead concert, through the crowd and the haze of the smoke I found myself bumping into a voter registration table and a guy wanting me to register. I told him I'm all registered and that I'm a Jack Kemp delegate. He had no idea what I was talking about. He didn't want me to vote, he wanted me to vote a certain way. They associated taste in music with political choice and they tied a feeling of free spirit and liberties with big government advocacy.
I would rather know if a person is informed before I ask him to vote.
“Voting is habit-forming,” Yes. I see the first time voters in 2008 caught up in the Obama excitement of hope and change as future conservative voters. Come out and vote wrong. See how it goes for you. Make the adjustment. Come out and vote again - and try to do better the second time. )
-
Pundits say Reagan also had a off day on the first reelection debate, 1984. In the second debate the moderator came out hard on his age question:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoPu1UIBkBc[/youtube]
Reagan had some charm you see and Obama told Sen. Reid, "Harry, I have a gift", the gift of oratory, allegedly.
Both had a predecessor they could blame for their troubles. One didn't need to. Reagan had a pro-growth agenda, and it was enacted by reaching across the aisle. Obama has 50,000 new regulations, 2 dozen new taxes, and a government takeover to one degree or another of a host of industries, rejecting pro-growth economics at every turn.
Reagan had approximately 8% GDP growth rate in 1984. Obama is going from 2% growth to 1% and now approaching zero. 3 million fewer people are working while the population continues to grow.
Reagan did not win 49 states based on charm alone.
Sorry, what were the similarities again?
-
“Voting is habit-forming,” Yes. I see the first time voters in 2008 caught up in the Obama excitement of hope and change as future conservative voters. Come out and vote wrong. See how it goes for you. Make the adjustment. Come out and vote again - and try to do better the second time. )
I've long favored (as I surmise the Framers would) eliminating as many uninformed voters as possible by having a citizen demonstrate basic knowledge of the government structure before being allowed to vote. I would guess that a large percentage of voters in presidential elections cannot even name their two Senators and their House representative. That alone ought to disqualify them. In addition - I would prohibit anyone receiving government checks from voting.
-
In the first debate Pres. Obama looked weak. He will look sharper tomorrow.
In the VP debate, Joe Biden was all aggressive over Ryan and the Romney plan. As Elizabeth Warren would say, good for him.
In neither debate did candidate Obama or Biden explain how they think this is good economic progress or why anyone should think the next 4 years will be any better.
Pres. Obama through Axelrod promises to follow up strongly on the scrutiny of the Romney plan. But we already did that. No one has yet asked similarly tough questions on the Obama plan and the Obama math, uh, arithmetic.
The townhall format also presents the possibility of an ordinary citizen to ask the question that becomes the zinger that frames this election. We will see.
-
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/10/14/fundamental-economic-requirements-for-our-next-president/
Fundamental Economic Requirements For Our Next President
By Charles R. Schwab
Every American voter is approaching a critical decision. Of the two presidential candidates before us, who is best suited to lead our nation through the next four years?
The answer to that question is a simple test: can they ignite economic growth? The economic crisis we face is our greatest threat, affecting every American. For investors – and today over half of Americans are investors in some form – this issue is particularly pressing as it impacts not just their financial situation today, but also their retirement and other long-term goals. Economic growth is the only ingredient that will help pull the country out of its present funk and allow us to solve our pressing issues.
Economic growth is the fuel that makes new jobs, creates new industries, and helps your hard work pay off. A four percent GDP growth rate would lead to three million new jobs every year and lead to higher wages for those already employed. Growth expands the tax coffers nationally and locally, enabling investments for the future. That same four percent growth will provide America with $150 billion per year in additional tax revenue. With growth, everyone benefits.
Growth is not complicated. It is a force of nature. But when it stalls, as it has for the last four years, it will not return without effective leadership. A great leader understands and applies the power of incentives to encourage growth. Incentives appeal to a basic human instinct and motivate productive choices. They are used throughout our lives from grades in school that encourage learning and higher performance, to the incentives we use at work through pay, bonuses and promotions to recognize and encourage accomplishment. Incentives are the most powerful tool a government and its leaders have to spur economic growth.
Every voter needs to ask which candidate will offer the most incentives to get our economy growing again. For example, which candidate will look at tax policy as an incentive to spur growth? Capital gains are taxed at a lower rate in our tax system today to recognize and encourage people to put their money to work. That money in turn gets invested in businesses which hire and expand. That tax incentive encourages risk taking and investment for growth. Which candidate understands the power of tax incentives?
Which candidate understands how to effectively apply an incentive to encourage businesses to invest in job training? It is a tragedy today that there are jobs available but not enough people trained to fill them. Which candidate would streamline the muddle of ineffective programs today and encourage corporations to sponsor training programs through a simple, universal incentive? A properly-sized tax credit for job trainees hired over the next five years would do the trick.
Which candidate will review every line of the tax code and regulation to assess its relevance and its complexity? If there is a simpler, clearer way to meet the goals, the regulation should be rewritten. If the regulation is outdated, it should be scrapped. Job creators, particularly small businesses, are looking for clarity and certainty: certainty from the tax code, certainty on the regulatory environment. Business leaders cannot create jobs when they cannot accurately assess the impact of taxes and regulations on their business.
Lower corporate tax rates in foreign countries encourage corporations to do their business outside the U.S. Incentives here in the U.S. could change that. Which candidate would incentivize U.S. corporations to bring some of their $1.3 trillion in business now centered abroad, here to a more business-friendly U.S. through lower tax rates?
Strong economies need cheap and plentiful energy. Which candidate will lead us to energy independence through the development of our own domestic resources, rather than continuing to kneel to OPEC and other foreign oil suppliers?
Incentives should not be confused with disincentives, their ugly step-sisters, which are based on penalties and don’t motivate progress. They stifle investment and innovation. Today, disincentives abound and are on the rise. Increased taxes, in whatever form, are a disincentive to earn, to spend, to save and invest. Large regulatory schemes like Obama care and Dodd Frank are a disincentive when they make it unclear to companies what their cost of operations will be. Obama Care in particular, which we know mandates additional employer health care costs for new full-time employees, freezes the motivation of employers to hire new full-time employees. The lack of certainty about what those costs will be leaves them unable to move forward.
Today, our fundamental problem is a lack of economic growth and no attention to the incentives that can re-ignite it. The test for deciding who should be our next President is who understands that and will put the pieces in place to solve it. Our economy, job prospects, investments and retirement plans will get substantial help by picking the growth candidate.
Which candidate has the record to arrive at the big decisions and incentivize growth? Mitt Romney supports all of the growth-generating measures I have outlined above. If economic growth is what we need—and I believe it is—he is the right choice.
-
Michael Barone - Washington Examiner - October 13, 2012:
When a politician is in trouble, he usually falls back on what he knows best -- the world he saw around him when he entered into political awareness as a young adult.
That's what seems to have happened to the Democratic ticket after Barack Obama's disastrous performance in the Denver debate Oct. 3.
So Obama on the campaign trail and Joe Biden in the vice presidential debate fell back on what they know from their formative political years.
At least that's the best explanation I can come up with for the Obama campaign's obsession with Big Bird.
On the campaign trail in the week after the presidential debate, Obama mentioned Big Bird 13 times -- 13 times more than he mentioned Libya.
And the Obama campaign rolled out a 30-second spot showing Mitt Romney saying "Big Bird" several times. Even liberals labeled it the worst TV ad they had ever seen.
But someone in the Obama campaign -- and remember that the campaign always reflects the candidate -- thought hitting Romney for defunding PBS, "Sesame Street" and Big Bird would be devastating.
Never mind that "Sesame Street" gets little money from the government and has an endowment in the hundreds of millions. As the "Sesame" folks assured us, Big Bird is going to continue to be on the air whatever Romney does.
The Big Bird offensive would have been more effective in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when Obama came of political age. Lots of people then saw public broadcasting as a needed alternative to commercial television.
Better your kids watch "Sesame Street" than cartoons interlaced with ads for sugared cereals. And they'd learn to respect ghetto kids in the process.
It's an argument with some appeal still in the state Senate district Obama sculpted for himself in 2002, linking black neighborhoods on Chicago's South Side with the rich liberals in Gold Coast apartments. But for ordinary voters, with 133 cable channels to choose from, "Sesame Street" and PBS are just not a big deal.
Fast forward to Joe Biden at the debate. He clearly did what the Obama campaign wanted: lots of lusty attacks on Mitt Romney, repeated mentions of that magic number 47 percent, smirks and groans and derisive laughter.
He interrupted Paul Ryan and moderator Martha Raddatz more than 80 times, which may have been offputting to Independents and Undecideds. But he gave core Democrats like interrupter Chris Matthews something to cheer about.
On substance he was weaker. He denied that the White House knew that Ambassador Christopher Stevens was attacked by terrorists rather than in a spontaneous demonstration prompted by an anti-Islam video. That's in vivid contrast with sworn testimony Wednesday that the State Department knew it was a terrorist attack all along.
Biden's statement was either an untruth or a confession of incompetence. If the State Department had the information, why didn't the White House?
Another telling moment came when Raddatz asked Biden what Obama would do about the budget deficit other than raise taxes on high earners. Raise taxes on high earners, Biden repeated again and again. That's the second-term agenda.
On entitlements, Biden said that Social Security and Medicare were "guaranteed." That's not what most young voters think. They understand in some visceral way that the current programs are unsustainable.
In his closing statement Biden identified Romney's "47 percent of the people who won't take responsibility" with "my mother and father. He's talking about the places I grew up in, my neighbors in Scranton, [Pa.], and Claymont, [Del.]"
Those people, born around 1920, would rally to candidates who promised to maintain Social Security and Medicare when Biden first ran for the Senate in 1972. They would understand his reference to Republican opposition to these programs when they were enacted in 1935 and 1965. But that's 77 and 47 years ago now.
But the Obama campaign wrote off the white working class last spring. Biden was making an appeal that worked in his political youth but not so much these days.
Polling suggests Obama lost ground with women, and the CNN instant poll showed Biden scoring badly with them. As for young people, will they be attracted to a man who keeps shouting "Malarkey!" a word not in common use for years?
In the two debates, voters saw a near-comatose Obama and a near-manic Biden -- and two sober, well-informed Republicans. That's not a good contrast for Democrats.
Michael Barone, The Examiner's senior political analyst, can be contacted at mbarone@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears Wednesday and Sunday, and his stories and blog posts appear on washingtonexaminer.com.
-
________________________________________
The Romney Tax Plan To view this article, Click Here
Brian S. Wesbury - Chief Economist
Bob Stein, CFA - Senior Economist
Date: 10/15/2012
The US federal budget is a mess. Spending has soared, which has hurt economic growth and undermined tax revenues. The result is four consecutive years of trillion dollar deficits.
Politicians are always tempted to hike taxes to fix deficits, but the US has reached the point where this is not possible. To fix this mess, spending must be reduced. The US has never balanced its budget when spending was more than 19.5% of GDP. Big government undermines economic growth.
But, the fiscal cliff is looming and our tax code is a morass of deductions, one-year fixes, and temporary rate structures. It is clear that President Obama wants to lift taxes on the wealthy and the only question is what that may look like.
Governor Romney wants to make some big changes to the US tax code: extending all the tax cuts that go back to 2001/03, ending the alternative minimum tax, getting rid of the extra income taxes in Obamacare, and then cutting regular income tax rates an additional 20%. Tax rates on regular income that now go from 10% up to 35% would range from 8% up to 28%.
The Romney campaign says his tax cuts are “revenue neutral” if we limit deductions (broaden the tax base) and count the positive effect on revenue of some extra economic growth due to better incentives. But, candidate Romney has been silent on what deductions he will choose to eliminate.
Using 2009 data, we can estimate that in 2015 taxpayers would have about $1.7 trillion in itemized deductions. In 2015, we estimate that the big deductions would be; Medical ($170 billion), State and Local taxes ($333 bil), Real Estate tax deduction ($237 bil), Mortgage Interest deduction ($592 bil), and Charitable Contributions ($223 bil).
Applying an average tax rate of 25% to the total of these deductions suggests getting rid of all of them would generate an additional $425 billion – approximately 30% of all income tax revenue. If we include traditional (and cautious) models of positive revenue feedback effects, revenues would likely be boosted by another $120 billion from better economic growth.
The total increase in revenues from excluding all deductions and a positive revenue feedback loop would be $545 billion, more than offsetting the cut in tax rates and allowing the code to maintain some popular middle class deductions.
Lobbyists in Washington have a long-standing opposition to ending any deductions and many politicians on both sides stand ready to defend all of them. But these deductions distort the economy by redirecting resources toward areas in a way that does not accurately reflect the most optimum allocation of resources. We hope that the election provides a mandate for this type of reform, it would be very positive.
There is one other major political and budgetary hurdle. The scorekeepers in Washington will not accept the current tax code as the baseline. Instead, they will assume that the Bush tax cuts expire in 2013 and all Obamacare taxes become effective. Any plan that does not include these huge tax hikes will be “scored” as a major reduction in tax revenues.
As a result, the only way to get Romney’s tax cuts passed is to get 60 votes in the Senate. But that’s highly unlikely. Instead, if elected, Romney would have to make his plan temporary using the same special budget process Bush used back in 2001/03, so he could pass them with only 50 Senators.
Bottom line, we like the plan, but don’t expect full passage on a permanent basis. Compromises will have to be made.
-
I like this version of Wesbury better.
-
American Jewry’s Cherished Values
The most significant passage: "For 70% of American Jews, party loyalty trumps all of their conceivable rational interests. For them, partisan loyalty is more important than facts. They do not want to use independent judgment. They just want to be Democrats.
The most disturbing aspect of the surveys of American Jewish voters is not that they are willing to vote for the most hostile US president Israel has ever experienced in order to remain true to their party. The most disturbing aspect of the American Jewish community’s devotion to Obama and the Democrats is that it indicates that the vast majority of American Jews have abandoned their faculties for independent thought and judgment in favor of conformism and slavish partisanship. They have rendered themselves unreachable."
Posted By Caroline Glick On October 15, 2012 - www.frontpagemag.com
Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.
Decades ago, the sociographer Milton Himmelfarb coined the aphorism that “American Jews earn like Episcopalians and vote like Puerto Ricans.” And his words ring as true today as ever. Surveys show that roughly 70 percent of American Jews intend to cast their ballots for President Barack Obama’s reelection next month.
Himmelfarb’s quip indicated that American Jews abjure their economic interests in favor of their liberal values. Certainly it is true that for American Jews to vote for Obama next month they must act against their economic interests.
Obama’s economic policies have taken a huge toll on the economic fortunes of American Jews who invest disproportionately in the stock market. His nationalization of the college loan business has given universities impetus to raise tuition rates still further, thus dooming more young American Jews to start their adult lives under a mountain of debt. And it isn’t at all clear how they will be able to pay off this debt since under Obama half of recent college graduates cannot find jobs.
Obama’s gutting of Medicare to pay for Obamacare has harmed the medical choices for older Jewish Americans.
His war on tax deductions for charitable contributions has placed synagogues, Jewish schools and nursing homes in financial jeopardy.
So with economics ruled out as a reason to support Obama we are left with American-Jewish values.
But is Obama really advancing those values? What are those values anyway? Well, there’s civil liberties.
American Jews like those. But Obama doesn’t.
Take freedom of speech. Obama is the most hostile president to freedom of speech in recent memory. He has advocated implementing the so-called “fairness doctrine” for radio to stifle the free speech of his political opponents on talk radio.
He has sought to undermine the freedom of the Internet through federal regulations and intimidation of Internet companies such as Google.
He has made repeated and outspoken attempts to intimidate individuals, groups and businesses including Google to bar freedom of speech as relates to criticism of Islam. He has purged the lexicon of the federal government of all terms necessary to describe jihad, Islamic radicalism and terrorism, and so made it impossible for federal employees to examine, investigate, discuss or understand the nature of the greatest national security threat facing the US.
Then there are women’s rights. American Jews like those.
True, Obama has distinguished himself as the greatest ally of abortion-on-demand ever. He even supported infanticide of babies who survived abortions when he served in the Illinois legislature.
But, we women are a bit more than reproductive machines.
We also work and raise families. And Obama’s economic programs hurt women as much if not more than they hurt men.
Aside from that, there are females who live outside of the US.
American Jews have long been outspoken champions of women’s rights around the world. But here Obama’s record is arguably worse than any president in US history.
Obama has abandoned the women most at risk of gender-based discrimination, rape and murder – the women and girls of the Muslim world. Whereas the Bush administration liberated the women and girls of Afghanistan from the maniacally misogynist Taliban regime, the Obama administration is negotiating with the Taliban and setting the conditions for its return to power. If the signature image of the Bush administration’s war in Afghanistan was that of women voting, the signature image of Obama’s war in Afghanistan is the photo of 14-year-old Malala Yousafzai. This week Yousafzai was shot in the head by the Taliban in Pakistan for her defense of the right of girls to go to school.
Then there is the cause of good governance. American Jews like that.
But here, too, Obama fails to live up to liberal values of clean politics. Every day seems to bring with it another scandal related to the Obama administration.
This week we learned that the Obama campaign is illegally soliciting funds from foreigners.
According to a report published by the Government Accountability Institute, some 20% of visitors to the Obama campaign’s fund-raising site “my.barackobama.com” are foreigners, barred by US law from contributing to political campaigns. So, too, the Obama.com website was registered by Robert Roche, a US businessman living in Shanghai with ties to Chinese state-owned companies. Roche is an Obama campaign bundler. Sixty-eight percent of the traffic on the site comes from foreign users. Obama.com is currently managed by a Palestinian rights activist in Maine.
Finally, there is the cause of Israel and US-Israel relations that American Jews are assumed to care about.
After the fiasco at the Democratic National Convention when the widespread antipathy for Israel raging in the Democratic Party was broadcast on primetime television, the Obama administration has stopped even trying to hide its contempt for the Jewish state and its American Jewish supporters.
Whereas the US refused to walk out of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s obscene address to the UN General Assembly last month, US Ambassador Susan Rice chose to absent herself entirely from Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s address before the body.
Adding insult to injury, last week Obama appointed Salam al-Marayati to represent the US at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s annual 10-day human rights conference. Marayati is the founder and executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee. As Robert Spencer recalled this week, on September 11, 2001, Marayati gave an interview to a Los Angeles radio station accusing Israel of being responsible for the jihadist attacks on the US.
He is an outspoken supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah.
And Obama appointed him to represent America at a major human rights conference.
So what is it that drives over two-thirds of American Jews to support Obama? The only issues that come easily to mind are social issues – particularly the two flagship causes of American Jews these days – abortion and homosexual marriage.
While it is true that Obama shares their positions on these issues, it is hard to believe that these two issues have become the cri du coeur of more than two-thirds of American Jews.
It isn’t that it is wrong for people to support abortions on demand and homosexual marriage. And it isn’t wrong for people to oppose them. There are reasonable, Jewish arguments to be made for a woman’s right to abort her unborn children. But there are also reasonable Jewish arguments for constraining that right. There are Jewish arguments in favor of permitting homosexuals to wed. And there are Jewish arguments opposing such unions.
Then there is the relative urgency of the issues. With the US economy in a rut and American national security increasingly imperiled, are abortion rights and gay marriage really the American Jewish community’s top priorities?
True, there are some American Jewish fanatics who are propelled to near violence when faced with opponents of their beliefs. And they are capable of intimidating a large proportion of their fellow Jews into toeing their extremist lines. Their intolerance has been on display in all of its ugliness at synagogues around the US since the start of the election campaign. In one recent, outrageous incident, one gay marriage partisan managed to intimidate his congregation on Erev Yom Kippur.
On the most sacred evening on the Jewish calendar, at Anshe Emet synagogue in Chicago, congregant Gary Sircus led other congregants in walking out of services when, in keeping with synagogue protocol (and common courtesy), Rabbi Michael Siegel acknowledged the presence of US Rep. Michele Bachmann in the audience.
After staging the walkout, Sircus went home and began an online assault on Bachmann and on his synagogue for extending the outspoken and stalwart supporter of Israel the courtesy of acknowledging her presence at services.
Sircus wrote a letter of support to Jim Graves, Bachmann’s deep-pocketed Democratic opponent in her reelection campaign. In it, he referred to Bachmann as “this evil woman.”
Rabbi Siegel did not decry Sircus for his shocking behavior. Speaking to the Chicago Tribune Siegel said, “I am aware of the fact that our congregation’s policy in regards to [welcoming public officials to the community and honoring their presence] clearly caused pain to some members of our community on the most precious day of reconciliation on the Jewish calendar. That we regret deeply.”
In a letter of explanation to synagogue board members, Siegel spoke of the need to welcome visitors even if they don’t share the community’s “values.”
But when did the members of Anshe Emet take a vote to determine that support for gay marriage is their shared value?
Undoubtedly, Sircus’s success in embarrassing his entire community owed in part to his willingness to intimidate his fellow congregants with his moralistic sanctimony on Erev Yom Kippur.
But it isn’t only gay marriage champions who use intimidation tactics to silence their communities into conforming with their views. American Jewish Democratic partisans have taken a leading role in blocking dissenting voices from their midst.
For instance, this past May B’nai Emet Congregation in Boca Raton, Florida, invited Amb. Susan Rice to address the congregation. Synagogue officials not only rejected offers to have Rice debate opponents of Obama’s treatment of Israel. They barred community members known for their opposition to Obama from attending the speech. For these synagogue officials, the idea that their partisan prejudice might be challenged was simply unacceptable.
To be fair, there are some American Jews who have been willing to approach politics with an open mind. For instance, Susan Crown, of the Chicago-based Henry Crown business empire, has transferred her support from Obama to Mitt Romney.
In an interview with Chicago Magazine Crown explained that she switched candidates last May when Obama gave his speech calling on Israel to withdraw from Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria and contract to within the indefensible 1949 armistice lines. Crown said that her switch was due as well to economic and foreign policy considerations.
Crown’s arguments for transferring her support from Obama to Romney are all rational. On the other hand, the positions taken by the likes of Sircus and the management of B’nai Emet are emotional and unthinking.
Unfortunately, the polls indicate that more than two-thirds of American Jews are with the synagogue bullies at B’nai Emet and with Sircus, not with Crown.
For 70% of American Jews, party loyalty trumps all of their conceivable rational interests. For them, partisan loyalty is more important than facts. They do not want to use independent judgment. They just want to be Democrats.
The most disturbing aspect of the surveys of American Jewish voters is not that they are willing to vote for the most hostile US president Israel has ever experienced in order to remain true to their party. The most disturbing aspect of the American Jewish community’s devotion to Obama and the Democrats is that it indicates that the vast majority of American Jews have abandoned their faculties for independent thought and judgment in favor of conformism and slavish partisanship. They have rendered themselves unreachable.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.
-
I've only become aware of Caroline Glick through was has been posted of her here on this forum, but on the whole I like what I read. My fellow Jews are a mystery to me in this.
-
I suppose this could go in the Libya thread as well, but it seems a bit better of a fit here:
*Hillary Falls On Her Sword Over Benghazi (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/15/Hillary-takes-responsibility-Obama-behind-it)*
by Ben Shapiro 15 Oct 2012, 6:13 PM
Late this afternoon, Elise Labott of CNN reported that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had told her that she “takes responsibility” for security problems at the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, resulting in the murder of our ambassador and three other Americans. Clinton, who is hiding out in Peru while this blows over, took to the microphone to throw herself on the sword. She said “the buck stopped with her” when it came to the embassy, according to Labott. Labott further reported that Clinton stated, “she didn’t want to play any kind of blame game or political gotcha. She understands that the election is coming up and everyone wants to politicize this … She wants to wait for an investigation.” According to Labott, however, Clinton also blamed Congress, as well as other members of government.
Hillary is clearly playing the good soldier on the eve of the crucial second presidential debate between her boss, President Obama, and challenger Mitt Romney. After Vice President Joe Biden threw Clinton under the bus during the vice presidential debate, stating that neither he nor President Obama knew anything about the security situation in Benghazi, Hillary stepped out to the front to take the hit.
There’s a dual purpose for this sudden mea culpa. The first is obvious: Obama wants to end all speculation about his role in the Libyan disaster, and Hillary believes that she can take the hit and keep on trucking due to her personal popularity. The second is more subtle: Obama is losing the female vote now – Romney’s running just a point behind Obama among female likely voters according to Gallup – and he figures he can kill two birds with one stone if he can get Republicans to attack Hillary Clinton, the most popular female politician in the country, over Libya.
If Secretary of State Clinton was responsible for the security situation in Benghazi – as, indeed, we argued she was on the day after the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens – here’s the question, however: was she acting outside the scope of her duties when she failed to provide the ambassador the security he requested? Or was she following the orders of a President who has always attempted to avoid making waves in the Middle East, and saw a strong security presence as a show of force?
The answer seems obvious: Clinton was acting in accordance with President Obama’s general foreign policy. She did not provide Stevens with proper security because she was not supposed to under general Obama foreign policy guidelines. That’s why the Obama administration has spent over a month trying to claim that the obvious terrorist attack in Libya was sparked by a protest; then they blamed intelligence; then they blamed the State Department. The Obama administration never came clean because the State Department was acting under color of authority.
That, at least, must be the supposition pending a full investigation. This scandal will not end merely because the Obama administration has convinced Hillary to take a bullet for President Obama, and in doing so, shore up his female support. President Obama is the person who put Secretary of State Clinton in the unenviable position of enacting a pusillanimous foreign policy. If he didn’t, he should fire her forthwith. If he did, no phony sackcloth and ashes from the Secretary of State will solve the underlying problem: a cowardly Commander in Chief who leads from behind and leaves our people in harm’s way, then throws others under the bus for his failures of leadership.
*UPDATE*: CNN has now released snippets of video from Clinton. In the video, she says she takes responsibility -- then promptly announces that security arrangements were made by "security professionals." In other words, she took responsibility, then blamed subordinates. Watch for the media to ignore that walkback on responsibility so that they can attempt to quash this scandal.
-
Oh, my goodness. Amusing.
https://www.youtube.com/erb
-
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/15/Seal-Team-Six-Family-ROE
SEAL Team VI Family: 'Obama’s Rules Are Getting Our Warriors Killed'
710 39 4745
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Patrick S. Poole 15 Oct 2012
Just three months after the raid by Navy SEAL Team VI that killed Osama bin Laden, those same SEALs were in the news yet again--but for an entirely different reason.
On August 6, 2011, while on their way to assist an ongoing mission in Wardak Province, Afghanistan, the CH-47D Chinook helicopter that they were riding in was shot down by an RPG fired by a Taliban fire team approaching their landing zone in Tangi Valley. All 38 American and Afghan service members who were aboard perished, including 17 Navy SEALS, 5 Navy Special Operations support personnel, 3 Air Force Special Tactics Airmen and the five-man Chinook crew, marking the largest loss of life in America’s 11 years of military operations in Afghanistan. Twenty of the twenty-two SEALs and SEAL support were from SEAL Team VI (DEVGRU).
The parents of one of the SEALs killed in the Chinook attack, Special Operations Chief Aaron Vaughn, are raising questions about how the Obama administration has pushed the limits of the military’s Special Operations Forces as part of its war policy (e.g. the Feb. 20th Newsweek story, “Obama’s Secret Army”), and how constrictive “rules of engagement” intended to win the “hearts and minds” of the Afghan people directly contributed to the deaths of all those aboard the helicopter.
Karen and Billy Vaughn are now trying to raise awareness of some of the problems that they believe continue to cause American service members to be killed in Afghanistan. And to support their case they have a copy of the redacted, now declassified CENTCOM report on the incident that they say raises more questions than it answers.
The report, made available to Breitbart News, was prepared by Brigadier General Jeffrey Colt and presented to CENTCOM Commander Marine General James Mattis.
“We were given a copy of the report, but it was months before we even looked at it,” says Karen Vaughn. “But as Billy and I started to read it and talk to others inside the community we found that many of the problems that contributed to Aaron’s death were widespread. That’s when we decided we had to speak out.”
One of the main concerns for the Vaughns is the operational tempo for special operations forces in Afghanistan. The CENTCOM report itself notes that in August 2009 the number of monthly objectives was 54. But in August 2011 – the month that the helicopter, "Extortion 17," was shot down – that number had grown to 334 objectives, more than a 600 percent increase in just two years.
Another outstanding issue is that Afghan military and police forces are involved in planning every special operations mission, creating a possible problem with operational security.
“We’re seeing the number of these green-on-blue attacks by Afghan troops rising, but these are some of the same people we’re trusting with the details of our most sensitive missions,” Billy Vaughn told me.
Another complaint heard by the Vaughns throughout the special operations community is that because so many special operations forces are in the field, they must rely on conventional forces and conventional equipment, rather than the specialized equipment typically used by special forces.
For example Extortion 17 was a CH-47D, rated as one of the least capable Chinook variants, rather than the newer MH-47s designed and outfitted for special operations. According to the CENTCOM report, Extortion 17 was originally a CH-47C model that was converted to a D-model in June 1985. As the report notes further, the CH-47D, unlike the MH-47, has no early warning system for RPGs or small arms fire.
The landing zone area in the Tangi Valley was also problematic. The area itself had been cleared by ISAF forces at least seven times. In the 45 days prior to Extortion 17’s mission, there had been three previous attempts by the Taliban to shoot down Chinooks with RPGs in the valley. The Taliban also maintained an early warning system in the area to warn insurgents of approaching ISAF forces.
These were the conditions into which Extortion 17 flew. While they were flying under the escort of two AH-64D Apache helicopters and an AC-130 gunship, because of the rules of engagement and the possibility that there were friendlies in the area, the escorts were not allowed to lay down assault fire around the landing zone.
As Extortion 17 was on its final approach to the landing zone, a Taliban crew appeared on top of a two-story qalat (a mud brick house) and fired off at least two RPGs at the helicopter. The second RPG struck near the back rotor of the Chinook, causing the crash.
Amazingly, because of the rules of engagement and the inability to determine whether there were any friendlies in the area, the Taliban team that shot Extortion 17 down was allowed to escape. The only fire from the escort craft noted in the CENTCOM report occurred several minutes after the crash to suppress any enemy attempting to approach the crash area.
That the Taliban team who killed their son was allowed to leave the scene unmolested after causing the greatest loss of life in Afghanistan since 2001 infuriates the Vaughns. The Pentagon later claimed that the man who fired the fatal RPG was killed in an air strike two days after the crash of Extortion 17.
That claim is of little comfort to Aaron Vaughn’s parents. As Billy Vaughn told me:
How the Obama administration has decided to conduct this war is nothing short of criminal. When the administration leaked the identity of the SEALs after the bin Laden raid, a target was put on their back. By increasing the reliance on special operators in prosecuting the war, but not giving them the top line equipment and personnel to support them, this administration bears responsibility for the events of that fateful night.. And the rules of engagement that let my son’s killers walk away unscratched is a betrayal of our commitment to our warriors in the field.
The CENTCOM report indicates that the Task Force Commander declined to strike the Taliban targets with the Apaches or the AC-130 gunship because they couldn’t confirm whether the group of Taliban they were following were carrying weapons. That shows the counterproductive nature of the rules of engagement, Karen Vaughn says:
When the families from the crash were meeting with the Army’s Investigation Team and Naval Officers, a father asked why they didn’t use a drone strike to take out the Taliban. A 3-star Admiral responded, “We are trying to win their hearts and minds.”
But what that Admiral didn’t realize is that the rules that restrain our troops and endanger their lives are making the task that we are asking them to accomplish virtually impossible, the Vaughns contend. The Admirals say they want to win the hearts and minds of the Afghans, but by creating impossible conditions for our troops to fight they are losing the hearts and minds of the American people.
This is what has prompted Karen and Billy Vaughn to speak out. At the Republican National Convention in Tampa in August, just a few weeks after the first anniversary of their son’s death, they spoke at a rally in support of the troops and condemned Obama for using the heroism, bravery and sacrifice of the Navy SEALs to support his political campaign.
A few weeks later, they were on Fox News, calling the administration leaks following the operation that killed Osama bin Laden “criminal” for divulging the identity of the SEAL team involved in the raid. They’ve also complained about the form letters that many families of fallen soldiers receive from the White House.
And last month they spoke at a press conference on Capitol Hill with members of Congress criticizing the restrictive rules of engagement that handcuff even America’s most elite military units.
The Vaughns maintain a website in memory of their son, Special Operations Chief (SEAL) Aaron C. Vaughn, For Our Son & For This Cause.
-
Im not sure if this should go into the Romney Thread or Libya, so I thought maybe it could fit here since the debates are on tonight.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/16/adviser-romney-will-tell-obama-to-man-up-at-debate/
An adviser to Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney says that part of the former Massachusetts governor’s debate strategy on Tuesday night will be to ask President Barack Obama to “man up” and “accept his responsibility” for the terrorist attacks in Libya.
“There should be an effort to get transparency from President Obama on what he knew and when he knew it,” Romney foreign policy adviser Amb. William Richardson told Fox News host Bill Hemmer on Tuesday. “This was evidence that his so-called success on the war on terror wasn’t so successful. Targeted killings alone can not solve this problem.”
“This helps provide a choice to the American people between more of the same and strong, optimistic, bold leadership under President Romney.”
He continued: “I think Gov. Romney will, quite properly, be asking questions, probing. And trying to ask the president to man up, accept his responsibility and explain to the American people the failure that resulted in four American deaths.”
If Richardson’s preview of Tuesday night’s debate is correct, it could signal part of a broader tactic of subtlety questioning the president’s manhood.
During the first debate, Romney had compared the president to his sons when they were “boys” and didn’t tell the truth.
Last week, one of Mitt Romney’s son even likened Obama’s debate performance to “an obstinate child.”
“I don’t know if you guys saw the debate last week,” Josh Romney told a crowd in Van Meter, Iowa. “I take a lot of pride in that, because — I don’t know if you noticed, but I was — me and my brothers were responsible for my dad doing so well. We were the ones, as kids, that kept saying the same thing over and over. And we’d say the same lie over and over. And my dad learned then, not to believe it. While we didn’t go to any of the formal debate preparation, we did the real hard stuff.”
“So as a father, he learned how to debate an obstinate child,” the younger Romney added. “We had a lot of fun, we had a lot of fun watching the debate.”
Watch this video from Fox News via The Hill, broadcast Oct. 16, 2012.
http://thehill.com/video/campaign/262273-adviser-says-romney-will-ask-obama-to-man-up-on-libya-at-debate
-
Morris' new ad:
http://www.dickmorris.com/dicks-new-anti-obama-ad-a-killer/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
Pres Obama needed to tell us why the next 4 years should be any better than the last 4 that everyone seems to admit were miserable. He didn't.
Gov. Romney needed to show himself as Presidential and create the impression in the eyes of enough undecideds that he has a better chance than the incumbent at turning this around.
I think he did that.
Crafty, replying to my post in Political Economics on the constant workforce adjusted unemployment rate Oct 9 2012, wrote: "I have said more than once that Romney should be using the "adjusted labor force" number all along..."
Romney weaved the adjusted unemployment, 10.7% he said, into his first answer tonight.
Like I said, "Romney's advisers are more likely to read the forum."
Some quips:
Obama said of Romney's 5 point plan that he has a "one point plan", take care of rich people. Snarky. Unworthy of the event.
On pay equity / women's issues, Romney: "3 1/2 more women in poverty" under Pres. Obama. Obama said he will "advocate" on their behalf.
Romney told the story of getting more women in senior positions in his Mass. administration than in any other state.
Romney bragged Mass. no.1 in education while he was Goveror.
Obama said Bush tax cuts took us from surplus to deficit but that was not true. (During the 4 years after tax rate cuts were in place the deficit was falling.)
Romney said 1 in 6 in poverty, 47 million on food stamps. The growth rate keeps getting slower each year under Obama.
Obama was asked "Who denied the security request in Benghazi?" Didn't answer but said at the end, "I am ultimately responsible".
Romney used the opening on AK47 legislation to bring up Fast and Furious. Laid out the bizarre scandal cautiously, beginning to raise the questions.
Romney points out in competitiveness that Canada taxes corporations at 15%, the US at 35%.
Obama kept touting his goal to double our exports. No clue except for cronyism preferences what policies of his would lead us there.
Romney repeated: "The government does not create jobs, the government does not create jobs."
Moderator gave the President 9% more time. Challenged only Romney on facts. Maybe Ann Coulter could moderate the next one for balance.
-
A CBS survey gave the debate to Obama by 37 percent to 30 percent Romney, 33% tie. But the respondents found by almost a 2-1 majority that Romney won on the economy.
-
I think this piece pretty good. I'm shocked that it comes from Pravda on the Hudson :lol:
Obama’s Narrow Victory
By ROSS DOUTHAT
Just by showing up energized, by hemming and hawing less often and by going after Mitt Romney more directly, President Obama ensured himself a better showing than the disaster he endured in Denver two weeks ago. But the narrow win he gained in the second presidential debate also owed something to Romney’s performance, which, though highly effective in stretches, also showcased more of his flaws, both as a debater and as a candidate.
The first flaw was stylistic. Romney is very skillful at the on-stage slash and parry, but he has weak spots, and veterans of the long Republican primary slog remember two of them particularly well. One is his tendency to argue pointlessly with the moderator and his opponents over the rules of order. The other is his habit of pressing his advantage too far, seeking a kind of alpha-male moment that can seem bullying instead of strong. (His attempt at a $10,000 bet with Rick Perry was the paradigmatic example.)
Mike Segar/Reuters
He gave in to both temptations this time around. The candidates each bickered with CNN’s Candy Crowley about turns and time allotments, but Romney went at it earlier and more often – sometimes justifiably, but never successfully. He also tried too hard to pre-empt the president’s increased aggression with aggression of his own, which doesn’t work well in a town-hall format, where the candidates are already circling one another like sharks. Invading your rival’s space can make you look hyped-up rather than presidential.
On substance, meanwhile, the studied vagueness of Romney’s domestic policy platform created more problems for him than it did in Denver. Two weeks ago, Obama seemed taken by surprise when Romney didn’t just debate like the far-right caricature from the White House’s campaign ads. This time the president was more prepared for his rival’s centrist-friendly defenses of his agenda, and more adept at pointing out the holes in them. And because Romney’s proposals really do have significant gaps, the Republican nominee was repeatedly thrown back on the promise that he “knows how to create jobs,” which is more a rhetorical crutch than a compelling argument.
Related in Opinion
Frank Bruni: Obama Bares His Teeth
.
Where Romney actually has a more detailed proposal, as he does on immigration, his rebuttals were crisper and more convincing, and he also won several exchanges just by turning the conversation back to the economy’s performance under Obama. (He also had to deal with what the liberal pundit Jonathan Chait rightly described as a slate of “friendly questions from an audience that obviously leaned left.”) Nor was the president any better this time at answering the question haunting his candidacy: Why would your second term be any different?
Indeed, had the debate focused on the economy alone, Romney might have emerged more bruised than last time but still victorious. But there was also a segue into foreign policy, and there Romney showed real weakness, turning what should have been a major point-scoring opportunity on the Libya controversy into an ugly botch.
This botch looked worse because the moderator, Candy Crowley, jumped in inappropriately to fact-check Romney’s characterization of whether the president initially characterized the Benghazi incident as a terrorist attack – inappropriately because the president’s language was actually open to competing interpretations, and also because Romney’s broader point about the White House’s evasions was clearly correct and she seemed to be taking sides against him.
But Romney would have lost that exchange even without her intervention. He seemed at once underinformed and overaggressive, as he often does on foreign policy: He did a poor job of explaining what exactly the Obama White House had done wrong (he barely mentioned the administration’s fixation on the offensive YouTube video), seemed ill-prepared for the president’s obvious, dudgeon-rich, I’m-the-commander-in-chief counterpunch, and then fell back on right-wing boilerplate about Obama’s supposed “apology tour” that can’t possibly resonate with swing voters.
Then again, it’s not clear that the Libya issue in particular, or foreign policy in general, really resonates with swing voters either. This is probably Romney’s best hope coming out of this debate: That he was weakest on style points and on issues that voters don’t particularly care about, and that by hammering away at the president’s record and projecting an air of economic competence he did himself more good than harm.
The snap polls, dubious though they may be, provide some support for this pro-Romney read on the night’s proceedings. CNN’s poll shows a modest Obama victory: 46 percent rated the president the winner versus 39 percent for Romney. But even in a debate that he lost overall, the poll still showed Romney edging the president on the crucial questions of who would better handle the economy, taxes and health care.
For Obama and his supporters, meanwhile, the hope has to be that Romney’s post-Denver bounce was just that: A temporary surge that could be blunted and reversed by simply reasserting the White House’s narrative – that Romney is an out-of-touch plutocrat and ideological extremist, whereas Obama is a champion of the middle class – much more effectively and eloquently than the president did in the first debate.
The question now is whether that kind of straightforward reassertion is all Obama needed, or whether the public’s post-Denver willingness to consider Romney anew shifted the dynamics of the race in a way that a closely-fought debate can’t quite reverse. That’s something that no snap survey can tell us. The proof will be in the polls a week from now.
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/330700/libya-crowley-changes-her-tune-eliana-johnson
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/330691/fact-checkers-having-trouble-facts-jonathan-h-adler
-
2 more on the debate of last night:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/330709/second-debate-yuval-levin
http://nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/-binders-full-of-women-sweeps-the-internet-20121017
-
Another Disastrous "Moderation" Job by U.S. Media Personality.
Joseph Curl - The Washington Times - October 17, 2012
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. — Another debate, another debacle for America's media.
In the runup to the second presidential debate, CNN's Candy Crowley declared that she would not just be a "fly on the wall" as she played the tiny role of moderator, that she would step in whenever she chose to say, "Hey, wait a second, what about X, Y, Z?"
And boy did she, cutting off Republican Mitt Romney repeatedly and often throwing the floor to President Obama with an open "let me give the president a chance here."
More, she alone decided the topics for the debate, picking questions from the 80 so-called "undecided" voters chosen by the Gallup polling organization. Her selections were tailor-made for Mr. Obama — Mitt Romney's tax plan, women's rights and contraception, outsourcing, immigration, the Libya debacle (which gave Mr. Obama to finally say that the buck stops with him, not, as Hillary Clinton said, with her).
She even chose this question, directed to both men: "I do attribute much of America's economic and international problems to the failings and missteps of the Bush administration. Since both of you are Republicans, I fear the return to the policies of those years should you win this election. What is the biggest difference between you and George W. Bush, and how do you differentiate yourself from George W. Bush?"
Ms. Crowley, who called Mr. Romney's selection of Rep. Paul Ryan as running mate a "ticket death wish," asserted her unilateral power at the outset, telling the audience before the cameras went on that she planned to "give the debate direction and ensure the candidates give answers to the questions."
After both candidates answered Question One, she blurted: "Let me get a more immediate answer" — whatever that means. But when Mr. Romney sought to correct falsehoods told by the president, she cut him off: "We have all these folks here." In the end, Mr. Obama would get 9 percent more time.
At Question Two, Mr. Obama, asked by Mr. Romney how much he had cut federal oil permits, took over the floor — with Ms. Crowley's silent approval. "Here's what happened," he said as he filibustered for a full minute. Mr. Romney sought to get the last word — as the president had the question before — but the moderator shut him down: "It' doesn't quite work like that."
When Mr. Romney sought to counter Mr. Obama's assertion after Question Three, Ms. Crowley again cut him off: "Before we get into a vast array...." she said before asking a completely different question.
The next question was pure Obama — workplace inequality (the president mention at every stop his Lily Ledbetter legislation). But the query gave him the platform to demand Americans pay for contraception for all women, saying the governor "feels comfortable having politicians in Washington decide the health care choices that women are making."
For the record, Mr. Obama spoke for two minutes, then Mr. Romney, then Mr. Obama again. Ms. Crowley then rushed into the next question.
When the immigration question came up, both candidates gave their answers. Then the moderator once again butted in, ordering Mr. Romney to "speak to the idea of self-deportation."
By then, Mr. Romney had had enough, and talked over her demands. "No, let — let — let me go back and speak to the points the president made and — and — and let's get them correct."
At the next question, the moderator lost all control. "Candy," Mr. Obama said. "Hold on." "Mr. President," the governor said, "I'm still speaking." They mixed it up for a bit, then Ms. Crowley said: "Sit down, Mr. Romney."
The most shocking exchange took place on the Benghazi attack that left the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three others dead.
Mr. Romney: "You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror? It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you're saying."
Mr. Obama made no defense. "Please proceed, governor."
"I want to make sure," Mr. Romney said. "Get the transcript," the president said. Then Ms. Crowley jumped in to do her own fact-check, on the spot. "It — it — it — he did in fact, sir. ... He did call it an act of terror."
The truth is, he didn't. The day after the attack, he said only this: "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for." It took another two weeks before the White House would label the attack an act of terror.
The Obama people, of course, loved it — having blamed Mr. Obama's dismal performance in the first debate on poor moderating.
"He's back," said Team O spokeswoman Jen Psaki, who lauded Ms. Crowley for her fact checking.
But then she caught herself and quickly added: "He was never really gone, but he's back."
• Joseph Curl covered the White House and politics for a decade for The Washington Times. He can be reached at jcurl@washingtontimes.com.
Read more: CURL: Crowley skews hard for Obama in disastrous debate - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/17/curl-crowley-skews-hard-obama-disastrous-debate/print/#ixzz29Z3oY4Qx
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
-
Pleased to see the WSJ lead editorial followup on the discussion here. Excerpts:
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
October 17, 2012, 12:38 a.m. ET
A President Without a Plan
...he still has no agenda for the next four years.
President Obama bounced off the canvas with a more spirited debate at Hofstra University on Tuesday night, as everyone expected he would. He was animated and on the attack. The question we kept asking as the evening wore on, however, is what does he want to do for the next four years?
At least two questioners put the point directly, yet Mr. Obama never provided much of an answer. Sure, he wants to hire 100,000 more teachers, as if there is the money to hire them or it would make much difference to student outcomes.
He wants to invest in "solar and wind and biofuels, energy-efficient cars," which probably means more Solyndras and A123s (see nearby). He wants to raise taxes on the rich—that's one thing he's really passionate about. Oh, and he does want to pass the immigration reform he said he'd propose four years ago but never did propose in his first two years when his party controlled Congress and he might have passed it.
But otherwise, what's his case for four more years? Judging by Tuesday's debate, the President's argument for re-election is basically this: He's not as awful as Mitt Romney.
...
The paucity of this promise, the difference between now and four years ago, was never clearer than in the President's response to the young man who said he'd voted for Mr. Obama in 2008 but is less optimistic now. Mr. Obama responded by reciting his achievements—ending the Iraq war, "health-care reform to make sure insurance companies can't jerk you around," more Wall Street regulation, the auto bailout and more jobs.
As for the next four years: He said he has a plan "for manufacturing and education and reducing our deficit in a sensible way, using the savings from ending wars to rebuild America" and pursuing "the energy of the future." Then he attacked Mr. Romney again.
The Republican followed by reciting the economic failings of the last four years, piling on fact after depressing fact. "I can tell you that if you were to elect President Obama, you know what you're going to get. You're going to get a repeat of the last four years. We just can't afford four more years like the last four years," Mr. Romney said.
...the biggest contrast in the agendas for the next four years is Mr. Romney's willingness to put ideas on the table—Medicare reform, tax reform—that meet the economic and fiscal problems of our time.
...Mr. Obama seems out of ammunition for the next four years.
-
Obj, Joseph Curl has this right. Besides interjecting herself as selective factchecker and participant in the debate she should have said at the end, as promised, to Mitt Romney, you have 4 minutes to use any way that you like, and I'm sorry for saying "Sit down Mr. Romney" and cutting you off disproportionately. And she should have tacked on 8 more minutes for previous debate discrepancies.
You would think they would be more sensitive to even the appearance of bias, instead of making it a main feature of the program.
I don't watch cable but I see now why CNN's ratings are down.
-
Brit CCN interviewer Piers Morgan endorses Romney :-o
-
Pres. Obama opens up a big lead in one key constituency group:
If every members of this group were to show up on Nov 6 and cast his or her ballot, Pres. Obama would win at least 36 states and maybe more. What group is this that holds the balance in this election?
Unlikely voters.
Gallup, for example, had Obama leading consistently until they made the switch from registered voters to likely voters. Today they have Romney leading by 6 among likely voters, but only by 2% with registered voters. http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx The key to the Obama victory 2012 rests solely in the hands of these unlikely voters. Sure they are unenthused, unemployed, they lost their income, jobs and wealth, but if they want to stay out of the workforce and well compensated they will need to get off their food stamp enhanced derriere and get out and cast that crucial vote in support of the status quo. :wink:
Only you, the likely voter, can defeat them by doing what you do better than anyone else: show up and vote!
-
www.weeklystandard.com/print/blogs/secret-service-aware-threats-against-romney_654788.html
-
Look for this administration to throw Hillary Clinton under the bus next. It's very clear that this is their plan. Biden essentially said so in the debate. "No one told us." Oh, really? Bill Clinton was furious about having the "race card" pulled on him during the 2008 campaign. Now it's Hillary's turn to eat an excrement sandwich.
The dowager empress won't take that lying down. It might be time to make some popcorn and enjoy the show.
And it begins.
"Governor Romney's argument is, we're not fixed, so fire him and put me in," said Clinton. "It is true we're not fixed. When President Obama looked into the eyes of that man who said in the debate, I had so much hope four years ago and I don't now, I thought he was going to cry. Because he knows that it's not fixed."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/bill-clinton-romneys-argument-true-were-not-fixed_654893.html
-
President Obama told guests that unemployment is at the lowest rate of his presidency — not a joke, he said, he just wanted to remind them — while Mitt Romney, combining references to the national debt and his comments to cut subsidies to PBS, said the event was "brought to you" by the letter “O” and the number "16 trillion."
http://thehill.com/video/campaign/262931-obama-romney-trade-one-liners-in-new-york
-
Mitt had best ingest this data before the Monday night debate!!!
Early Uncertainty on Libya Account .
By ADAM ENTOUS And SIOBHAN GORMAN
WASHINGTON—The night before Susan Rice went public with the administration's assessment that the Sept. 11 U.S. consulate attack in Libya grew out of a spontaneous demonstration against an anti-Muslim video, intelligence analysts were receiving new information that contradicted the account she gave.
Intelligence agencies soon amended their stance, but it then took weeks longer—until early October—for a new intelligence assessment discounting the protests to make its way into public statements from senior officials in the Obama administration.
Amb. Susan Rice spoke Sept. 16 about the Benghazi attack days earlier.
Ms. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, based her statements that Sunday on intelligence agency conclusions that the attack had spun out of protests in Benghazi, fueled by anger over an anti-Islamic, U.S.-made video that had sparked protests elsewhere.
The picture began to change over that weekend, according to U.S. intelligence officials, in the most detailed account yet to emerge of a period that has been a focus of controversy over the Obama administration's handling of the aftermath of the attack, which killed four Americans including the U.S. ambassador.
Some intelligence came in on Saturday evening that contradicted the protest claim and prompted the office of the Director of National Intelligence to begin to question the agencies' initial conclusions, intelligence officials said.
Despite their growing uncertainty, intelligence officials didn't feel they had enough conclusive, new information to revise their assessment. Ms. Rice wasn't warned of their new doubts before she went on the air the next morning and spoke of the attacks being spurred by demonstrations, intelligence officials acknowledged.
More information casting doubt on the protest element came in on Sunday morning, around the time that Ms. Rice was completing her TV appearances, the officials said. She began taping the shows early Sunday morning. By the time intelligence analysts began to realize "there's enough here to build a body of evidence that there probably were not protests, those things were already recorded and she [Ms. Rice] was already out there," a senior intelligence official said.
Unanswered in the account is whose role it was to prevent Ms. Rice from broadcasting information that already risked being wrong. Also unanswered is why it took longer for the new information to come out publicly, even after the DNI revised its assessment. The administration has since said that the consulate siege was a deliberate terrorist attack by militants and not the outgrowth of a protest. Officials still describe it as opportunistic rather than premeditated, however, as they have from early on.
Officials in the first week also played down suggestions that an al Qaeda affiliate may have been involved in the siege. Intelligence officials now have evidence that al Qaeda-linked militants were at the scene of the attack, although those militants may not have been its leaders, according to people briefed on the matter.
President Barack Obama has been forced to defend his administration's response. Appearing Thursday on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show," Mr. Obama, asked about whether the administration's communications had been "optimal," said: "Here's what I'll say. If four Americans get killed, it's not optimal. We're going to fix it. All of it. And what happens, during the course of a presidency, is that the government is a big operation and, any given time, something screws up. And you make sure that you find out what's broken and you fix it."
Ms. Rice's Sept. 16 portrayal of the attack has drawn Republican calls for her resignation and charges that the White House was politicizing intelligence.
Ms. Rice based her comments on talking points provided to her the previous day by the Central Intelligence Agency and based on consultations with the office of the DNI, which was responsible for developing consensus assessments based on input from the various intelligence agencies, according to officials who described the sequence of events.
The talking points, which were initially written for congressional committees and top administration officials, said "the currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex," according to officials.
The talking points also said there were "indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations."
Defenders of Ms. Rice argue her comments were carefully hedged. "I think it's clear that there were extremist elements that joined and escalated the violence, whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremist or al Qaeda itself, I think, is one of the things we'll have to determine," she told CBS on Sept. 16.
A spokeswoman for Ms. Rice, Erin Pelton, said that the ambassador made clear in her remarks that the investigation was still under way. "At every turn Ambassador Rice provided—and said she was providing—the best information and the best assessment that the administration had at the time, based on what was provided to Ambassador Rice and other senior U.S. officials by the U.S. intelligence community," Ms. Pelton said.
Some officials briefed on the initial intelligence were surprised by Ms. Rice's assertion that the attack was preceded by protests. Intelligence agencies late in that week began to raise questions about the assessment.
"Around that time, I saw no finished products [reports] that said there were peaceful protests," said one person briefed on the investigation. "There was plenty of stuff that indicated there was the possibility of a coordinated attack."
Another U.S. intelligence official said initial intelligence reports are often incomplete and can turn out to be false, and that it took time sift through conflicting accounts to conclude that the attack didn't evolve from a protest.
"The early question was whether extremists took over a crowd, or [whether] they were the crowd," the official said. "It took time—until that next week—to sort through varied and conflicting firsthand accounts to better understand the composition of the extremist attackers that night."
Ms. Rice and other Cabinet-level officials were first informed about the assessment that there had been protests on Sept. 13. The intelligence came from press reports, intercepted communications and informants' tips immediately after the attacks.
Officials declined to provide details about the nature of the intelligence that arrived over the weekend of Sept. 15 that prompted their shift in thinking. Officials said interviews with U.S. officials and Libyans who were at the scene contributed, but it was unclear when those took place and what other intelligence affected the assessment.
The intelligence assessment was changed by DNI around Sept. 18 to reflect the new information that there was no protest, intelligence officials said.
The change wasn't made public. Officials said the DNI's findings are classified and were still evolving.
Ms. Rice and many other top officials weren't informed about the change in the assessment until Saturday, Sept. 22, according to U.S. officials.
In a rare public statement on Sept. 28, the DNI acknowledged other changes in its assessment, including that investigators were looking at possible links to al Qaeda affiliates. The statement, however, made no mention of the changed assessment on protests. The DNI declined to comment on the lag time.
Senior administration officials didn't start talking publicly about the revised assessment until last week.
Some senior officials have raised questions about the process used by DNI in developing consensus assessments. These critics say that process slows the flow of raw intelligence to policy makers who need the information quickly to make decisions.
DNI supporters say the system is designed to weed out raw intelligence that can't be substantiated and reduce the risk that policy makers will act on bad information.
"Assessments are updated when the preponderance of new intelligence tells us that our earlier conclusions need to be revised," a senior U.S. intelligence official said.
-
Following up on my previous post, the question presented is "Well then, what should Romney strategy for the debate be?"
The following by Dick Morris seems pretty good to me.
Roadmap For Monday's Debate
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on October 19, 2012
There is a temptation to get lost in the weeds of when Obama recognized that the Libya attack was, indeed, an act of terror. But the key point is that Obama treated the video as a provocation for the attack as if they had a moral equivalency. Otherwise, why constantly mention the video in the same breath as the attack? Why run an ad apologizing for the video in Pakistan? Why address the video in his U.N. speech? It may be a bridge too far to convince people that Obama was engaged in a cover-up for political purposes trying to convince people there was no premeditated terror attack. But surely there is no good reason for lumping the attack and video together. It's like saying "he murdered this guy but only after the guy called him a dirty word."
But, beyond the specifics of Libya, a 2011 national survey by Pat Caddell and John McLaughlin provides the key lines of attack Romney should follow in the foreign policy debate coming up on Monday.
• Obama's outreach to the Muslim world has decreased our national security. 30% believe it has increased our security and 47% feel it has decreased it. Romney should attack Obama for naïveté in his dealing with the Arab world and for not seizing and holding the moral high ground but instead seeking to understand the other guy and give him the benefit of the doubt.
• Romney should stress that Obama's policy toward Iran will not stop it from developing nuclear weapons. By 77-10 voters agree that they will not stop Iran. Asked what he would do, he should say that he will support Israel if she has to take military action against Iran. He should say that he does not believe we need to commit US soldiers or aircraft but that we should provide Israel with the ordinance they need to destroy the Iranian missile sites. If Obama says this could lead to a general war, Romney should say that a strong posture does not cause wars, but a weak one does. He should say that if the US makes clear that it will help Israel if it comes down to that, then Iran will realize that it must curtail its weapons program. In the meantime, Romney should stress the need to support the democratic opposition to the Ayatollah. If it ultimately has to come down to a war, better now before they have nuclear weapons than after they get them.
• Romney should attack Obama for failing to discipline China. He needs to explain that we sell only $50 billion to China and buy $400 billion from them (check numbers). With the rest of the world, we hold our own in trade. That's because of currency manipulation. Obama is frightened that China will stop lending us money. But he doesn't understand that China lends us money because they have to. The buy dollars and sell Yuan to keep the Yuan weak so Chinese products are cheaper in the US. Then what are they going to do with all those dollars? Bet them in Vegas? They buy T bills with them. That's all they can do and that's how the lend us the money. If they stopped manipulating, we wouldn't need their money because we'd have an even balance of trade with the. By 20-75 voters do not believe Obama has been tough enough with China and most see fear of their no longer lending us money is the reason.
• Romney should attack Obama's advocacy of an 80% cut in our strategic arsenal with no reciprocal cuts from Russia or China. By 22-64 voters oppose Obama's position.
• He should go after Obama for cutting American defense spending too much. By 32-58, voters believe the cuts are "way too deep."
• Romney should press Obama about what he meant by giving him more space with Russia after the election. Most likely, he was referring to a commitment by us that we would not orbit anti-missile satellites, a key concession which would make Iran and North Korea even more dangerous.
• Romney should criticize Obama for equating Israel and the Palestinians as two morally equivalent sides of a dispute. He should say: "If the Arabs laid down their arms, there would be no war. If Israel laid down its arms, there would be no Israel."
• Romney should attack Islamic fundamentalism for its attitude toward women and criticize Obama's political correctness and refusal to face up to the threat it poses. He should, for example, criticize him for removing any references to Muslim extremism from FBI training manuals and his firing of good conscientious FBI agents for being Islamophobic.
These are the milestones to a successful debate.
-
third post-- Has the WSJ been lurking here (and reading me in particular? :lol:)
===============
The Foreign Policy Debate
How Romney can show Americans he can be a capable Commander in Chief..
When the history of the Obama Administration is written, it will be noted that never before has an American President bet so much on the power of his own charisma to change the world. As Mitt Romney prepares for the foreign policy debate in Florida on Monday, his challenge will be to show what a losing bet that's been—and how a Romney Administration would do better.
That won't be easy to do, and not merely because Mr. Romney has so far proved less sure-footed on foreign affairs than on domestic policy. (my "tin ear" commentary) The power of incumbency carries with it the voice of Presidential authority, which Mr. Obama deployed effectively at Tuesday's debate when he took belated responsibility for the security lapses at the Benghazi consulate. The President has kept his promise to get out of Iraq and looks set to do the same in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden is dead, as you may have heard.
Above all, Mr. Obama has presented himself as the antidote to the Bush Administration and all he said it represented: costly wars, harsh interrogations, global opprobrium. Mr. Romney should expect the President to try to define him as a Bush retread, and to paint America's foreign policy options as a choice between sober restraint and swaggering bellicosity.
***
We don't expect Mr. Romney to offer an explicit defense of the Bush Doctrine, never mind that its core tenets—keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of rogue regimes and promoting liberal democracy in places like Egypt—are ones Mr. Obama rhetorically endorses. (Yes!) Nor do we anticipate that Mr. Romney will retreat from the protectionist rhetoric he's been peddling on China, though it would be nice to hear him recognize that the biggest "currency manipulator" in the world today is the U.S. Federal Reserve.
But Mr. Romney can help himself by offering a serious critique of Mr. Obama's foreign policy that doesn't descend to clichés (e.g., "I won't ever apologize for America"), and by laying out a vision that answers the needs of both the national interest and the self-interest of everyday Americans. (Yes.)
Mr. Romney should also give full credit where it's due, not least because some graciousness would be a refreshing contrast to Mr. Obama's abrasive partisanship in an area where Americans yearn for consensus. That means not only commending the President for the bin Laden raid, but also for the areas in which the Administration has adopted the policies of its predecessor: the reauthorization of the Patriot Act; the use of military tribunals; the intensification of drone strikes; the (admittedly reluctant) non-closure of Guantanamo. (Yes.) All that should cause some indigestion among Mr. Obama's friends at MSNBC.
Mr. Romney can also play to his own strengths by pointing out that a U.S. economic revival is crucial to world stability. One reason America has less sway now than it did when Mr. Obama took office is that the world won't heed a great power whose policies produce slow growth and runaway debt. Ronald Reagan understood that before he could defeat the Soviet Union he had to show again the superiority of the American model of economic freedom. The U.S. military will inexorably and rapidly shrink without growth of 3% or more. This theme is right in Mr. Romney's wheelhouse. (Yes)
***
Moving to the President's record, he likes to boast about responsibly ending the war in Iraq. Yet the war had already been won when Mr. Obama became President thanks to a surge that he opposed as a Senator—even as he later tried to emulate it in Afghanistan under the same military commander. (YES!) Mr. Obama also tried to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq that would have maintained a residual U.S. military presence in the country, and Joe Biden even offered to "bet you my Vice Presidency" on the negotiations succeeding. But they pursued it too half-heartedly to entice the Iraqis to a deal. (YES)
The result is that American soldiers won a victory in Iraq at great cost only so Mr. Obama could squander the strategic fruits of their victory: a viable alliance with Baghdad and a bulwark against Tehran. (YES! YES! YES!) Ryan honed in on this against Biden btw) Mr. Obama may think that he's come out of this as a political winner, but nobody is happier about his Iraq policy than the mullahs in Iran. (Exactly so.)
Now the U.S. runs similar risks in Afghanistan, the war Mr. Obama once said was the one we must win but from which his Vice President last week promised full withdrawal by 2014—let the Taliban do what it may. Given that Mr. Obama signed a Status of Forces Agreement with the Afghan government in May that explicitly opens the door to a post-2014 U.S. military presence, Mr. Romney might ask whether the President stands by his own signature—or by his Vice President? It can't be both. (Good point.)
Mr. Obama will no doubt reply that the U.S. cannot endlessly be at war in the Middle East. That's true, but Mr. Obama's policies of premature military withdrawals have increased rather than diminished the chances that we will be at war in the Middle East again. The Administration can hope that its training of Afghan forces will suffice to keep the country together after 2014. But if it doesn't and the Taliban return, we will find ourselves back at square one—2,000 lives and hundreds of billions of dollars later. (So, what is the concrete proposed alternative here?)
***
Mr. Obama is also courting war in the Middle East by his ambivalent posture on Iran's nuclear designs. Mr. Romney can applaud Mr. Obama for insisting that "all options are on the table" when it comes to thwarting those designs, and for publicly opposing a containment strategy for a nuclear Iran. (Good.)
Yet the Obama Administration has consistently undermined its own message by advertising that it believes a military option would be ineffectual, by failing to provide Israel with reassurances that it needn't consider its own military options, and by first resisting sanctions until Congress passed them and then handing out waivers to those same sanctions. (YES.) The result is that Iran has not been remotely deterred despite sanctions, and it is now only months away from being able to produce weapons-grade uranium.
If Mr. Obama implies (as he no doubt will) that Mr. Romney wants to start a third Middle Eastern war, the answer is that the only way to prevent one is to let Tehran know we're deadly serious. Weakness and indecision invite war, while credibility and resolve still have a chance to prevent it.
The same mixed-messaging helps explain why America's position throughout the rest of the Middle East is dramatically weaker than it was four years ago. The President's Cairo speech promised a new beginning with the Muslim world. Yet in practice Mr. Obama was friendlier to Hosni Mubarak than George W. Bush had been until Mr. Obama cut him loose in the final days, and he made no effort to push the Arab autocracies toward reform before their downfall.
The result, if you can believe it, is the worst of both worlds. ( YES) The U.S. has become even less popular with the publics of such countries as Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and Lebanon than it was in the last year of Mr. Bush's Presidency. And it also has less credibility with the rulers of those countries that have been our allies. When the Saudis invaded Bahrain, they never bothered to tell the U.S.
So much, then, for the transformative powers of Mr. Obama's charisma and good intentions—which have also failed to work their supposed wonders on the likes of Russia's Vladimir Putin (who continues to obstruct us at the U.N.), or of China's new leadership (which is trying to lay claim to most of the South China Sea), or even of little Cuba, which continues to hold American Alan Gross as a hostage. It has occurred too late to the President and his advisers that "smart diplomacy" mainly entails the calibrated uses of power, not the promiscuous promotion of personality.
As for Mr. Romney, he can't and shouldn't promise to return the genies to their bottles by reversing the gains of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood or renegotiating a new military agreement with Iraq. (YES YES YES YES YES YES!!!) He also seems disinclined to propose anything more than Mr. Obama is doing to depose the Assad regime in Syria. But if nothing else he can explain the risks that Syria's expanding war poses to U.S. interests and allies and how a defeat for Assad would mean a defeat for Iran's growing regional influence. (Again, nothing concrete here either)
***
More broadly, Mr. Romney can promise to restore America's credibility as a guarantor of peace and stability—not simply for the sake of far-flung peoples and countries, but for our own.
America has been the chief underwriter of global order for nearly seven decades, which has required large defense budgets and difficult military commitments. But we have also been a major beneficiary: no world wars; open sea lanes; expanding trade and freedom; and the human and economic possibilities of a world that, until Mr. Obama came to office, was freer than it had ever previously been.
In his farewell interviews, Mr. Obama's first Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, made a point of quoting Reagan's line that he had lived through many wars but not one of them began because the U.S. was too strong. (YES) Mr. Obama's first term has been marked by economic decline at home and less respect and influence abroad. Four more years of the same will tempt the world's rogues to become even more assertive. (GOOD CLOSING POINT)
On Monday night Mr. Romney can make clear that his foreign policy will understand that strength at home and confidence abroad aren't incompatible objectives, but are mutually reinforcing.
-
fourth post: Sorry to be relentless on this, but as my posts in previous days and weeks attests, I am concerned that Romney runs the risk of sounding like, or being portrayed as wanting a return to a Bush.
By DOUGLAS J. FEITH
AND SETH CROPSEY
A month after the murder of four American officials in Libya on Sept. 11, congressional testimony and leaked government cables have revealed that some U.S. officials immediately recognized that terrorists had planned the attack. So why did the Obama administration's top policy makers—including the president himself—persist in claiming that the catastrophe was a spontaneous outburst of rage against an anti-Islam video posted on YouTube by an American provocateur?
Many critics smell cynical politics. The president, after all, has an electoral interest in denying that terrorism remains a serious problem. Likewise, during the second presidential debate, when he could no longer justify his initial emphasis on the video, Mr. Obama claimed misleadingly that he had called the Benghazi attack a terrorist act a day after it happened.
But there's a bigger problem here than cynicism. It is that the administration's first response—to blame an American video, not Islamist terrorists—reflected strategic misjudgments. First is the refusal to accept that the terrorism threat is part of a larger problem of Islamist extremism. And second is the belief that terrorism is spawned not by religious fanaticism but by grievances about social, economic and other problems for which America bears fault.
Enlarge Image
Close
AFP/Getty Images
President Obama after finishing his speech at Cairo University in Egypt, June 4, 2009.
.
When Mr. Obama became president, he was intent on repudiating the previous administration's war on terrorism, which saw al Qaeda as part of a diverse international movement of Islamist extremists hostile to the United States, to liberal democratic principles (in particular the rights of women), and to most governments of predominantly Muslim countries.
Mr. Obama chose to define America's enemy not ideologically but organizationally, as al Qaeda and its affiliates. White House counterterrorism chief John Brennan, in his speeches over the past few years, has insisted that terrorists should never be described as Muslim because their extremism is not consistent with Islam. Mr. Brennan discourses on Islam as if he were an imam. The Obama administration, he said in 2010, does not "describe our enemy as jihadists or Islamists because jihad is holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam meaning to purify oneself or one's community." He failed to mention that jihad also means holy war.
It is clear that not all Muslims embrace extremist Islamist ideology—perhaps only a small minority do. But the extremists claim to speak for the true Islam. Their pretensions are disputable, but it is false and presumptuous for Mr. Brennan, an American and non-Muslim, to assert that the extremists cannot be Islamic or religious leaders.
The problem with ignoring ideology is made clear—unintentionally—in President Obama's National Counter-Terrorism Strategy, released in June 2011. In it he writes: "We are at war with a specific organization—al-Qa'ida." But America also has to work aggressively against Hezbollah, he notes a few pages later—and against a number of terrorist groups in South Asia, he further adds, "even if we achieve the ultimate defeat of al-Qa'ida in the Afghanistan-Pakistan theater."
So our problem is substantially broader than al Qaeda—and even broader than al Qaeda and its affiliates. What all these groups have in common is Islamist ideology—yet Mr. Obama ignores that.
And what, according to the Obama administration, stokes the fires of extremism? It isn't the supremacist exhortations of Islamist ideology. Rather, it is longstanding political and economic "grievances," according to Mr. Brennan, such as "when young people have no hope for a job," "when governments fail to provide for the basic needs of the people," and when the Palestinian-Israeli conflict remains unresolved. President Obama, Mr. Brennan has said, thinks America should be "addressing the political, economic and social forces that can make people fall victim to the cancer of violent extremism." Mr. Brennan has also noted that the president is "concerned with how the United States was viewed in the world and how these attitudes were fueling the flames of hatred and violence."
Thus the way to defeat the terrorists, according to President Obama, isn't to counter extremist Islamist ideology but to focus on how the United States, through its actions and delinquencies—its supposed excessive support for Israel, for example, and failure to provide more economic aid—is to blame for the hatred that spawns terrorism.
White House senior director for the National Security Council Samantha Power wrote some years ago, while a Harvard University lecturer, that America should adopt a foreign-policy "doctrine of mea culpa." This is the frame of mind that President Obama brought to his famous June 2009 Cairo speech in which he suggested that tensions between America and the world's Muslims are largely America's fault. It was in that speech that President Obama asserted: "Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism."
And so we get to the false insistence for day after day that the murderous attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi arose from anger about a YouTube video. Because Mr. Obama misdiagnoses terrorism and extremism, it is not surprising that he failed to recognize their consequences; instead, he reflexively looked in the Benghazi wreckage for a cause that originated in this country.
Such thinking infects many streams of Obama administration foreign policy. If the president were clear-eyed about Islamist extremism, he wouldn't have cold-shouldered the antiregime demonstrators in Iran in June 2009. He wouldn't have cut funds for promoting democracy and human rights abroad. He wouldn't have made a diplomatic representative of Salam al-Marayati, who calls for Hezbollah's removal from the U.S. terrorist list and has said that "Israel should be put on the suspect list" for the 9/11 attack. And the president wouldn't have spent more energy denouncing foolish American bigots than condemning organized, anti-American terrorism.
— Mr. Feith was undersecretary of defense in the George W. Bush administration. Mr. Cropsey served as deputy undersecretary of the Navy in the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. Both writers are Hudson Institute senior fellows.
-
Yes, Crafty - you do seem to be a bit obsessed with this idea, no? LOL. :-D
Before you crack me over the head with that stick - I fully acknowledge my own fixation on other issues...
-
Morris is echoing exactly what I've been saying to family and friends about this election - it's eerily similar to 1980, and I believe, will have a similar outcome (Romney landslide):
www.dickmorris.com/the-carter-reagan-election-and-its-parallels-to-obama-romney-dick-morris-tv-history-video/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
From your lips to God's ears , , , :-D
-
As a freshman in college that year (1980), I will never forget the way that the overwhelming majority of college students were absolutely convinced Reagan would get us into a nuclear war with Russia. I wasn't - and other kids looked at me in disbelief and told me I was a "fascist" if I voted for Reagan. Yawn.
-
W.H. Tries to Write Al Qaeda Out of Libya Story
12:22 PM, Oct 20, 2012 • By STEPHEN F. HAYES
The Obama administration appears to be mounting yet another version of its campaign to push back on claims that it misled on the intelligence related to the attacks in Benghazi on 9/11/12. But the new offensive by the administration, which contradicts many of its earlier claims and simply disregards intelligence that complicates its case, is raising fresh questions in the intelligence community and on Capitol Hill about the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes.
The administration's new line takes shape in two articles out Saturday, one in the Los Angeles Times and the other by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius. The Times piece reports that there is no evidence of an al Qaeda role in the attack. The Ignatius column makes a directly political argument, claiming that "the Romney campaign may have misfired with its suggestion that statements by President Obama and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice about the Benghazi attacks weren't supported by intelligence, according to documents provided by a senior intelligence official."
If this is the best the Obama administration can offer in its defense, they're in trouble. The Times story is almost certainly wrong and the central part of the Ignatius "scoop" isn't a scoop at all. We'll start there.
David Ignatius, a reporter's columnist with excellent sources in the Obama administration and the intelligence community, reports: "Talking points" prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, the same day that Rice taped three television appearances, support her description of the Sept 11 attack on the U.S. consulate as a reaction to the Arab anger about an anti-Muslim video prepared in the United States. According to the CIA account, "The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US consulate and subsequently into its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations."
There are two problems with this. The CIA "talking points" don't say that what Ignatius claims and the supposedly exculpatory documents were first reported three weeks ago.
On October 1, Newsweek's Eli Lake reported: "For eight days after the attacks on the US consulate in Benghazi, government officials said the attacks were a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Islam film. Now that officials have acknowledged they were a premeditated act of terrorism, the question some members of Congress are trying to answer is why it took so long for the truth to come out. Unclassified documents from the Central Intelligence Agency suggest the answer may have to do with so-called talking points written by the CIA and distributed to members of Congress and other government officials, including Susan Rice, the US Ambassador to the United Nations. The documents, distributed three days after the attacks that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens, said the events were spontaneous."
Lake continued, quoting directly from the CIA talking points, in language that may sound familiar to anyone who read the third paragraph above: "The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the demonstrations." Both the Ignatius and Lake versions of the talking points note that the "assessment may change as additional information is collected" and that the "investigation is on-going."
Note that the "talking points" do not claim that the attackers in Benghazi were directly motivated by the film, something the Obama administration claimed for nearly two weeks after 9/11. The talking points only say that the "demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired" by Cairo.
We now know, of course, that there were no demonstrations in Benghazi. Those inside the compound heard gunfire at 9:40 p.m. local time and within minutes the compound was under siege. Surveillance photos and videos taken in the hours before the attack give no indication of a protest. And one CIA official tells Ignatius that it would have been better to substitute "opportunistic" for "spontaneous" since there was "some pre-coordination but minimal planning."
The "spontaneous" talking point came from an intercepted telephone call between jihadists, in which one of the attackers notes that his group had attacked after seeing the demonstrations in Cairo. U.S. officials familiar with the intelligence on Benghazi tell THE WEEKLY STANDARD there are two schools of thought on what that means. The first view is reflected in the administration's "spontaneous" line. It holds that jihadists in Benghazi saw the demonstration in Egypt and decided, almost on a whim, to assault the compound. But the nature of the attack—the weapons, the sequencing, the coordination—suggests more planning. The attackers flushed Americans from the compound toward an "annex" two kilometers away. As the Americans fled, they encountered (and avoided) an attempted ambush on the route.
The second view is that the demonstrations in Cairo, which followed the release of a video from al Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawahiri on September 10, were seen as something of a "go signal." As we first reported on September 12, the film, in this view, was merely the pretext for an al Qaeda "information operation," and the Zawahiri video, which called directly for renewed jihad and for al Qaeda sympathizers to avenge the death of Abu Yaya al Libi, was intended to trigger protests and assaults throughout the region. Many of those with prominent roles in the protests and assaults—in Egypt, Tunisia, and perhaps Libya—had strong ties to al Qaeda leadership in Pakistan.
Not surprisingly, this view is not popular with an administration that has built its case for reelection in part on the notion that "bin Laden is dead" and "al Qaeda is on its heels." Which leads us to the claims in the Los Angeles Times article that ran under the heading: "No evidence found of al Qaeda role in Libya attack." That story begins: "The assault on the US diplomatic mission in Benghazi last month appears to have been an opportunistic attack rather than a long-planned operation and intelligence agencies have found no evidence that it was ordered by al Qaeda, according to US officials and witnesses interviewed in Libya."
The claim in the headline is not the same as the claim in the article, of course. It's possible for there to have been "an Qaeda role" in the attack without it having been directly ordered by al Qaeda central. And there is, in fact, evidence of some al Qaeda role in the attack.
The same phone call that the administration had used to pin its argument that the attack was "spontaneous" also provides evidence of such al Qaeda involvement. Indeed, as Eli Lake reported three weeks ago: "In the hours following the 9/11 anniversary attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, US intelligence agencies monitored communications from jihadists affiliated with the group that led the attack and members of al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), the group's north African affiliate."
Several of the local jihadists were affiliated Ansar al Sharia, which has its own ties to al Qaeda. An August report from the Pentagon's "Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office," reported that Ansar al Sharia "has increasingly embodied al Qaeda's presence in Libya, as indicated by its active propaganda, extremist discourse, and hatred of the West, especially the United States." One of the leaders of AAS, a former Guantanamo detainee named Sufyan ben Qumu, has ties to senior al Qaeda leaders. As Tom Joscelyn first reported, Qumu's alias was found on the laptop of Mustafa al Hawsawi, an al Qaeda financier who helped fund the original 9/11 attacks. Qumu is described "as an al Qaeda member receiving family support."
The other group, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, has a more direct relationship with al Qaeda central. As Joscelyn reported last month, AQIM entered into a "formal alliance" with al Qaeda in 2006, according to a United Nations report on the group. The Pentagon's Combating Terrorism study reported: "Al Qaeda affiliates such as AQIM are also benefiting from the situation in Libya. AQIM will likely join hands with the al Qaeda clandestine network in Libya to secure a supply of arms for its areas of operations in northern Mali and Algeria." The report also notes: "Although no information in open sources was found regarding the whereabouts of al Qaeda's leadership in Libya, it is likely that at this point al Qaeda's clandestine network is run directly by al Qaeda senior leadership in Pakistan."
One thing that has troubled both intelligence officials and those on Capitol Hill as they have evaluated the administration's early response to the attacks is what appears to be an effort to write al Qaeda out of the story. For example, the talking points first reported by Lake, include this sentence: "There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations." But according to several officials familiar with the original assessment from which the talking points were derived, the U.S. intelligence community had reported the fact that these were extremists with ties to al Qaeda. That key part was omitted.
Why was that language dropped from the talking points distributed to Congress and Obama administration officials? Did anyone at the White House or on the National Security Council have any role in drafting them?
In addition to the intercepts between Ansar al Sharia jihadists and AQIM, the Associated Press reported Friday that "the CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington within hours of last month's deadly attack on the US consulate that there was evidence it was carried out by militants, not a spontaneous mob upset about an American-made video ridiculing Islam's Prophet Muhammad."
As further evidence of the ever-shifting Obama administration narrative, the AP article, which ran some 24 hours before this latest public relations push, also reported: "The White House now says the attack was probably carried out by an al Qaeda-linked group, with no public demonstration beforehand."
-
http://www.npr.org/2012/10/20/163309696/the-undecided-voter-just-like-the-unicorn
-
Iran Deal: The October Surprise?
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on October 22, 2012
Printer-Friendly Version
Will Obama announce a deal with Iran for a moratorium on the enrichment of uranium in return for the dismantling of some of the international sanctions against the regime? And will the announcement be timed to appear just before the election?
Reza Kahlili (the pseudonym for a former CIA operative in Iran's Revolutionary Guards), the author of A Time To Betray (Simon & Schuster, 2010) reports in WND that "U.S. and Iranian negotiators have reached an agreement that calls for Iran to halt part of its nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of many of the U.S. sanctions."
With ominous specificity, he notes that Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei "expects a letter from President Obama in a few days guaranteeing the details of the agreement arrived at recently during secret negotiations in Doha, Qatar."
Citing an "anonymous source highly placed in Iran's regime," he warns that "once Khamenei receives Obama's guarantees, he will authorize an announcement by Iran on a solution to the nuclear crisis before the U.S. presidential elections."
He says that "the agreement calls for Iran to announce a temporary halt to partial uranium enrichment after which the U.S. will remove many of its sanctions, including those on the Iranian central bank, no later than by the Iranian New Year in March."
The Iranians will, he says, agree to the deal because it is "in the throes of massive inflation and citizen unrest because of the sanctions."
The impact of the October Surprise on the election in the U.S. could be enormous unless the Romney campaign and conservatives handle it properly.
The first step in defusing its potential impact is to warn of the possibility of an October Surprise. The more we talk about it and cite the chance that Obama could pull it off, the more political it will seem when and if it happens.
If such a deal with Iran is announced, Romney should question its timing and note that a key motivation for the Iranian acquiescence is the imminence of his own election. Romney should say that the Ayatollah is afraid that a new U.S. Administration would support an Israeli attack on Iran should the sanctions fail to work. He could point out that as the chances of his victory improve, the Ayatollah has become more willing to deal.
After all, remember that the Iranians often play in U.S. politics. The Ayatollah Khomeini refused to release the U.S. hostages before the 1980 election to help insure Carter's defeat, only letting them go after his nemesis had lost.
We also must question the details of the deal:
• How will it be enforced?
• Who will inspect to see that Iran is complying?
• How easily can the West reinstate the sanctions if Iran fails to comply?
• On how much of their uranium supply will the enrichment moratorium be imposed?
The devil may be in the details.
Let's remember the history of Democratic October Surprises. Of the past five elections, two have been won solidly by Democrats - 2004 and 1996. The other three all featured October Surprises:
• On October 30, 1992, Iran-Contra Special Prosecutor Lawrence E. Walsh announced that he would indict Bush Defense Secretary Cap Weinberger. The announcement came after Clinton, the Democratic candidate against Bush, had fallen behind in the tracking polls. Clinton surged on the final weekend and won the election, in large part because of the Weinberger indictment announcement. (Bush pardoned Weinberger after the election and he was never actually indicted).
• On October 1, 2000, it was revealed that George W. Bush had been arrested for DUI in Maine in 1976. The arrest had never been made public. Bush was several points ahead in the popular vote prior to the announcement but lost to Gore by 0.5% after the DUI story broke.
• Eight days before the 2004 election, the New York Times revealed that the weapons from a conquered Iraqi weapons dump had been looted by insurgents who were using these weapons against American troops. Democratic candidate John Kerry cancelled his regular TV ads to focus on the discovery and allege Bush Administration incompetence in protecting the weapons. Fortunately, four days later (and four before the election), the Pentagon issues satellite photos of the dump indicating that the story was false.
• The original October Surprise was pulled by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger on behalf of President Richard M. Nixon when he announced that peace in Vietnam was "at hand" on the eve of the 1972 election, only to see the war drag on for months more.
If there be any of us that doubt the potential of both this Administration and the Ayatollah for using chicanery and phony deals to impact the election's outcome, think again!
-
http://pjmedia.com/blog/obamas-bizarre-anti-gun-debate-flub/?singlepage=true
Obama’s Bizarre Anti-Gun Debate Flub
He raised two massively unpopular ideas: the farcical assault weapons ban and the disarming of the poor. by
Bob Owens
Bio
October 22, 2012 - 12:00 am It’s generally hard to pinpoint the moment when a politician self-destructs — the “Dean scream” moments are few and far between. Campaigns tend to fall apart as part of a cascade of mistakes, where the number of things going wrong simply becomes insurmountable.
Barack Obama didn’t have a “Dean scream.”
If anything, future pundits will look back to Mitt Romney’s commanding performance at the first presidential debate in Denver as the beginning of the end of Obama’s presidency, but perhaps a response to a question at the second debate at Hofstra put the final nail in Obama’s electoral coffin.
When asked what he would do to restrict the availability of so-called “assault weapons,” the president offered the vague platitudes one would expect from a foundering candidate, before inexplicably reintroducing two unpopular gun measures:
We have to enforce the laws we’ve already got, make sure that we’re keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill. We’ve done a much better job in terms of background checks, but we’ve got more to do when it comes to enforcement. But I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don’t belong on our streets. And so what I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence and they’re not using AK-47s. They’re using cheap hand guns.
Obama not only attacked the best-selling and most widely distributed firearms in the United States, he also obliquely suggested he wants to disarm the poor.
The “assault weapons” ban was a provision embedded in a 1994 crime bill. It bizarrely banned several kinds of firearms by name, and made others illegal if they had a number of arbitrary cosmetic features. It also banned the new manufacture of magazines holding more than ten rounds.
The cartoonish law was dealt with as Americans have always dealt with the absurd: with mockery. Firearms banned by name changed their names. Firearms that were banned because they had a certain number of arbitrary cosmetic features rendering them criminal simply changed their features.
A company named Intratec made their contempt of the banning of their TEC-9 pistol clear. They removed the threads on the end of the barrel (which no one ever used) and dropped the superfluous barrel shroud (a stamped piece of sheet metal that keeps the shooter’s hand from touching a hot barrel). They reintroduced the gun the next day as the AB-10, with the AB meaning “after ban.”
Most other companies simply enjoyed the newfound sales that came from free Americans wanting to buy something the government didn’t want them to have. AR-15 patterned rifles that bore a cosmetic similarity (though not the select-fire functionality) to the military M-16 changed a few features and suddenly became prolific sellers. Existing manufacturers and importers of military-style weapons increased capacity, and new manufacturers sprung up like mushrooms after a spring rain. AR-15 pattern firearms became the most popular firearms in America, and the “modern sporting rifle” (as some in the shooting sports industry have tried to dub it, with mixed results) is now ubiquitous.
By the time the ban expired in 2004, it was a total failure. It did not reduce crime (such firearms were rarely used in crimes anyway), and the backlash against the ban “mainstreamed” the very firearms they attempted to render criminal. Nonetheless, it remained a hot-button issue on the left, where it has remained simmering as a near-forgotten issue for eight sad years. There is no support for it in the House and Senate, and there is no chance a new ban would make it out of committee.
Not a single soul expected Barack Obama to bring up the idea of reinstating this failed law. It was an act of political suicide.
The National Rifle Association, the nation’s leading gun rights organization, says that it is too soon after the debate to see any specific polling impact, but anecdotal evidence of a backlash against the president is already flowing in. A spokesperson for the group told PJ Media that the president’s anti-gun statement may cost him dearly.
Independents shoot AR-15s and AK-pattern rifles. Union members hunt. Feminists own handguns.
In one moment, President Obama offended 90 million gun owners to varying degrees. In an election where Barack Obama needs high voter turnout if he hopes to blunt a surging Romney (who now boasts a seven-point advantage), he’s sabotaged himself in the all-important swing states where gun ownership is high.
There is no information suggesting that Obama’s statement will “flip” votes from him to Romney, but anecdotal evidence suggests that Democrats and independents that could have been persuaded to cast a vote for the president are reconsidering.
-
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/22/cbs-news-why-didnt-we-send-the-military-to-rescue-benghazi-personnel/
CBS News: Why didn’t we send the military to rescue Benghazi personnel?
posted at 9:21 am on October 22, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
By now we’ve gotten the basic details of the terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi — no thanks to the White House, which tried to pass it off as a “spontaneous demonstration” that “spun out of control” for more than a week after the attack. Not too many people may have understood that the attack lasted for seven hours, however — and that American military assets were in easy reach. The last two Americans who died had managed to survive six hours into the attack.
CBS News’ Sharyl Attkisson asked the obvious question yesterday: If we could fly an unarmed drone over the consulate while it was under attack, why didn’t we send the military in to rescue our people?
Some lawmakers are asking why U.S. military help from outside Libya didn’t arrive as terrorists battered more than 30 Americans over the course of more than seven hours. The assault was launched by an armed mob of dozens that torched buildings and used rocket propelled grenades, mortars and AK-47 rifles.
CBS News has been told that, hours after the attack began, an unmanned Predator drone was sent over the U.S. mission in Benghazi, and that the drone and other reconnaissance aircraft apparently observed the final hours of the protracted battle.
The State Department, White House and Pentagon declined to say what military options were available. A White House official told CBS News that, at the start of the attack, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta “looked at available options, and the ones we exercised had our military forces arrive in less than 24 hours, well ahead of timelines laid out in established policies.”
But it was too late to help the Americans in Benghazi. The ambassador and three others were dead.
This question comes at a most opportune time. CBS News’ Bob Schieffer will moderate tonight’s presidential debate on foreign policy between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, and the Benghazi terrorist attack will almost certainly arise as a topic. What are the odds that the CBS News host brings up this biting CBS News report on what we might have done to stop the attack in Benghazi?
-
Pennsylvania Is The New Ohio
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on October 22, 2012
Printer-Friendly Version
With Romney gaining ground gradually in the swing state of Ohio, people have not paid enough attention to his surge in next door Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania casts 20 electoral votes and Ohio casts 18. And all electoral votes are created equal. It is possible to lose Ohio if you carry Pennsylvania and still win.
In Pennsylvania, polling by Republican John McLaughlin shows Romney three points ahead of Obama and a poll by The Susquehanna Polling organization shows Romney four points ahead in the Keystone State.
In Ohio, most polls have the race tied although all show significant progress by Romney in the past two weeks.
Why is Pennsylvania, nominally a more Democratic state, more hospitable to Romney than Ohio? Because Obama has run tens of millions of dollars of negative ads in Ohio smearing Romney, but has not done so in Pennsylvania. Indeed, current polling suggests a very good shot for Romney in a variety of usually Democratic states that are not on the official map of battleground states. Having been spared Obama's negative ads, these states are very much more inclined to back Romney.
• Latest polls in Michigan find Obama only one point ahead
• In Wisconsin, the candidates appear to be tied
• In Minnesota, Romney is only two points behind
It may be that on Election Day, we are all waiting for Ohio to be called (eventually it will go for Romney) while, in the meantime, he sweeps Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota and wins the election.
And don't forget the impact of a Romney victory on the U.S. Senate races. In Pennsylvania, Republican Tom Smith now leads Democratic incumbent Bob Casey according to McLaughlin's survey. In Wisconsin, former Governor and Republican candidate Tommy Thompson is locked in a close battle with Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin for an open Senate seat. And in Michigan, former Congressman Pete Hoekstra (Republican) is hot on the heels of Democratic incumbent Senator Debbie Stabenow.
With Republican Senate takeaways increasingly likely in Virginia, Florida, Nebraska, North Dakota, Montana, and Ohio, victories in these other northern tier states could provide a needed cushion to assure control of the Senate (since Republicans will lose Maine and may lose Massachusetts).
-
(http://cdn.pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/saving-birds.jpg)
-
First must comment on the previous post, the cartoon with Obama protecting Big Bird and Romney protecting the country. The Big Bird issue was the shiny object trick thrown back on them and they went for it. Four years of trillion dollar deficits and they still haven't started to cut the fluff. The Pres has no cuts on the table so he can't press the challenger for real ones, and Mediscare backfired. The joke is that PBS doesn't even need the subsidy, and especially not for its successful brands like Big Bird and Jim Lehrer. Just Obama fighting hard for very small things.
I did not watch the 3rd debate, but read a lot of commentary last night and this morning. On debate zingers they say Obama won by a little, but 60% saw Romney as ready to be Commander in Chief, looking Presidential AGAIN, blowing the Obama line out of the water trying to show that Romney is not ready.
Conservatives and hawks may be disappointed in what he didn't say or the change of course that he did not lay out for our future foreign policy.
Gallup has had Romney up big, 6%, the last few days. Rasmussen now has Romney up 50-46. Others have it by less. If accurate, an incumbent does not come up from 46-48%.
Remaining is the October surprise, the November surprise, the settling in of all the information we already know, and then the get out the vote operation.
If this really is a squeaker, Obama would win by taking Ohio and some other key states.
If the polls above are close to showing the new reality as I believe they are, Romney by 3 or 4, he will sweep all those and take a few others.
-------
Now is the time to adopt an undecided voter and apply a little positive assertiveness on them. )
-------
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/22/krauthammer_romney_won_unequivocally_obamas_responses_were_petty.html
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I think it's unequivocal, Romney won. And he didn't just win tactically, but strategically. Strategically, all he needed to do is basically draw. He needed to continue the momentum he's had since the first debate, and this will continue it. Tactically, he simply had to get up there and show that he's a competent man, somebody who you could trust as commander in chief, a who knows every area of the globe and he gave interesting extra details, like the Haqqani network, which gave the impression he knows what he's talking about. But there is a third level here, and that is what actually happened in the debate.
We can argue about the small points and the debating points. Romney went large, Obama went very, very small, shockingly small. Romney made a strategic decision not go after the president on Libya, or Syria, or other areas where Obama could accuse him of being a Bush-like war monger. Now I would have gone after Obama on Libya like a baseball bat, but that's why Romney has won elections and I've never had to even contested them. He decided to stay away from the and I think that might have actually worked for him.
What he did concentrate on is the big picture. People don't care what our policy on Syria is going to be. They care about how America is perceived in the world and how America carries itself in the world. And the high point is when he devastatingly leveled the charge of Obama going around the world on an apology tour. Obama's answer was ask any reporter and they will tell you it wasn't so. That's about as weak an answer you can get. And Romney's response to quote Obama saying that, 'we dictate to other nations,' and Romney said, 'we do not dictate to other nations, we liberate them.' And Obama was utterly speechless.
So that is the large picture, America is strong and respecting. What Obama did is he kept interrupting, interjecting and his responses were almost all very small, petty attacks. The lowest was when he's talking about sanctions that are old. 'When I was working on sanctions you were investing in a company in China.' I mean that is the kind of attack you expect from a guy who is running for city council for the first time, that's not what you expect from the president. A personal attack about an investment when talking about Iran?
I thought Romney had the day. He looked presidential. The president did not. And that's the impression I think that is going to be left.
MEGYN KELLY, FOX News: Mitt Romney sounded a bit more dovish, less bellicose than some, perhaps on the right wanted to hear. How will that play?
KRAUTHAMMER: Well, I think those on the right like me, who would have loved for him to have been bellicose and love the near fisticuffs will understand exactly why Romney did it. He stayed away from the pitfalls. He did not allow himself to be painted as a war monger. This is what Reagan understood in 1980, he did it extremely well. So Romney did and I think this could help him win the election.
-
Gallup has had Romney up big, 6%, the last few days. Rasmussen now has Romney up 50-46. Others have it by less. If accurate, an incumbent does not come up from 46-48%.
What is the margin of error? Even 6 might be a statistical tie. 538 has an Obama victory at 70% or so, as of this morning. That is down from 86% about 3 weeks ago.
As for the debate winner, I think it is based on lens. My conservative friends are in line with Krauthammer. My liberal ones... not so much.
"He stayed away from the pitfalls. He did not allow himself to be painted as a war monger. This is what Reagan understood in 1980, he did it extremely well. So Romney did and I think this could help him win the election." With this I agree. The potential issue, though, is did he paint himself as fundamentally different from Obama. They tripped over themselves complimenting each other and noting their agreements in several places. How that is recieved is to be seen, I think.
-
"What is the margin of error? Even 6 might be a statistical tie."
Gallup has Romney at +5 with likely voters says margin of error plus/minus 4. Rasmussen has Romney at +4 says sampling margin of error plus/minus 3 with 95% confidence. Others have smaller margins well within the margin. I don't follow margin of error closely because sample size is only one of the possible causes or errors. There are others such as how likely a likely voter is to vote and is there any correlation between being unreachable or refusing to answer the poll and who they support. Each poll applies their own 'secret sauce' to manipulate their sample, (like global warming). We are heading into the period where their real error or accuracy becomes quickly known and their reputation is judged. Earlier poll errors don't count against them, they just say it was a late movement.
My guess is that Romney has to win by 2 points or more in the popular vote to be confident of winning the electoral college. Al Gore won in 2000 by more than a half point: 48.38% to 47.87%. Romney needs to pull some Senators across the finish line too, for a number of reasons.
The actual error in Wisconsin 2012 was 7%, in Minnesota 2012 it was 12%, underpolling Republican votes in those two cases.
-
What is the biggest issue of our time?
360 debate minutes behind us, the majority of that with Obama-Biden speaking. The closest we came to a mention of climate change or global warming was the contest between Pres. Obama and Gov. Romney to see who was the most pro-coal. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82748.html
-
If I had been Romney I would have gone after Baraq guns blazing on his lies about Benghazi. Not saying I'm right, I'm just saying that's what I would have done.
Also, on the military spending issue Mitt should have been quoting SecDef Panetta left and right, not just once in passing quite a bit after BO's attack on the subject.
What he said on Afpakia was incoherent: either we are willing to go to the mat with the Paks or we aren't. (Un)fortunately this is SNAFU so few probably noticed.
=======================
Pennsylvania Is The New Ohio
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on October 22, 2012
Printer-Friendly Version
With Romney gaining ground gradually in the swing state of Ohio, people have not paid enough attention to his surge in next door Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania casts 20 electoral votes and Ohio casts 18. And all electoral votes are created equal. It is possible to lose Ohio if you carry Pennsylvania and still win.
In Pennsylvania, polling by Republican John McLaughlin shows Romney three points ahead of Obama and a poll by The Susquehanna Polling organization shows Romney four points ahead in the Keystone State.
In Ohio, most polls have the race tied although all show significant progress by Romney in the past two weeks.
Why is Pennsylvania, nominally a more Democratic state, more hospitable to Romney than Ohio? Because Obama has run tens of millions of dollars of negative ads in Ohio smearing Romney, but has not done so in Pennsylvania. Indeed, current polling suggests a very good shot for Romney in a variety of usually Democratic states that are not on the official map of battleground states. Having been spared Obama's negative ads, these states are very much more inclined to back Romney.
• Latest polls in Michigan find Obama only one point ahead
• In Wisconsin, the candidates appear to be tied
• In Minnesota, Romney is only two points behind
It may be that on Election Day, we are all waiting for Ohio to be called (eventually it will go for Romney) while, in the meantime, he sweeps Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota and wins the election.
And don't forget the impact of a Romney victory on the U.S. Senate races. In Pennsylvania, Republican Tom Smith now leads Democratic incumbent Bob Casey according to McLaughlin's survey. In Wisconsin, former Governor and Republican candidate Tommy Thompson is locked in a close battle with Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin for an open Senate seat. And in Michigan, former Congressman Pete Hoekstra (Republican) is hot on the heels of Democratic incumbent Senator Debbie Stabenow.
With Republican Senate takeaways increasingly likely in Virginia, Florida, Nebraska, North Dakota, Montana, and Ohio, victories in these other northern tier states could provide a needed cushion to assure control of the Senate (since Republicans will lose Maine and may lose Massachusetts).
-
(http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/v-550x412.jpg)
(http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/v2-550x412.jpg)
-
http://www.althouse.blogspot.com/2012/10/with-2-word-drudge-evokes-watergate-for.html
October 24, 2012
With 2 words, Drudge evokes Watergate for Obama's Libya troubles.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ktMNvbd00gc/UIfY1hVLSmI/AAAAAAAABjw/DEWhTFWxSCg/s320/he+knew.jpg)
The linked story is "White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack: emails."
The famous question from Watergate was "What did the President know and when did he know it?"
In 1973 and 1974 [Howard] Baker was... the influential ranking minority member of the Senate committee... that investigated the Watergate scandal. He is famous for having asked aloud, "What did the President know and when did he know it?", a question given him to ask by his counsel and former campaign manager, future U.S. Senator Fred Thompson.
-
Great fotos GM
http://www.dickmorris.com/romneys-trajectory-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
NOTE: Red Rocks is on the western side of the Denver metro area, so it isn't exactly wilderness, still it was a massive draw and many more were turned away from the event.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/24/video-romney-draws-massive-crowd-to-remote-colorado-location/
Video: Romney draws massive crowd to remote Colorado location
posted at 11:21 am on October 24, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
I’m not sure that there is anything that is directly noteworthy about a massive crowd for a major-party candidate at the end of the presidential cycle. Both candidates will have at least 60 million people voting for them in this election, which means there are going to be lots of people who will show up for these kinds of events. But will they climb hills and mountains and trek out to the middle of nowhere to do it? The Denver Post put together this visually stunning video of Mitt Romney’s event at Red Rocks, which also shows the difficulties that attendees had in getting to the rally at all:
The rally itself didn’t disappoint, either. Romney spoke to the 10,000 people who managed to climb into the venue and squeeze in among the rocks, telling them that Barack Obama’s time had passed — and so have his “status quo” ideas of governance:
A confident Mitt Romney, two weeks out from Election Day, spoke about his campaign as a movement sweeping the nation during a moonlit rally at Red Rocks Amphitheatre on Tuesday night.
Repeatedly, Romney referred to President Barack Obama as a president whose time has passed — out of ideas to improve the economy and out of touch with the needs of business owners. Romney said his own plans would restore American prosperity and prestige.
“The president’s status-quo campaign … is why he’s slipping, and it’s why we’re gaining,” said Romney, who was joined at the rally by running mate Paul Ryan. “It’s why this movement is growing across the country.”
Romney and Ryan weren’t shy about discussing the debates, either. Romney told the crowd that they “supercharged” the campaign, an undeniable fact, especially in Colorado, which has suddenly lurched toward Romney in the polls. It’s also undeniable in the fact that Romney could get this many people out to what looks like a fairly rugged venue for a big rally — and on a weeknight, too.But even if that doesn’t impress you, be sure to watch the video for some gorgeous visuals of the crowd at twilight and in the evening. That’s worth two minutes of your time.
-
Debates Within The Debate
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on October 23, 2012
Printer-Friendly Version
There were at least four separate debates going on Monday night when the candidates met for the last of their presidential match-ups.
The foreign-policy debate was the contest that was advertised. It largely featured agreement between the candidates. If anyone had hoped that a Romney presidency would represent a sharp break with Obama's policies on Iran, Iraq, Libya or Russia, they were disappointed. Only on China was there a real difference of opinion. Romney's tougher stand on Beijing will win him points in the Midwest.
Particularly during the first third of the debate, Romney appeared shaky, weak and unsure of his ground. He got better as the evening progressed and was strong in his attacks on Obama's apology tour, but at first he was weaker than we have seen him in the other debates.
Romney missed the chance to go after Obama on Libya. The last thing the Republican nominee wants is a foreign-policy issue in the last two weeks of the campaign when he is winning so handily on the economy.
The Economic Debate
Wisely, Romney took the debate back onto domestic policy by using it to remind voters of his economic agenda. About one-third of the time was devoted to the economy. And, on that issue, Romney was the overwhelming winner. Obama's defense of his own policies and record and his attack on Romney's plans was weak and even feeble. Since the economy is the major issue -- and Romney now owns it -- the political impact of the debate will focus on the discussion of what would, in other times, be a domestic concern.
Romney vs. Bush
The modern Democratic Party was founded during the last decade by those who came to dislike George W. Bush with an unseemly intensity. To these voters, more women than men, Bush-43 seemed like a latter-day cowboy, shooting from the hip and posturing that he wanted bin Laden "dead or alive." The Bush machismo left female voters alienated, and the ongoing war in Iraq sapped their patience in particular.
So a big part of Obama's campaign to keep female voters has centered on a critique linking Romney to the Bush agenda and style. But Mitt was having none of it on Monday night. Repeatedly, he invoked the need for world peace. Where he might have excoriated China, he said that its leaders wanted a world that is "open and free." Really? I hadn't noticed. He swore off war in Iran -- unless as a last resort -- and made clear that boots on the ground and even a no-fly zone were not options he would consider in Syria. Nobody could depict Romney as a warmonger after this debate.
The Likability Debate
Here, Romney made up for any ground he lost on the foreign-policy issues. The contrast between the surly, nasty, petulant, impolite and intrusive president and the restrained dignity of his opponent was telling. Voters -- particularly women -- would have to come away from the contest liking Romney a lot more than they liked Obama.
Gone was the loft and majesty of Obama's 2008 campaign, and in its place was a petty politician, running scared, sounding desperate and using every chance he had to score partisan points. When Romney invoked his bipartisan work in Massachusetts, the contrast was vivid. On the one side was cooperation, and on the other, gridlock. And when Romney warned that "attacking me is not an agenda," the contrast was telling.
In the past three weeks, Romney has not only gained in vote share, but has increased his personal favorability to the point where it now exceeds the president's. Anyone watching the third debate would rather have Romney over for dinner than Obama. And who would want to have a beer with that peevish nitpicker of a president?
The net effect of the debate will be to help propel Romney to even higher vote shares. He was presidential, dignified and personable. He has used the debates to resurrect a candidacy that was languishing and make it into a presidential juggernaut.
-
Why Obama's Actions in Libya Should Cost Him the Election
from Reason Magazine by Andrew Napolitano
The final presidential debate earlier this week was a tailor-made opportunity for Mitt Romney to rip into President Obama's inconsistent, value-free and at times incoherent foreign policy. And it was also an opportunity for the president to explain his administration's material misrepresentations on the murders of our ambassador and others in Libya. Instead, we heard silence from both of them on this topic.
One can conclude from this that the president uttered a silent sigh of relief when he dodged a bullet. And one can conclude that Romney wanted to look and sound presidential and emphasize his economic credentials and allay fears that he wants another war. Whatever the gain and whatever the strategy, this matter of American deaths in Libya is of vital importance to American voters.
It is important because it shows how far the American government has drifted from the confines of the Constitution and how far we as a people have drifted from the rule of law. The president bombed Libya last year in a successful effort to remove Col. Gadhafi from power. Gadhafi was a monster, but he kept the streets safe, the mobs from foreign embassies and consulates, and the terrorists in jail.
In 2005, President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair praised Gadhafi as a partner in the war on terror because he disposed of his nuclear weaponry and he arrested and resisted al-Qaida operatives. Obama, who last year claimed he did not have the time to seek authorization from Congress to bomb Libya as the Constitution requires, but did have the time to seek approvals from NATO and the Arab League, also claimed at the time and as recently as last Monday night that there were no American boots on the ground during the bombing. That, of course, is patently false and is known to be false.
American fighter planes (boots in the skies) would not be sent to bomb a foreign land without guidance from troops on the ground. I suspect that by "boots," Obama meant "uniforms." We know that American intelligence agents and American Special Forces -- neither of whose personnel wear uniforms, but most of whom no doubt wear boots on their feet in the Libyan desert -- were there, are still there and were providing intelligence about Gadhafi and his military to aid the assault by U.S. warplanes.
The assault was devastating not only to the Gadhafi government, but also to the Libyan people. It destroyed much of Libyan authority structures as they then existed. Not only were Libyan government personnel and buildings and equipment destroyed, but so were Libyan intelligence agents and assets, police stations, roads and bridges, and innocent civilians, as well. This resulted not only in the death of Gadhafi and the destruction of his government, but also in a vacuum into which moved the roving gangs of militias who reign there today. The militias opened up Gadhafi's jails and released many of the prisoners Bush and Blair had praised Gadhafi for incarcerating.
Fast-forward to September 11th of this year, and some of these al-Qaida-led and populated gangs murdered our ambassador and his colleagues. The Obama administration -- which knew of the al-Qaida role in all this and knew that the president's unconstitutional behavior facilitated that role -- denied what it knew and dispatched the American ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, to deliver lies to the American public. Rice claimed on five TV shows that U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens was killed by the spontaneous reaction of ordinary Libyans to a cheap Hollywood-made YouTube clip about Mohammed -- not by an organized terrorist gang.
Shortly after Stevens' murder, European newspapers began to speculate that though Stevens was the bona fide U.S. ambassador to Libya, he was also a member of the U.S. intelligence community, as were his now-murdered colleagues. Earlier this week, my colleagues at Fox News discovered that the building in which they were killed was and was known locally to be a CIA facility, and that the future Ambassador Stevens had used that facility to meet with Libyan rebels during the Gadhafi years.
Now we can connect some dots. If Stevens was a CIA agent, he was in violation of international law by acting as the U.S. ambassador. And if he and his colleagues were intelligence officials, they are not typically protected by Marines, because they ought to have been able to take care of themselves. And if Rice knowingly lied to the American public about a matter as grave as this, she should be fired, no matter who asked her to lie. And 14 days before a crucial presidential election, when both major-party candidates have an audience of 60 million voters, why were they mysteriously silent about all this? Might U.S. intelligence agents who routinely brief Romney have whispered the same instructions into his ear that they received from the president when they briefed him?
I still think Romney has a far better understanding of economic forces and a far superior appreciation for the free market than does Obama. But I had hoped he could demonstrate a better understanding of the proper role of the U.S. in foreign lands than has the president.
On this from Romney, thus far we have heard only silence; from the president, only boasts.
http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/25/why-obamas-actions-in-libya-should-cost
-
Noonan: When Americans Saw the Real Obama Why the Denver debate changed everything.
By PEGGY NOONAN
We all say Ohio, Ohio, Ohio. But it's all still Denver, Denver, and the mystery that maybe isn't a mystery at all.
If Cincinnati and Lake County go for Mitt Romney on Nov. 6 it will be because of what happened in Denver on Oct. 3. If Barack Obama barely scrapes through, if there's a bloody and prolonged recount, it too will be because of Denver.
Nothing echoes out like that debate. It was the moment that allowed Mr. Romney to break through, that allowed dismay with the incumbent to coalesce, that allowed voters to consider the alternative. What the debate did to the president is what the Yankees' 0-4 series against the Tigers did at least momentarily, to the team's relationship with their city. "Dear Yankees, We don't date losers. Signed, New Yorkers" read the Post's headline.
America doesn't date losers either.
Why was the first debate so toxic for the president? Because the one thing he couldn't do if he was going to win the election is let all the pent-up resentment toward him erupt. Americans had gotten used to him as The President. Whatever his policy choices, whatever general direction he seemed to put in place he was The President, a man who had gotten there through natural gifts and what all politicians need, good fortune.
What he couldn't do was present himself, when everyone was looking, as smaller than you thought. Petulant, put upon, above it all, full of himself. He couldn't afford to make himself look less impressive than the challenger in terms of command, grasp of facts, size.
But that's what he did.
And in some utterly new way the president was revealed, exposed. All the people whose job it is to surround and explain him, to act as his buffers and protectors—they weren't there. It was him on the stage, alone with a competitor. He didn't have a teleprompter, and so his failure seemed to underscore the cliché that the prompter is a kind of umbilical cord for him, something that provides nourishment, the thing he needs to sound good. He is not by any means a stupid man but he has become a boring one; he drones, he is predictable, it's never new. The teleprompter adds substance, or at least safety.
***
A great and assumed question, the one that's still floating out there, is what exactly happened when Mr. Obama did himself in? What led to it?
Was it the catastrophic execution of an arguably sound strategy? Perhaps the idea was to show the president was so unimpressed by his challenger that he could coolly keep him at bay by not engaging. Maybe Mr. Obama's handlers advised: "The American people aren't impressed by this flip-flopping, outsourcing plutocrat, and you will deepen your bond with the American people, Mr. President, by expressing in your bearing, through your manner and language, how unimpressed you are, too." So he sat back and let Mr. Romney come forward. But Mr. Romney was poised, knowledgeable, presidential. It was a mistake to let that come forward!
Peggy Noonan's Blog
Daily declarations from the Wall Street Journal columnist.
.
Was it the catastrophic execution of a truly bad strategy? Maybe they assumed the election was already pretty much in the bag, don't sweat it, just be your glitteringly brilliant self and let Duncan the Wonder Horse go out there and turn people off. But nothing was in the bag. The sheer number of people who watched—a historic 70 million—suggests a lot of voters were still making up their minds.
Maybe the president himself didn't think he could possibly be beaten because he's so beloved. Presidents are always given good news, to keep their spirits up. The poll numbers he'd been seeing, the get-out-the-vote reports, the extraordinary Internet effort to connect with every lonely person in America, which is a lot of persons—maybe everything he was hearing left him thinking his position was impregnable.
But maybe these questions are all off. Maybe what happened isn't a mystery at all.
That, anyway, is the view expressed this week by a member of the U.S. Senate who served there with Mr Obama and has met with him in the White House. People back home, he said, sometimes wonder what happened with the president in the debate. The senator said, I paraphrase: I sort of have to tell them that it wasn't a miscalculation or a weird moment. I tell them: I know him, and that was him. That guy on the stage, that's the real Obama.
***
Which gets us to Bob Woodward's "The Price of Politics," published last month. The portrait it contains of Mr. Obama—of a president who is at once over his head, out of his depth and wholly unaware of the fact—hasn't received the attention it deserves. Throughout the book, which is a journalistic history of the president's key economic negotiations with Capitol Hill, Mr. Obama is portrayed as having the appearance and presentation of an academic or intellectual while being strangely clueless in his reading of political situations and dynamics. He is bad at negotiating—in fact doesn't know how. His confidence is consistently greater than his acumen, his arrogance greater than his grasp.
He misread his Republican opponents from day one. If he had been large-spirited and conciliatory he would have effectively undercut them, and kept them from uniting. (If he'd been large-spirited with Mr. Romney, he would have undercut him, too.) Instead he was toughly partisan, he shut them out, and positions hardened. In time Republicans came to think he doesn't really listen, doesn't really hear. So did some Democrats. Business leaders and mighty CEOs felt patronized: After inviting them to meet with him, the president read from a teleprompter and included the press. They felt like "window dressing." One spoke of Obama's surface polish and essential remoteness. In negotiation he did not cajole, seduce, muscle or win sympathy. He instructed. He claimed deep understanding of his adversaries and their motives but was often incorrect. He told staffers that John Boehner, one of 11 children of a small-town bar owner, was a "country club Republican." He was often patronizing, which in the old and accomplished is irritating but in the young and inexperienced is infuriating. "Boehner said he hated going down to the White House to listen to what amounted to presidential lectures," Mr. Woodward writes.
Mr. Obama's was a White House that had—and showed—no respect for Republicans trying to negotiate with Republicans. Through it all he was confident—"Eric, don't call my bluff"—because he believed, as did his staff, that his talents would save the day.
They saved nothing. Washington became immobilized.
Mr. Woodward's portrait of the president is not precisely new—it has been drawn in other ways in other accounts, and has been a staple of D.C. gossip for three years now—but it is vivid and believable. And there's probably a direct line between that portrait and the Obama seen in the first debate. Maybe that's what made it so indelible, and such an arc-changer.
People saw for the first time an Obama they may have heard about on radio or in a newspaper but had never seen.
They didn't see some odd version of the president. They saw the president.
And they didn't like what they saw, and that would linger.
-
Baraq ducks direct questions on Benghazi denial of help requests:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/reporter-obama-would-not-answer-repeated-questions-on-whether-requests-for-help-in-benghazi-were-denied/
-
Gallup Explains Why Other Polls Are Wrong
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on October 29, 2012
Printer-Friendly Version
In a large sample, very important survey, Gallup reported on Friday that the likely 2012 electorate will be among the most Republican in history.
In 2008, 12 percent more self-described Democrats voted than Republicans (54-42). In 2004, the electorate was 48-48 evenly split between the parties. In Gallup's poll, they found that in 2012 it will be 46-49 for the Republicans -- a fifteen point swing from 2008!
The reason most other polls are wrong is that, seeing this Republican surge, they discount it as sampling error in their polls and re-weight the data to make it conform to the traditional partisan divisions, thus obliterating the real trend and obscuring what is actually going on.
The fact is that the country has moved sharply in the direction of the Republican Party since 2008 and even since 2010.
Want to know how much Romney will win by?
Obama won by 7 points in 2008. But the electorate has become 15 points more Republican since then. Do the math -- an 8 point Romney victory! OK, maybe 5 or 6 or 7, but no cliffhanger.
-
http://www.westernjournalism.com/retired-military-heroes-call-out-barack-obama-for-deserting-americans-in-benghazi/
=========================
Labor Dept. May Not Release Jobs Report Before Election Day
There is one more jobs report due before Election Day. It is scheduled to be released this Friday, giving the candidates about four days to play up or dismiss the numbers. However, the Labor Department says it may not release the report on time... citing difficulties due to Hurricane Sandy.
-
http://www.westernjournalism.com/retired-military-heroes-call-out-barack-obama-for-deserting-americans-in-benghazi/
=========================
Labor Dept. May Not Release Jobs Report Before Election Day
There is one more jobs report due before Election Day. It is scheduled to be released this Friday, giving the candidates about four days to play up or dismiss the numbers. However, the Labor Department says it may not release the report on time... citing difficulties due to Hurricane Sandy.
And failing the above, the dog ate it..... :roll:
-
(http://cdn.pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/coward-obama-e1351444512643.jpg)
-
:cry: :cry: :cry:
-
:cry: :cry: :cry:
The whole Benghazi story and its lack of followup makes me angry and puzzled. I don't understand why they are not called out to answer for the lies, shiny objects and deceptions. There wasn't a video or a video maker in the Benghazi story, but we were told there was. There was a multiple hour struggle with security within reach, ordered to stand down. Why? By whom? Don't we deserve to know?
We made mistakes, misjudged the threat, misjudged the security needed. Why not come forward early on and say so? What have we learned? In hind-sight, what would we do differently, what should we do differently, right now? None of it asked. None of it answered.
Sec. of State Hillary Clinton didn't take responsibility in any real way, just admitted she was Sec of State when it happened. President Obama didn't take responsibility in any real way, really just admitted he is President and is ultimately responsible.
Military leadership doesn't say stand down or don't protect our resources. Civilian leadership had a reason for doing that. I am all for civilian leadership over our military. That is because we have more than one way to remove and replace them.
I would rather run them out with the accurate information than without it.
There is a lot we don't know about the specific terror network and perpetrators. There isn't a lot the administration doesn't know about the U.S. side of the story.
If this is all national secret, then brief select members of congress.
But why should they answer or say anything. Lessons were learned with Fast and Furious. An Executive branch with no knowledge claimed Executive privilege. The Attorney General was charged with Contempt of Congress and a majority of his own party supported that. Yet he is still Attorney General with no consequence and the President is still running roughly even in the polls despite a horrendous economy.
Why should they answer; they are hardly even being asked.
Let's give voters no information whatsoever and then let them decide.
-
According to POTH, Romney's efforts in Ohio to push back on the auto bail out are backfiring. Yeah, its POTH, but the article does read as the sort of screw up of which Romney is so capable.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/30/us/politics/gop-turns-fire-on-obama-pillar-auto-bailout.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20121030&_r=0
-
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/could-next-weeks-election-be-delayed-by-sandy/
-
When Mondale lost 49 states to Reagan, MN seemed for a moment to be American's furthest to the left state. Then Mondale lost statewide in MN in 2002 becoming the first and only person to ever lose statewide in all 50.
Minnesota Poll now has Obama in MN by just +3, inside the sampling margin of error.
Same poll was wrong by 12 points in 2010, overestimating Dem support. (Who knew?!)
Obama playing demographic cards in Nevada, New Mexico and elsewhere may have a different effect in the upper midwest.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20121030/DA2854680.html
-
The top 4 newspapers in Iowa endorsed Mitt Romney in a big switch since 2008. Worth reading:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57541829/all-four-major-iowa-newspapers-back-romney/
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20121027/OPINION03/121026026/The-Register-endorsement-Mitt-Romney-offers-a-fresh-economic-vision?Frontpage&gcheck=1&nclick_check=1
http://qctimes.com/news/opinion/editorial/our-presidential-endorsement-ready-for-change/article_99b6bf4e-20a2-11e2-b68d-0019bb2963f4.html
http://thegazette.com/2012/10/28/gazette-endorsement-for-president-romney/
http://siouxcityjournal.com/news/opinion/editorial/our-opinion-mitt-romney-he-s-the-change-america-needs/article_c9f05db4-801b-53f4-8910-047c2ded9f07.html
-
Well, no one can accuse Dick Morris of hedging his bets , , ,
===========================
Voters have figured out that President Obama has no message, no agenda and not even much of an explanation for what he has done over the past four years. His campaign is based entirely on persuading people that Mitt Romney is a uniquely bad man, entirely dedicated to the rich, ignorant of the problems of the average person. As long as he could run his negative ads, the campaign at least kept voters away from the Romney bandwagon. But once we all met Mitt Romney for three 90-minute debates, we got to know him -- and to like him. He was not the monster Obama depicted, but a reasonable person for whom we could vote.
As we stripped away Obama's yearlong campaign of vilification, all the president offered us was more servings of negative ads -- ads we had already dismissed as not credible. He kept doing the same thing even as it stopped working.
The result was that the presidential race reached a tipping point. Reasonable voters saw that the voice of hope and optimism and positivism was Romney while the president was only a nitpicking, quarrelsome, negative figure. The contrast does not work in Obama's favor.
His erosion began shortly after the conventions when Indiana (10 votes) and North Carolina (15) moved to Romney (in addition to the 179 votes that states that McCain carried cast this year).
Then, in October, Obama lost the Southern swing states of Florida (29) and Virginia (13). He also lost Colorado (10), bringing his total to 255 votes.
And now, he faces the erosion of the northern swing states: Ohio (18), New Hampshire (4) and Iowa (6). Only in the union-anchored state of Nevada (9) does Obama still cling to a lead.
In the next few days, the battle will move to Pennsylvania (20), Michigan (15), Wisconsin (10) and Minnesota (16). Ahead in Pennsylvania, tied in Michigan and Wisconsin, and slightly behind in Minnesota, these new swing states look to be the battleground.
Or will the Romney momentum grow and wash into formerly safe Democratic territory in New Jersey and Oregon?
Once everyone discovers that the emperor has no clothes (or that Obama has no argument after the negative ads stopped working), the vote shift could be of historic proportions.
The impact on Senate races could be profound. Give the GOP easy pickups in Nebraska and North Dakota. Wisconsin has been a roller coaster. Once an easy win for Republican Tommy Thompson, then a likely loss as Democrat Tammy Baldwin caught up, and now Republican again, it will probably be a third pickup. Romney's surge in Virginia is propelling George Allen to a good lead for the first time all campaign. In Montana, Republican Denny Rehberg holds and has held for some time a small lead over Democrat incumbent Jon Tester. And, in Pennsylvania, Smith has powered his campaign to a small lead over Democrat Bob Casey Jr.
The GOP now leads in these six takeaways. But it is also within easy striking distance in Ohio and Florida, where incumbents are under 50 percent and Republican challengers Connie Mack (Fla.) and Josh Mandel (Ohio) are only a few points behind. It may even be possible to entertain daydreams of Rhode Island (Barry Hinckley) and New Jersey (Joe Kyrillos) going Republican.
Republican losses? Look for a giveback in Maine and possibly in Indiana and Massachusetts. In Indiana, Republican Richard Mourdock had established a 5-point lead over Democrat Joe Donnelly. But his comments about rape knocked him back to a tie. With Romney carrying the state by 15 points, however, Mourdock could still make it. In Massachusetts, Brown has been in hand-to-hand combat with Elizabeth Warren. Down by five a few days ago, he's now tied, but the undecided usually goes against the incumbent.
The most likely outcome? Eight GOP takeaways and two giveaways for a net gain of six. A 53-47 Senate, just like we have now, only opposite.
Barack Obama's parting gift to the Democratic Party.
-
Morris is quite optimistic. On election night, watch for Romney to win Virginia by 3 or more for an indicator of which direction it is going.
Only in the full sweep scenario do Republicans also take the Senate. 11 Senate seats are still tossups and the polling isn't that accurate. The result will depend on who shows up in a lot of different places.
---------
Interesting campaign tidbit: It's the final weekend in such a large nation and both Obama and Romney are going to Dubuque on Saturday. I doubt if there is more than one airport in Iowa's 9th largest city.
http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/Vote-2012-Obama-Romney-to-Both-Campaign-in-Dubuque-on-Saturday-176649561.html
-
Unemployment higher in numbers and percentage than when Obama took office.
George Bush's fault
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
-
Feeling very frustrated with Mitt tonight. The timidity of his campaign has turned what should have been a rampage through the wasteland of the record of the worst president of my lifetime into a real nail biter.
This forum would be a wonderful resource for someone looking for hundreds of specific devastating points that would have Obama off balance all day every day. Instead, the man won't even touch Benghazi :cry:
-
Feeling very frustrated with Mitt tonight. The timidity of his campaign has turned what should have been a rampage through the wasteland of the record of the worst president of my lifetime into a real nail biter.
This forum would be a wonderful resource for someone looking for hundreds of specific devastating points that would have Obama off balance all day every day. Instead, the man won't even touch Benghazi :cry:
Agreed, though with the increase of stupidity and entrenchment of the leech class, it may not pay to be more aggressive now.
-
Feeling very frustrated with Mitt tonight. The timidity of his campaign has turned what should have been a rampage through the wasteland of the record of the worst president of my lifetime into a real nail biter.
This forum would be a wonderful resource for someone looking for hundreds of specific devastating points that would have Obama off balance all day every day. Instead, the man won't even touch Benghazi :cry:
Agreed, though with the increase of stupidity and entrenchment of the leech class, it may not pay to be more aggressive now.
Yes, at this point in the campaign he is speaking to the one percent or less in the dead center of the electorate between Obama and Romney in a couple of counties of a couple of states in a language I don't expect to be able to understand.
I hope they know what they are doing.
To some extent it is the job of others to expose the opponent and his job to be the positive alternative.
-
Agreed too late to do anything different now, I'm just expressing deep frustration and fear. Sure hope Morris is right , , ,God Bless America.
-
Agreed too late to do anything different now, I'm just expressing deep frustration and fear. Sure hope Morris is right , , ,God Bless America.
---------
It is time for everyone involved to find and adopt an undecided or leaning voter between now and Tuesday. I have one friend in mind who is a former Republican and has leaned left more recently and I am working to make sure my daughter's first ballot gets turned in on time no matter how she fills it out.
Call personally on election day and confirm with every like minded person you know that we all showed up.
The difference of Obamacare passing or not might have happened right in my mostly conservative town of 1000. The recount from R to D to make the 60 Senator shift on just a few votes might have been people out here who were too busy or thought it wouldn't matter. It mattered - big time.
It doesn't seem like it sometimes, but one more vote in Calif, Minn, and every other place does make a difference. The margin of victory matters. It matters in the close races and it matters in places not close to start to change or build any momentum to get good candidates and messages to come forward in the future.
To everyone who cares - do something!
-
The choice
By Charles Krauthammer, Published: November 1, Washington Post
“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not.” That was Barack Obama in 2008. And he was right. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy.
It is common for one party to take control and enact its ideological agenda. Ascendancy, however, occurs only when the opposition inevitably regains power and then proceeds to accept the basic premises of the preceding revolution.
Thus, Republicans railed for 20 years against the New Deal. Yet when they regained the White House in 1953, they kept the New Deal intact.
And when Nixon followed LBJ’s Great Society — liberalism’s second wave — he didn’t repeal it. He actually expanded it. Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), gave teeth to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and institutionalized affirmative action — major adornments of contemporary liberalism.
Until Reagan. Ten minutes into his presidency, Reagan declares that “government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” Having thus rhetorically rejected the very premise of the New Deal/Great Society, he sets about attacking its foundations — with radical tax reduction, major deregulation, a frontal challenge to unionism (breaking the air traffic controllers for striking illegally) and an (only partially successful) attempt at restraining government growth.
Reaganism’s ascendancy was confirmed when the other guys came to power and their leader, Bill Clinton, declared (in his 1996 State of the Union address) that “the era of big government is over” — and then abolished welfare, the centerpiece “relief” program of modern liberalism.
In Britain, the same phenomenon: Tony Blair did to Thatcherism what Clinton did to Reaganism. He made it the norm.
Obama’s intention has always been to re-normalize, to reverse ideological course, to be the anti-Reagan — the author of a new liberal ascendancy. Nor did he hide his ambition. In his February 2009 address to Congress he declared his intention to transform America. This was no abstraction. He would do it in three areas: health care, education and energy.
Think about that. Health care is one-sixth of the economy. Education is the future. And energy is the lifeblood of any advanced country — control pricing and production, and you’ve controlled the industrial economy.
And it wasn’t just rhetoric. He enacted liberalism’s holy grail: the nationalization of health care. His $830 billion stimulus, by far the largest spending bill in U.S. history, massively injected government into the free market — lavishing immense amounts of tax dollars on favored companies and industries in a naked display of industrial policy.
And what Obama failed to pass through Congress, he enacted unilaterally by executive action. He could not pass cap-and-trade, but his EPA is killing coal. (No new coal-fired power plant would ever be built.) In 2006, liberals failed legislatively to gut welfare’s work requirement. Obama’s new Health and Human Services rule does that by fiat. Continued in a second term, it would abolish welfare reform as we know it — just as in a second term, natural gas will follow coal, as Obama’s EPA regulates fracking into noncompetitiveness.
Government grows in size and power as the individual shrinks into dependency. Until the tipping point where dependency becomes the new norm — as it is in Europe, where even minor retrenchment of the entitlement state has led to despair and, for the more energetic, rioting.
An Obama second term means that the movement toward European-style social democracy continues, in part by legislation, in part by executive decree. The American experiment — the more individualistic, energetic, innovative, risk-taking model of democratic governance — continues to recede, yielding to the supervised life of the entitlement state.
If Obama loses, however, his presidency becomes a historical parenthesis, a passing interlude of overreaching hyper-liberalism, rejected by a center-right country that is 80 percent nonliberal.
Should they summon the skill and dexterity, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan could guide the country to the restoration of a more austere and modest government with more restrained entitlements and a more equitable and efficient tax code. Those achievements alone would mark a new trajectory — a return to what Reagan started three decades ago.
Every four years we are told that the coming election is the most important of one’s life. This time it might actually be true. At stake is the relation between citizen and state, the very nature of the American social contract.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-choice/2012/11/01/59b5bed0-2445-11e2-9313-3c7f59038d93_story.html
-
(http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt114/dougmacg/JobsStamps064-1.jpg)
-
When I clicked on this, it took a second to load the chart, so the space here was totally empty. I though, "Wow, Doug is getting pretty zen!"
"It's the Jack Kerouac School of Disembodied supply side economics!" "Dig it, man!"
-
"ASAP"...So that we are clear on this all, here is the record:
''It took Barack Obama seven days to visit Joplin, Missouri after a tornado wiped out half of the town and killed 120 people...
...It took Barack Obama 14 days to visit the Gulf Coast after the BP oil spill.
...Obama declined to visit Tennessee after the historic 2010 "1000-year floods."
...Obama ignored the Texas wildfires when over 400 homes were lost.
...And, of course, Obama ignored the calls for help from Benghazi....
...But it took Barack Obama only one day to visit the hurricane damage on the East Coast. Then again, there’s an election next week.''
-Gateway Pundit
-
A pleasant surprise unlikely to make any difference :-)
-
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/02/us/politics/paths-to-the-white-house.html?smid=fb-share
-
Obama’s Army of Illegal Election Workers
Posted By Matthew Vadum On November 5, 2012 - www.frontpagemag.com
Democrats have enlisted thousands of young illegal immigrants to drag their supporters to the polls on Election Day tomorrow.
These get-out-the-vote workers may or may not be breaking the law by helping with voter mobilization. Because the workers are already unlawfully present in the United States, presumably all employment they engage in –including electioneering— already violates laws against unauthorized employment.
It’s not like their patron, President Obama, would do anything about it anyway. This past summer Obama swept aside federal law in order to pander to this growing constituency. In a move more imperial than presidential, Obama bypassed Congress and partially implemented the so-called proposed DREAM Act which would have offered a path to U.S. citizenship for youthful illegals who served in the armed forces or attended college. Up to 1.4 million illegal aliens could benefit from the move.
Using undocumented aliens as election workers is a new low for the activist Left.
“For people who aren’t supposed to be in the country in the first place to be deployed for partisan advantage is the last straw,” said Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a group that favors limits on immigration levels.
“‘The strategic deployment’ of illegal immigrants who benefit from the Obama administration program is a ‘corruption of the political process,’” he said.
And there can be little doubt that some of the Obama supporters these election workers cajol into voting booths will themselves be illegal immigrants ineligible to vote in the national election. Lax, and in some cases non-existent ID requirements, at the state level will allow people to vote who have no legal right to vote.
In the battleground state of Nevada, Culinary Workers Union Local 226 is strong-arming union members who are bona fide U.S. permanent residents into unlawfully casting ballots. (Permanent residents, or green card holders, are allowed to reside and work in the U.S. permanently but are not allowed to vote unless they become naturalized as U.S. citizens.) The union is affiliated with the UNITE HERE labor federation.
Union members who have a shaky grasp of the English language told Glenn Cook of the Las Vegas Review-Journal that they were tricked into signing voter registration forms and are now being pressured to vote. President Obama and Democrats are counting on the unions in Nevada to help get them across the finish line tomorrow.
“One of the immigrants was visited at home by a Culinary representative and said the operative made threats of deportation if no ballot was cast,” Cook writes. He notes that in Nevada no proof of citizenship is required in order to register to vote or to vote. “One would establish identity and one would establish residence,” Clark County Registrar of Voters Larry Lomax said. “Just like every other voter in Nevada, they will not be asked to prove citizenship.”
In the swing states of Colorado, Florida, and Ohio, the young illegal aliens doing the voter-mobilization work are “often referred to as Dreamers after the failed DREAM Act legislation that would have offered them a path to citizenship.” They are knocking on doors, working in telephone banks, and asking students on college campuses to vote, the Wall Street Journal reports. They are also active in solid-blue California and in Republican-dominated Texas.
The illegal campaign workers are targeting Latinos, a fast-growing demographic that President Obama has urged to “punish” its “enemies.” Obama is reportedly running ahead among Latino voters so the efforts of the so-called Dreamers could help down-ticket candidates in congressional and state races.
One of the leading groups exploiting the free labor of undocumented workers is the Colorado Immigrants Rights Coalition (CIRC). Illegal campaign workers “are winning the hearts and minds of Coloradans through their efforts,” said CIRC executive director Julien Ross.
CIRC pushed the Obama administration to enact a policy, now called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, that lets those under the age of 31 who arrived in this country by age 16 and have lived here for the last five years to seek a renewable two-year reprieve from deportation and work permit.
CIRC has some unsavory friends. It is a “partner” with the far-left Center for Community Change (CCC) and the National Day Laborers Organizing Network (NDLON).
CCC is headed by Deepak Bhargava, who worked for a decade at ACORN. CCC sponsored a December 2007 forum for thousands of community organizers from across America. Bhargava introduced speaker Barack Obama at the event and said America was “a society that is still deeply structured by racism and sexism.” He elicited a pledge from Obama that if elected the president in 2008 he would invite CCC and other Saul Alinsky-inspired community organizing groups to “help [the new administration] shape the agenda.”
NDLON’s mission is to interfere with the enforcement of immigration laws and its “strategy is to make legal everything about the illegal immigrant except his immigration status.” The group pressures local governments to set up day laborer centers and works with labor unions to unionize day laborers.
Felipe Sousa-Rodriguez from Brazil thinks illegal aliens getting involved in electoral politics is a great idea.
“We can’t vote but we can get people to vote who support our issues. It’s our way to participate in this democracy,” said Sousa-Rodriguez, who is supervising a get-out-the-vote drive in Florida and Ohio that is co-sponsored by United We Dream, a national undocumented youth network.
United We Dream’s stated mission is to create “meaningful alliances with other national immigrant and education rights organizations and making sure there is a voice for immigrant youth in these organizations.”
One of the group’s more high profile board members is Josh Bernstein. Bernstein is “director of immigration” at the radical labor union SEIU. (Who knew labor unions had directors of immigration?) Back in the 1980s he was director of Californians for a Fair Share, a group created to fight welfare cuts.
Take a guess which political party Bernstein’s illegal election workers –and all the other illegal election workers mentioned in this article— will benefit from all this unpaid labor.
-
From his lips to God's ears , , ,
Prediction: Romney 325, Obama 213
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on November 5, 2012
Yup. That's right. A landslide for Romney approaching the magnitude of Obama's against McCain. That's my prediction.
On Sunday, we changed our clocks. On Tuesday, we'll change our president.
Romney will win the states McCain carried in 2008, plus: Florida, Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Minnesota.
In the popular vote, Romney will win by more than 5 points.
The Obama campaign made the following key mistakes:
• It bet the farm on negative ads in swing states. It didn't realize that Mitt's convention speech and the three debates would give him the chance to live down the charges and demonstrate -- through facts and his demeanor -- that they were baseless.
• Obama had no Plan B if the negatives didn't work. He never really laid in a convincing defense of his record, except to recall the mess that he inherited and to try to make people believe things were better. He had no vision for his second term, except more of same. He never moved to the center -- the shift that reelected Bill Clinton.
• Obama drew his list of swing states too narrowly. He did not contemplate that he would be forced to defend Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan or Minnesota and squandered his money contesting unwinnable states like North Carolina. When Romney bypassed Obama's "firewall" states (like the Germans did the French Maginot Line in World War II), the president had not laid in the necessary prophylactic irradiation of negative ads, and three of the states embraced Romney.
• By focusing on the negative, Obama sacrificed first his personal popularity and then his dignity and presidentiality. No longer was he the hope and the change. He became nothing more than a nasty partisan, throwing epithets at his rival. A president does not let himself be quoted as saying that his opponent is a "bullsh--ter" or that voting is the best "revenge." Even his dress was wrong. Instead of appearing in a dark suit, he dressed in an open-neck white shirt, trying to be everyman but succeeding only in not looking like a president.
• Since he offered nothing more than a negative campaign and a grab-bag of special-interest pleadings for single women, unions, college kids and minorities, Obama failed to inspire the turnout that he needed. Against Santorum and Gingrich, Obama could have made the case that their prospective presidencies were sufficiently dangerous that liberals and Democrats must rush to the polls to stop them. But against the congenial Romney, the warnings rang hollow.
• In the first debate, Obama was terrible. We'll likely find out what his excuses are after the polls close. Did he have the flu? Was it the altitude? Had he, as Bob Woodward suggested, just received a dose of bad news? Why did he appear distracted?
• Obama should have gotten the facts out quickly about Benghazi rather than let them drip, drip, drip out over six weeks. He could then have handled the crisis and won points for determination and toughness. Instead, to the very end, he looked like he was covering up the fact of a terrorist attack. Because he was.
• After Sandy, Obama visited New Jersey and surveyed the damage with Gov. Chris Christie (R). He should have stayed on the storm, superintending relief efforts, urging FEMA on, absorbing the lessons of Bush's failure to cope well with Katrina. Instead, he returned to the partisan wars and the strident speeches in swing states.
None of this should take away from Romney's brilliant campaign. By staying on the economy and not being tempted into side issues like Libya, Mitt kept the focus where it needed to be and never let up. His campaign's foray into Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Wisconsin was vital to his chances of victory. More about what Mitt did right in my post-election column on Thursday. But for now, let's celebrate the new president we are about to elect.
-
:-D
I sure hope he is right.
His reputation is on the line. Who will ever listen to him again if he is wrong?
Does he say anything about the Senate?
What good is Romney if he is up against a socialist Senate? :-o
-
Morris is also predicting that Republicans will win a decent majority in the Senate - essentially reversing the ratio that exists now.
-
I'm not liking the way Romney's lead has shrunk in the last week or two; especially in that undecideds seem to be breaking more for BO, which is contrary to form.
Certainly I pray that MR wins, but his compaign has been remarkably weak and passive. I would have rampaged every day on yet another weakness and failing of the past four years; I would have challenged the specious numbers asserted by BO; I would have challenged so much that has gone uncontested.
Anyway, God bless and protect America and our Constitution!
The Adventure continues!
-
As Mark Levin has been saying - getting Romney in the White House is only the first step. Our work will be just beginning. If the way he ran his campaign is any indication of how he will govern/deal with the Dems - we have our work cut out for us. But - the first step is getting him across the finish line - I think Dick Morris and Michael Barone are going to be quite close to correct in their predictions, both of which have Romney winning by a decent margin both the popular vote and the electoral vote.
-
We are elected not only the President and the direction of the Senate, but we are also choosing the next Supreme Court!
-----------
I hate to do more predictions at this late hour when I can so quickly be proven wrong. Before the first debate when things looked hopeless I told a friend Romney by 3. I think he needs to win by 2 or more to be sure to get the electoral college where he needs only 269.
Rasmussen's final is Romney 49, Obama 48. Way within the margin of sampling error in fact separated by only a few poll takers.
Soon we will find out if the polling results were systematically wrong. If so we will see a big Romney win and only in that scenario do R's carry the Senate. If the polls were essentially right it means a deadlock/recount scenario or a close Obama electoral win and a Dem Senate, divided congress. God help us.
The optimism around here comes from thinking we know the facts, a proven miserable favorable is running against a guy with a real chance to turn things around if the House and Senate will let him. All along we assumed people would see that, but so many people are invested in pointing fingers and taxing others that I don't have any idea how this plays out.
There are things I wish our side had done differently, but for now just say this:
GO OUT AND VOTE!! NOW!!!
When you get back, start calling people, the like-minded and the potentially undecided. Let your family, friends know where you stand and let them get used to knowing that they are going to be hearing from you every election day.
-
Life is tough. It is tougher when we are stupid. :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:
-
Life is tough. It is tougher when we are stupid. :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:
Very negative thoughts go through my mind right now about the future of our country.
-
Lets take those to the Future of the American Creed thread.
In the meantime, let the post mortem begin:
==============
Five ways the mainstream media tipped the scales in favor of Obama
By Rich Noyes
Fox News and other media outlets have projected that President Obama has been reelected to a second term. If, in celebrating his victory Obama wanted to give credit where credit is due, he might want to think about calling some of America's top journalists, since their favorable approach almost certainly made the difference between victory and defeat.
Reviewing the 2012 presidential campaign, here are five ways the media elite tipped the public relations scales in favor of the liberal Obama and against the conservative challenger Mitt Romney:
1. The Media’s Biased Gaffe Patrol Hammered Romney: The media unfairly jumped on inconsequential mistakes — or even invented controversies — from Romney and hyped them in to multi-day media “earthquakes.” Case in point: the GOP candidate’s trip to Europe and Israel in late July. A Media Research Center analysis of all 21 ABC, CBS and NBC evening news stories about Romney’s trip found that virtually all of them (18, or 86%) emphasized “diplomatic blunders,” “gaffes” or “missteps.”
Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer blasted the news coverage in an August 2 column, calling the trip “a major substantive success” that was wrapped “in a media narrative of surpassing triviality.”
Similarly, when the left-wing Mother Jones magazine in September put out a secretly-recorded video of Romney talking to donors about the 47% of Americans who don’t pay income taxes, the networks hyped it like a sensational sex scandal. Over three days, the broadcast network morning and evening shows churned out 42 stories on the tape, nearly 90 minutes of coverage. The tone was hyperbolic; ABC’s "Good Morning America" called it a “bombshell rocking the Mitt Romney campaign,” while ABC "World News" anchor Diane Sawyer declared it a “political earthquake.”
None of Obama’s gaffes garnered that level of coverage. After the president in a June 8 press conference declared that “the private sector is doing fine,” the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts gave it just one night’s coverage, then basically dropped the story — nothing further on ABC’s "World News" or the "CBS Evening News" in the weeks that followed, and just two passing references on the "NBC Nightly News."
And, when Obama infamously declared, “You didn’t build that,” ABC, CBS, NBC didn’t report the politically damaging remark for four days — and then only after Romney made it the centerpiece of a campaign speech.
2. Pounding Romney With Partisan Fact Checking: There’s nothing wrong with holding politicians accountable for the honesty of their TV ads and stump speeches, but this year the self-appointed media fact-checkers attacked Republicans as liars for statements that were accurate.
For example, a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporter writing for PolitiFact branded VP candidate Paul Ryan’s convention speech anecdote about the closing of the General Motors plant in his hometown as “false,” even though Ryan was correct in all of his details. The slanted review became TV reporters’ talking points; the next day on NBC, correspondent Chuck Todd grumped that while what Ryan said “was technically factual, by what he left out, [he] actually distorted the actual truth.” Matt Lauer greeted Ryan the following week in an interview on Today: “There are some people who are claiming that you played a little fast and loose with the truth....”
The same thing happened when Mitt Romney talked about Obama’s “apology tour” during the final presidential debate. While in 2009 Obama had, in fact, criticized the United States as “arrogant,” “derisive” and having “too often... set [our] principles aside,” the networks said to call it an “apology tour” was “false” because, as CNN’s John Berman tenuously insisted, “even if he was critical of past U.S. foreign policy, he issued no apologies.”
Writing in the New York Times August 31, correspondent Jackie Calmes scolded that “the number of falsehoods and misleading statements from the Romney campaign coming in for independent criticism has reached a level not typically seen.” That’s not true, either; Romney’s team was, at worst, guilty of highlighting those facts that best illustrated their points (something done by all politicians), and the Obama campaign certainly put out their share of tawdry TV ads and dubious campaign claims.
But with “truth cops” who mainly policed just the GOP side of the street, the media used “fact-checking” as another club to tilt the playing field in favor of the Democrats.
3. Those Biased Debate Moderators: Upset liberals scorned PBS’s Jim Lehrer for taking a hands-off approach in the first debate on October 3, with MSNBC analyst Howard Fineman slamming him as “practically useless” for not jumping into the debate on behalf of President Obama.
Such criticism may have encouraged the activist approach taken by ABC’s Martha Raddatz in the vice presidential debate October 11, and by CNN’s Candy Crowley in the October 16 town hall debate, as both of those journalists repeatedly interrupted the Republican candidate and larded the discussion with a predominantly liberal agenda.
Crowley earns extra demerits for taking the media’s penchant for faulty fact-checking to new heights when she jumped into the October 16 town hall-style debate to validate President Obama’s claim that he called the attack in Benghazi, Libya, “an act of terror” the very next morning. Crowley endorsed Obama’s story, telling Romney: “He did, in fact, sir, call it an act of terror.”
Not according to the transcript, which had Obama only speaking generically about how “no acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this nation,” not assigning that label to the violence in Benghazi.
Wrong though she was, Crowley became a heroine to many in the liberal media; ABC's Matt Dowd, for example, cheered: “What Candy Crowley did, I actually thought, was laudable....I hope we get to do more of that in this discourse.”
Moderators are supposed to ensure both sides get a fair hearing, not pick sides. By leaping into the fray, Candy Crowley epitomized the media’s itch to tilt the scales this year — again, in Obama’s favor.
4. The Benghazi Blackout: Right after the September 11 attack in Libya, the networks proclaimed that the events would bolster President Obama — “reminding voters of his power as commander-in-chief,” as NBC’s Peter Alexander stated on the September 14 edition of "Today." But as a cascade of leaked information erased the portrait of Obama as a heroic commander, the broadcast networks shunted the Benghazi story to the sidelines.
News broke online in late September, for example, that Team Obama knew within 24 hours that the attack was likely the result of terrorism. That starkly contradicted claims from White House press secretary Jay Carney, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, and President Obama himself that the attack was a “spontaneous” reaction to an anti-Muslim video posted on YouTube. Yet, ABC took nearly two days to bring this story to viewers, while CBS and NBC held off for three days.
This was, shamefully, the broadcast networks’ pattern in October: New developments exposing the administration’s failure to provide adequate security, or contradictions in their public statements, were either given stingy coverage or buried completely. The puzzle pieces revealed a disturbing failure of Obama’s national security apparatus, but the networks flitted in and out of the story, never giving it any traction.
Instead of an “October Surprise,” the networks engineered an “October Suppression” — keeping a lid on the boiling Benghazi story until Election Day. Who knows how voters might have reacted if the media had covered this story as tenaciously as they did Romney’s “47% gaffe”?
5. Burying the Bad Economy: Pundits agreed that Obama’s weakness was the failure of the US economy to revive after his expensive stimulus and four years of $1 trillion deficits. But the major networks failed to offer the sustained, aggressive coverage of the economy that incumbent Republican President George H.W. Bush faced in 1992, or even that George W. Bush faced in 2004 — both years when the national economy was in better shape than it is now.
According to a study conducted that year by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, from January through September of 1992, the networks ran a whopping 1,289 stories on the economy, 88% of which painted it in a dismal, negative light. That fall, the unemployment rate was 7.6%, lower than today’s 7.9%, and economic growth in the third quarter was 2.7%, better than today’s 2.0%. Yet the media coverage hammered the idea of a terrible economy, and Bush lost re-election.
In 2004, the economy under George W. Bush was far better than it is today — higher growth, lower unemployment, smaller deficits and cheaper gasoline — yet network coverage that year was twice as hostile to Bush than it was towards Obama this year, according to a study by the Media Research Center’s Business and Media Institute.
When Republican presidents have faced reelection, network reporters made sure to spotlight economic “victims” — the homeless man, the woman without health insurance, the unemployed worker, the senior citizen who had to choose between medicine and food. But this year, with an economy as bad as any since the Great Depression, those sympathetic anecdotes have vanished from the airwaves — a huge favor to Obama and the Democrats.
Given Obama’s record, the Romney campaign could have overcome much of this media favoritism and still prevailed — indeed, they almost did. But taken together, these five trends took the media’s historical bias to new levels this year, and saved Obama’s presidency in the process.
Rich Noyes, is research director for the Media Research Center.
-
Two points, and then I hope that we can begin to have a discussion which includes multiple viewpoints and civil discussion. I sincerely hope to see a return to civil discussion in this country.
1. Dick Morris is a blowhard. I've taken him to task elsewhere, but I hope others can see that his credibility at this point is shakey.
2. All the talk of unscientific polls, liberal bias in those polls, etc., etc., etc. There IS a method to the polls. They aren't perfect (hence the margin of error), but they consistently went for Obama. Even in the wake of the terrible Obama showing in the first debate, 538 had Obama with a 70% or so chance at reelection. It was at 90% yesterday morning. Not quite the conservative narrative. And statistical methods won the day. This will increasingly be the case, as the scientific method is improved with technology and the skill of the practicioner. The days of Dewey defeating Truman are gone.
So, given the president's victory, how do we heal as a country and as a people? What can be done, constructively, by us and others to assist in this process? What does the fact that all of the "rape" congressional candidates lost (Mourdock and Akin, the latter decisively in an election that he once had 7-9% lead in)? What does it say that many Tea Party candidates lost or nearly lost? Is the Brown loss in Massachusetts a referendum for the Tea Party in the same way his victory was pitched as such for Obama in 2010? What does it say that the GOP retained the House? Is it simple incumbency or other?
I look forward to meaningful dialogue with you for the next four years.
Prediction: Romney 325, Obama 213
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on November 5, 2012
Yup. That's right. A landslide for Romney approaching the magnitude of Obama's against McCain. That's my prediction.
On Sunday, we changed our clocks. On Tuesday, we'll change our president.
Romney will win the states McCain carried in 2008, plus: Florida, Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Minnesota.
In the popular vote, Romney will win by more than 5 points.
-
http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/11/06/mapping-romney-and-obama-field-offices/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+themonkeycagefeed+%28The+Monkey+Cage%29
"As expected, the number of offices in battleground states outpaces the number in other states. Florida and Ohio account for 235 of Obama’s 786 offices (30%), similarly for Romney (31%). Obama has broader coverage (all 50 states) and outpaces Romney everywhere except Utah and Missouri. Obama also has more offices in battleground states (e.g. Ohio has 131 Obama offices vs. 40 for Romney)."
-
Dick Morris is a blowhard. I've taken him to task elsewhere, but I hope others can see that his credibility at this point is shakey.
But his hair is so telegenic, his loyalties so expedient, and his scruples so lacking that it makes for great TV, assuming you enjoy the sound of fingernails on a blackboard muted by an unctuous grin.
All the talk of unscientific polls, liberal bias in those polls, etc., etc., etc. There IS a method to the polls. They aren't perfect (hence the margin of error), but they consistently went for Obama. Even in the wake of the terrible Obama showing in the first debate, 538 had Obama with a 70% or so chance at reelection. It was at 90% yesterday morning. Not quite the conservative narrative. And statistical methods won the day. This will increasingly be the case, as the scientific method is improved with technology and the skill of the practicioner. The days of Dewey defeating Truman are gone.
Well kinda. As a second amendment guy I have seen all sorts of dubious polling. The term "assault weapon," for instance, is essentially meaningless yet anti-gun politicians with MSM collusion have worked long and hard to make it appear that black guns are full up automatic weapons. They are not. Hence, when pollsters ask questions about assault weapons they tend to be furthering a false narrative as much as they are gathering data. Indeed, I wonder if all these late season MSM polls had asked "Do you approve of the President's handling of Benghazi," with the MSM explaining why the question is germane, would we have seen a shift in the polls? At the risk of going all McLuhan on you, perhaps we've transcended the "medium is the message" stage and are now on to "the measurements we create and then choose to report are the message."
So, given the president's victory, how do we heal as a country and as a people?
Heal what exactly? $16 trillion in debt and rising? Easy, stop borrowing money to spend. Is that likely to happen? No. Heal concerns over a vast system electronically monitoring Americans? Doubt we'll be shutting down the NSAs facility in Utah any time soon. Cease herding all Americans toward a socialized health care system? I suspect yesterday's result will be seen as an endorsement of that vast intrusion. And so on. First step toward healing is to stop picking at the wound. Fat chance.
What can be done, constructively, by us and others to assist in this process?
Ibid. What needs to be done is for freedom loving Americans to quit worrying about who sleeps with whom, put aside concerns about at what point a fetus becomes viable, and unite to toss statist off all stripes out. Alas, I think that what's coming to be known as the Free Sh!t Army comprised of statists and their charges have a leg up on the kind of organizing that will be required to surmount those of a statist bent.
What does the fact that all of the "rape" congressional candidates lost (Mourdock and Akin, the latter decisively in an election that he once had 7-9% lead in)?
That saying stupid stuff is ill advised, particularly in an environment where the MSM endlessly replays and inflates the gaffs on one side while averting their gaze from the gaffs of those they favor.
What does it say that many Tea Party candidates lost or nearly lost?
Relentless vilification works, particularly when forums where one can effectively respond to two-dimensional claims are so hard to come by.
Is the Brown loss in Massachusetts a referendum for the Tea Party in the same way his victory was pitched as such for Obama in 2010?
Hmm, despite the fact Brown worked relentlessly to change his Tea Party stripes and repackage himself in a manner he thought MA would find more progressively palatable? Think it's more of a tea leaves issue: Repubs don't often win national offices out of states as blue as MA, regardless of packaging effort.
What does it say that the GOP retained the House? Is it simple incumbency or other?
Incumbency for the most part. But at least it allows the hope that statist brakes might be applied every now and then.
-
Here are some of the points I have made along the way:
1) Romney et al flinched when it came to defining the cause of our economic malaise. They allowed Obama to say it was Bush when it was the housing bubble created by Fannie, Freddie, and the Fed with an assist from the Community Reinvestment Act. Romney should have been making this point with great vigor. The Dems were worse on this than the Reps. The Dems took Congress in 2006, Romney should have been vigorously presenting data organized around this, instead of "It's all Bush's fault and Romney wants to go back to that". The Dems were pushing Bush for not spending enough! Obama was a HUGE recipient of donations as a senator from Fannie and Freddie. MR should have made BO the poster boy of the housing bubble.
2) A flinch from the point that Ryan made against Biden about how Obama threw away what we did in Iraq by failing to establish an military forces agreement with the Iraqis. Instead, the Iraqis clearly saw and correctly understood that his will was lacking and so dismounted Baraq's weak horse and went with strong horses. Generally, Romney allowed Baraq to take an issue that has always been a Rep strength with his cardboard conservatism. I spoke of MR's tin ear on this many times. I started the Foreign Affairs thread here so that we can discuss the implications of moving from a uni-polar world back to a multi-polar world.
3) A thousand examples in this forum abound of things were strong attacks were there to be made e.g. should have hammered the Keystone Pipeline and the political reasons Obama blocked it. Yeah he mentioned it, but a much better case was there to be made.
4) Should have made a point of defining the unemployment rate as one including the number of people who have given up looking too i.e. a true rate currently near 11%.
5) Should have gone after Benghazi hard.
6) Should have had surrogates unleashed against the pravdas.
7) Should have unleashed Ryan to discuss the coming train wreck with spending and deficits.
8) Should have relentlessly pointed out that the proposed tax increases on the successful would generate only $80B a year.
9) Should have relentlessly pointed out that in effect BO increased taxes by increasing federal spending from 20 to 25% of GDP.
10) Allowed BO to get away with saying that our economic circumstances were the worst since the depression. NO. They were far worse when Reagan took office.
11) Overplayed the illegal immigration issue. When Newt spoke of going easy on granma who had been here 30 years, he chose the short term cheap political shop, leaving him no door to the latino vote, which was tough enough of a vote to begin with.
-
PS: I'm done with Dick Morris. In his own area of expertise he bet the house and lost the house.
Here is his explanation:
Why I Was Wrong
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on November 7, 2012
Printer-Friendly Version
I've got egg on my face. I predicted a Romney landslide and, instead, we ended up with an Obama squeaker.
The key reason for my bum prediction is that I mistakenly believed that the 2008 surge in black, Latino, and young voter turnout would recede in 2012 to "normal" levels. Didn't happen. These high levels of minority and young voter participation are here to stay. And, with them, a permanent reshaping of our nation's politics.
In 2012, 13% of the vote was cast by blacks. In 04, it was 11%. This year, 10% was Latino. In '04 it was 8%. This time, 19% was cast by voters under 30 years of age. In '04 it was 17%. Taken together, these results swelled the ranks of Obama's three-tiered base by five to six points, accounting fully for his victory.
I derided the media polls for their assumption of what did, in fact happen: That blacks, Latinos, and young people would show up in the same numbers as they had in 2008. I was wrong. They did.
But the more proximate cause of my error was that I did not take full account of the impact of hurricane Sandy and of Governor Chris Christie's bipartisan march through New Jersey arm in arm with President Obama. Not to mention Christe's fawning promotion of Obama's presidential leadership.
It made all the difference.
A key element of Romney's appeal, particularly after the first debate, was his ability to govern with Democrats in Massachusetts. Obama's one-party strident approach, so much the opposite of what he pledged in his first national speech in 2004, had turned voters off. But by working seamlessly with an acerbic Republican Governor like Christie, Obama was able to blunt Romney's advantage in this crucial area.
Sandy, in retrospect, stopped Romney's post-debate momentum. She was, indeed, the October Surprise. She also stopped the swelling concern over the murders in Benghazi and let Obama get away with his cover-up in which he pretended that a terrorist attack was, in fact, just a spontaneous demonstration gone awry.
Obama is the first president in modern times to win re-election by a smaller margin than that by which he was elected in the first place. McKinley, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton all increased their re-election vote share significantly. Obama's dropped from a 7 point margin over McCain to a 1 point margin over Romney.
That he could get re-elected despite his dismal record is a tribute to his brilliant campaign staff and the shifting demographics of America. This is not your father's United States and the Republican tilt toward white middle aged and older voters is ghettoizing the party so that even bad economic times are not enough to sway the election.
By the time you finish with the various demographic groups the Democrats win, you almost have a majority in their corner. Count them: Blacks cast 13% of the vote and Obama won them 12-1. Latinos cast 10% and Obama carried them by 7-3. Under 30 voters cast 19% of the vote and Obama swept them by 12-7. Single white women cast 18% of the total vote and Obama won them by 12-6. There is some overlap among these groups, of course, but without allowing for any, Obama won 43-17 before the first married white woman or man over 30 cast their vote. (Lets guess that if we eliminate duplication, the Obama margin would be 35-13) Having conceded these votes, Romney would have had to win over two-thirds of the rest of the vote to win. He almost did. But not quite.
If Romney couldn't manage this trick against Obama in the current economy, no Republican could.
But that doesn't mean we just give up. Obama barely won this election and we still have a Republican House of Representatives. We still have the ability - and more important, the responsibility - to fight to keep this great country as we know it and love it.
We must stop Obama's socialist agenda. That's our job for the next four years. We cannot allow Obama to magnify his narrow victory into a mandate for larger government, bigger spending, and less freedom.
This is not a call for gridlock. If Obama moves to the center and proposes moderate measures, we should support them. But that's unlikely.
So we have our work cut out for us.
-
Egg on face for someone was a certainty with all prognositcators on both sides sure of a big win. From my viewpoint, there was no way to know in advance that the demographic groups hit the hardest by the current policies would really all show up and vote for more of the same. I had to see it to believe it.
I agree it is foolish to ignore the preponderance of the polls, but if they are so good why are they so different from each other. Isn't Gallup as good as any, they had Romney up 6%; final Gallup was 1% Romney, and still wrong by 3. Was this election 8 points different a week ago? I don't think so.
A short time ago I was feeling sorry for our friend Denny S from Venezuela election, how powerless that must feel. Now I feel it. We know our leaders lie to us, take from us, our economy is a disaster under their policies, they crush our freedoms and with our fellow citizens we say hey, how about 4 and 6 more years of it!
Crafty's point one sums it up for me. Republicans took none of the credit for what went right during the economic and revenue growth of 2003-2006 and took all the blame for what went wrong after power in Washington switched to Pelosi Reid congress including the Fannie Mae Sen. Obama, 2 years before he became President. You can't have messaging that bad and then expect to win with the people. (George Bush's fault.)
One reason Republicans couldn't attack Democrats hard for our myriad of failed programs is that their own fingerprints are also all over them.
The other big lesson is that Romney was politically wrong to go positive. He needed to go positive in order to govern but he needed to go hard negative early in order to win. Obama went with hide the agenda and attack your opponent from every angle. Attack before people even meet him. Now Obama gets to govern, but not with my consent.
I would be happy to admit I am wrong and Dems are right on economics. Freedom leads to failure and the nanny state solves it all. Someone just post the evidence.
The point CCP has been making rung true, the point that Romney botched so badly. There are so many people, approaching a majority, who think they don't have to pay in so they don't care what it all costs. Obamacare, free food on the card, housing, utilities, transportation, Obama phone, you name it. Your unfunded government is your provider, not the taxpayers who used to fund it.
The same 'rational electorate' who chose Obama and a Dem senate just chose a Republican House by a wide margin. (Will the President and Senate now honor their mandate?) House Republican reelection makes even less sense, the approval rate for congress hit an all time low of 10% this year. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/14/congress-approval-rating-all-time-low-gallup-poll_n_1777207.html Divided government didn't provide much for checks and balances, look at the lack of discoveries coming out of the Fast and Furious hearings. It really just makes for an unworkable partnership.
Heal? I don't think so. Just agreeing to be governed against my will. For me, I will just try to step back and care a little less about the future of our country and survive personally. As (BBG put it) the statists will run more and more of our lives. I really feel sorry for the next generation but this is to a large extent their doing.
Now the downward spiral continues. The R. House cannot authorize taxes or spending that they don't believe in; they also have commitments to their voters. Without caving on one side or the other there can't be a solution to the fiscal cliff. Dems will blame Republicans for 2 years for debt ceilings, shutdowns and stalemates and then try again to win the House, 60 in the Senate, and get complete control over us - again. And then what?
Wesbury, how is that election-neutral forecast going? Any chance of a downturn when the top capital gains tax rate triples, except in California where rates are going up even more.
Summer of Recovery, coming in 2015, again, after all the gridlock. Worked so well last time.
------
On a more positive note: Bigdog, how did your telecast go?
-
Agreed with the above posts. All very discouraging. Bob Grant may be right - it is already too late.
How do we attract Latinos to the repub part without simply trying to out bid the crats with tax payer funded bribes?
How do we deal with illegals? Latino and non Latino? We just grant them amnesty? WE offter them the chance for student loans, food stamps, obamacare? throw in a "free" cell phone?
American values are clearly no longer held by an increasingly larger and larger number of people.
Crafty, did you ever start the "direction of the Republican party" thread.
I really don't know how to compete with cold hard cash - confiscated from taxpayers and given away "free benefits" to a larger and larger electorate. Nothing competes with cold hard cash for a vote.
We can talk about freedom, liberty, personal responsibility, smaller government, capitalism, everyone has a chance to succeed, etc. But that will not work too well against a party that stuffs greenbacks (funny money that doesn't exist - 16 and counting trillion in debt) into their constituents pockets.
We will go from an exceptional country to a second rate stagnant one.
-
James Tarranto (WSJ) wrote yesterday: Re-election would ensure he is accountable for the mess he inherits from himself.
-
The thread's name is "The Way Forward for the American Creed".
-
Two points, and then I hope that we can begin to have a discussion which includes multiple viewpoints and civil discussion. I sincerely hope to see a return to civil discussion in this country.
Like the civil discussion we got from the left in 2000 and 2004?
So, given the president's victory, how do we heal as a country and as a people?
Exactly how do you define "heal" in this case?
What can be done, constructively, by us and others to assist in this process? What does the fact that all of the "rape" congressional candidates lost (Mourdock and Akin, the latter decisively in an election that he once had 7-9% lead in)?
Because republicans won't support stupid candidates, unlike the other party....
What does it say that many Tea Party candidates lost or nearly lost? Is the Brown loss in Massachusetts a referendum for the Tea Party in the same way his victory was pitched as such for Obama in 2010? What does it say that the GOP retained the House? Is it simple incumbency or other?
For whatever reason, millions of republican voters sat this one out.
-
(http://www.wheels-near-u.co.uk/gallery2/d/2290-3/thelma-louise-mustang.jpg)
Everything is fine until you feel the impact.
-
I can only laugh, know that I live in a country that others describe as "third world," and know...that you all are not far behind.
-
I can only laugh, know that I live in a country that others describe as "third world," and know...that you all are not far behind.
I wish I could disagree .
-
Feeling very discouraged today, but that is an indulgence. Where to from here?
Got an email asking me to sign a petition to get rid of Boener as Speaker of the House and replace him with Paul Ryan. Don't know the provenance of the email, but it strikes me as a damn fine idea :-D
-
Dick Morris was in pretty good company with his wrong election forecast. Michael Barone is a quality professional IMO and called it the same: http://washingtonexaminer.com/barone-i-was-wrongwhere-it-counted/article/2512860#.UJyFQlKIggC Also http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/08/Polls-right-we-wrong and the Romney campaign itself: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57547239/adviser-romney-shellshocked-by-loss/?pageNum=1&tag=page
Jan Crawford /CBS News: They made three key miscalculations, in part because this race bucked historical trends:
1. They misread turnout. They expected it to be between 2004 and 2008 levels, with a plus-2 or plus-3 Democratic electorate, instead of plus-7 as it was in 2008. Their assumptions were wrong on both sides: The president's base turned out and Romney's did not. More African-Americans voted in Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina and Florida than in 2008. And fewer Republicans did: Romney got just over 2 million fewer votes than John McCain.
2. Independents. State polls showed Romney winning big among independents. Historically, any candidate polling that well among independents wins. But as it turned out, many of those independents were former Republicans who now self-identify as independents. The state polls weren't oversampling Democrats and undersampling Republicans - there just weren't as many Republicans this time because they were calling themselves independents.
3. Undecided voters. The perception is they always break for the challenger, since people know the incumbent and would have decided already if they were backing him. Romney was counting on that trend to continue. Instead, exit polls show Mr. Obama won among people who made up their minds on Election Day and in the few days before the election. So maybe Romney, after running for six years, was in the same position as the incumbent.
-
We are beyond the tipping point now. Exerting energy on politics is rearranging deck chairs when you need to get you and yours into a lifeboat.
Feeling very discouraged today, but that is an indulgence. Where to from here?
Got an email asking me to sign a petition to get rid of Boener as Speaker of the House and replace him with Paul Ryan. Don't know the provenance of the email, but it strikes me as a damn fine idea :-D
-
My disgruntlement with DM is due only in part to his being so wrong in his area of expertise.
This country has been in big trouble before (e.g. the Carter years) and my nature is to fight for what I believe. OTOH GM states what is also my sense of things.
-
Armchair doomsaying has been popular this week for understandable reasons, but those who train MAs ought to have a deeper perspective here, IMO. What do you when someone bites you in a street fight? Pull the impacted body part back as hard as you can causing flesh to rend, or do you drive it as deeply into the gullet as possible using your opponents gag reflex to create an opening?
Similarly I've had sundry gigs over the years where some sort of fiscal or organizational crisis occurred. I'm someone who embraces constant innovation, innovation that is often thwarted by the comfortably intransigent. A good crisis comes along, however, and all of a sudden even the hidebound will embrace change that appears more likely to preserve the status quo than the alternative. Guess who always has a plan to roll out when a crisis arrives?
America's current path is flat out unsustainable; a reckoning will occur. Think the hard core statist know this, with the worst of them hoping to force a new feudal order out of it, casting themselves as the lords and high priests. Think those of us on the other side need to be able to make forceful arguments for the antithesis: unadulterated liberty. Those favoring liberty will also need a plan for when all the unsustainable chickens come home to roost.
Watching the GOP prepare for the next election will be telling. Will it embrace a simple message of liberty or rather cater to its strident constituencies and then try to swing to the middle after an unelectable candidate is nominated once again? Will it drive unmarried women into the statist camp over abortion, or will it embrace liberty? Will it shed independent and libertarian votes by supporting the construction of a surveillance state that will surely be used by statists to enforce their ends, or will they embrace liberty? Will it drive Latinos and other immigrant groups into the statist camp or use the tactics posited by Krauthammer in the piece Crafty posted elsewhere and default to liberty?
I entertain no illusions: most who oppose abortion will be unable to support a message of unadulterated liberty. Those who posit an existential threat so vast that construction of a surveillance state infrastructure which will be usurped by statists must proceed despite its threat to liberty will continue to believe so. All who want illegals rounded up and booted out will not drop that cause in support of a message of liberty. That's okay. It will all become a part of the great big gag reflex headed this nation's way.
The Republican party arose out the crucible of the Civil War, a war caused by the unsustainable institution of slavery. The Republican party will join the Whigs and Tories on the ash heap of history if it does not develop an effective response to the unsustainable institutions looming today. It ought not be a difficult task. The statist would dictate everyone's energy consumption if they could; they would tell you what your child is allowed to learn in school; they would limit speech deemed hurtful to their ends; they would disarm us and leave us dependent; they would determine who was fit to heal, what was fit to eat, where one is permitted to live, how one pursues happiness, and tell us why doing so is good for us.
Ends such as those should not be hard to battle; creating a 51 percent constituency favoring liberty ought not be a Herculean task, unless we burden ourselves with issues congruent with statist ends. Perhaps there's another grail out there, another straightforward message I've missed, a means to get the citizenry to rally around founding virtues and surmount the unsustainable. If you have one please spit it out. If you don't have a method by which to move forward, however, you are part of the Great Big Gag that's looming and will be unprepared to take any advantage of the openings it brings.
-
"Guess who always has a plan to roll out when a crisis arrives?"
I was hoping that Romney/Ryan would get in and with their backgrounds, they'd get the engines to fire and pull the Enterprise out of the black hole. Unfortunately, there was no last second save. How many more trillions are we going to get dug into the next four years? Or will Buraq suddenly cut taxes, regulations and fire up the energy development (Real energy, not magical green energy that make billions of taxpayer dollars invisible in the blink of an eye) ?
"Will it drive Latinos and other immigrant groups into the statist camp or use the tactics posited by Krauthammer in the piece Crafty posted elsewhere and default to liberty?"
The hispanics in the statist camp are there not because of immigration, but because class warfare and free stuff taken from others is cool with them. Just like the others in the statist camp.
It's not a matter of if it will be the end of the America we knew, it's a matter of how fast and all the bad things that are going to happen as we progress to that point. The good news, if there is any, is that the culture of dependency will end. At some point, the EBT cards will stop working and the blue cities will burn as the morlocks consume the eloi within. Worst case, we have only a few months to prepare, best case some years before we see a cascading systemic collapse. Use the time you have to prepare and plan.
-
The hispanics in the statist camp are there not because of immigration, but because class warfare and free stuff taken from others is cool with them. Just like the others in the statist camp.
I haven't read the exit polling directly, but several sources I've encountered of late have said that Bush pulled in substantially more Hispanics than Romney and that Catholic Hispanics have their share of conservative issues that are trumped by the perceived "deport 'em all" GOP policy.
-
The hispanics in the statist camp are there not because of immigration, but because class warfare and free stuff taken from others is cool with them. Just like the others in the statist camp.
I haven't read the exit polling directly, but several sources I've encountered of late have said that Bush pulled in substantially more Hispanics than Romney and that Catholic Hispanics have their share of conservative issues that are trumped by the perceived "deport 'em all" GOP policy.
So we give up on the whole rule of law concept? Let's just get rid of that mean ol' border anyway.
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/332916
Why Hispanics Don’t Vote for Republicans
By Heather Mac Donald
November 7, 2012 12:20 P.M. The call for Republicans to discard their opposition to immigration amnesty will grow deafening in the wake of President Obama’s victory. Hispanics supported Obama by a margin of nearly 75 percent to 25 percent, and may have provided important margins in some swing states. If only Republicans relented on their Neanderthal views regarding the immigration rule of law, the message will run, they would release the inner Republican waiting to emerge in the Hispanic population.
If Republicans want to change their stance on immigration, they should do so on the merits, not out of a belief that only immigration policy stands between them and a Republican Hispanic majority. It is not immigration policy that creates the strong bond between Hispanics and the Democratic party, but the core Democratic principles of a more generous safety net, strong government intervention in the economy, and progressive taxation. Hispanics will prove to be even more decisive in the victory of Governor Jerry Brown’s Proposition 30, which raised upper-income taxes and the sales tax, than in the Obama election.
And California is the wave of the future. A March 2011 poll by Moore Information found that Republican economic policies were a stronger turn-off for Hispanic voters in California than Republican positions on illegal immigration. Twenty-nine percent of Hispanic voters were suspicious of the Republican party on class-warfare grounds — “it favors only the rich”; “Republicans are selfish and out for themselves”; “Republicans don’t represent the average person”– compared with 7 percent who objected to Republican immigration stances.
I spoke last year with John Echeveste, founder of the oldest Latino marketing firm in southern California, about Hispanic politics. “What Republicans mean by ‘family values’ and what Hispanics mean are two completely different things,” he said. “We are a very compassionate people, we care about other people and understand that government has a role to play in helping people.”
And a strong reason for that support for big government is that so many Hispanics use government programs. U.S.-born Hispanic households in California use welfare programs at twice the rate of native-born non-Hispanic households. And that is because nearly one-quarter of all Hispanics are poor in California, compared to a little over one-tenth of non-Hispanics. Nearly seven in ten poor children in the state are Hispanic, and one in three Hispanic children is poor, compared to less than one in six non-Hispanic children. One can see that disparity in classrooms across the state, which are chock full of social workers and teachers’ aides trying to boost Hispanic educational performance.
The idea of the “social issues” Hispanic voter is also a mirage. A majority of Hispanics now support gay marriage, a Pew Research Center poll from last month found. The Hispanic out-of-wedlock birth rate is 53 percent, about twice that of whites.
The demographic changes set into motion by official and de facto immigration policy favoring low-skilled over high-skilled immigrants mean that a Republican party that purports to stand for small government and free markets faces an uncertain future.
-
Gents:
Some very good conversation here. Lets take it over to The Way Forward for the American Creed please.
-
Paraphrasing Rush L. from Wed, in a nation full of children it is hard to defeat Santa Claus.
Glenn Beck put it this way during the campaign, freedom or free-stuff, choose one. (People did.)
VDH prescient in July: "[Pres. Obama] figures that he can by appeals to gays (gay marriage), those on entitlements (nearly fifty million are now on food stamps; 50% are paying no income tax or are on some sort of entitlement — or both), the greens (Keystone), the Latinos (de facto amnesty), feminists (“war on women”), the (fill in the blanks), etc." ... "to the extent someone might point to polling, he is met with “But the polls are biased!” Perhaps they are by 3-4 points. But right now, given the power of incumbency, the changing nature of the U.S., and the no-holds-barred methods of Barack Obama, the advantage is still all Obama’s — and almost all the polls show that." ... "the fact that purple-state Democrats up for reelection don’t want to be seen with Obama is understandable, but not necessarily a barometer of what Ohio, Florida, Colorado, and Virginia will do on Election Day."
-
Noonan: 'People Are Afraid of Change' Republicans got complacent. Now it's time to rethink.By PEGGY NOONANLike this columnist ..Article Stock Quotes Comments (1543) more in Opinion | Find New $LINKTEXTFIND$ ».smaller Larger facebooktwittergoogle pluslinked ininShare.4EmailPrintSave ↓ More .
.smaller Larger
President Obama did not lose, he won. It was not all that close. There was enthusiasm on his side. Mitt Romney's assumed base did not fully emerge, or rather emerged as smaller than it used to be. He appears to have received fewer votes than John McCain. The last rallies of his campaign neither signaled nor reflected a Republican resurgence. Mr Romney's air of peaceful dynamism was the product of a false optimism that, in the closing days, buoyed some conservatives and swept some Republicans. While GOP voters were proud to assert their support with lawn signs, Democratic professionals were quietly organizing, data mining and turning out the vote. Their effort was a bit of a masterpiece; it will likely change national politics forever. Mr. Obama was perhaps not joyless but dogged, determined, and tired.
Apart from those points, everything in my blog post of Nov. 5 stands.
So what does it all mean?
It's hard to improve on the day-after summation of the longtime conservative activist Heather Higgins, of Independent Women's Voice: "A majority of the American people believe that the one good point about Republicans is they won't raise taxes. However they also believe Republicans caused the economic mess in the first place and might do it again, cannot be trusted to care about cutting spending in a way that is remotely concerned about who it hurts, and are retrograde to the point of caricature on everything else." She notes that in exit polls Republicans won the "Who shares your values?" question but lost on the more immediately important "Who cares about people like you?" "So it makes sense that many . . . are comfortable with the Republicans providing a fiscal brake in the House, while having the Democrats 'who care' own the Senate and the Presidency. And that is what we got."
Ms. Higgins wasn't happy with it but accurately reported it.
Enlarge Image
CloseGetty Images
Watching Tuesday's election results at the Boston Convention & Exhibition Center, where Mitt Romney conceded after midnight.
.It is and has been a proud Republican assumption—a given, a faith—that we are a center-right country and, barring extraordinary circumstances, will tend to return to our natural equilibrium. That didn't happen this time, for reasons technical, demographic and I think attitudinal: The Democrats stayed hungry and keenly alive to the facts on the ground. The Republicans worked hard but were less clear-eyed in their survey of the field. America has changed and is changing, culturally, ethnically—we all know this. Republican candidates and professionals will have to put aside their pride, lose their assumptions, and in the future work harder, better, go broader and deeper.
We are a center-right country, but the Republican Party over the next few years will have to ponder again what center-right means. It has been noted elsewhere that the Romney campaign's economic policies more or less reflected the concerns of its donor base. Are those the immediate concerns of the middle and working classes? Apparently the middle class didn't think so. The working class? In a day-after piece, Washington Post reporters Scott Wilson and Philip Rucker wrote: "As part of his role, [Paul] Ryan had wanted to talk about poverty, traveling to inner cities and giving speeches that laid out the Republican vision for individual empowerment. But Romney advisers refused his request to do so, until mid-October, when he gave a speech on civil society in Cleveland. As one adviser put it, 'The issues that we really test well on and win on are not the war on poverty.'"
That is the authentic sound of the Republican political operative class at work: in charge, supremely confident, essentially clueless.
It matters when you show people you care. It matters when you're there. It matters when you ask.
The outcome was not only a re-election but on some level and to some degree a rejection.
Some voted for Mr. Obama because he's a Democrat and they're Democrats, some because he is of the left and they are of the left. But some voters were saying: "See the guy we don't like that much, the one presiding over an economy we know is bad and spending policies we know are damaging? The one who pushed through the health-care law we don't like, and who can't handle Washington that well? Well, we like that guy better than you."
That's why this election is a worse psychic blow for Republicans than 2008, when a confluence of forces—the crash, dragged-out wars, his uniqueness as a political figure—came together to make Barack Obama inevitable.
But he was not inevitable after the past four years. This election was in part a rejection of Republicanism as it is perceived by a sizeable swath of the voting public.
Yes, Mitt Romney was a limited candidate from a limited field. Yes, his campaign was poor. It's also true that the president was the first in modern history to win a second term while not improving on his first outing. He won in 2008 by 9.5 million votes. He won Tuesday night, at last count, by less than three million.
Still.
Many things would have propelled Mr. Obama to victory, but one would be a simple bias toward stability, toward what already is. People are anxious, not as hopeful as they were. Two memories. One was a late-summer focus group of mothers who shop at Wal-Mart WMT -0.23%. One asked, paraphrasing, "If we pick Romney, does that mean we have to start over again?" Meaning, we've had all this drama since 2008, will that mean we're back at the beginning of the crash and have to dig out all over again? The other is a young working mother in Brooklyn, a member of an evangelical church, who told me 10 days ago her friends had just started going for Mr. Obama. Why? "People are afraid of change right now."
When America is in a terrible economic moment and the political opposition can't convince people that change might be improvement, then something's not working.
***
A big rethink is in order. The Republican Party has just been given four years to do it. They should get going. Now. For clarity they could start with essential, even existential, questions. Why does the party exist? What is its purpose? What is possible for it in the new America? How can it prosper politically while leading responsibly?
From there, the practical challenges. Some of these are referred to as "the woman problem" or "the Hispanic problem"—they presumably don't like the GOP. But maybe they think the GOP doesn't like them. What might be the reasons?
Those who say no change is needed, who suggest the American people just have to get with the program, are kidding themselves and talking in an echo chamber. What will they do if the same party comes forward in 2016 to the same result?
The great challenge for the Republican Party now is how to change its ways without changing its principles. Its principles are right and have long endured because they're right. But do all the party's problems come down to inadequate marketing, faulty messaging, poor candidates? Might some of it be policies, stands, attitudes?
That will be a subject here in the future. For now, in politics as in life, you have to play the hand you're dealt. You have to respect reality. Which is where conservatism actually starts, seeing what is real.
-
noonan seems confused.
"The great challenge for the Republican Party now is how to change its ways without changing its principles. Its principles are right and have long endured because they're right. But do all the party's problems come down to inadequate marketing, faulty messaging, poor candidates? Might some of it be policies, stands, attitudes?
What the heck is this jumble of crap?
Look it is simple. We have the country receiving benefits and half that don't.
What policies, stands, and attitudes are faulty? The Constitution? What because Romney did not pander and try to buy off Latinos with immigration reform? Because a few evangelicals made foolish political comments about abortion?
The only message I can think of that does need to be better is not just saying we "care".
Does she think Romney would have won if he didn't say the "47%" (which is absolutely true BTW)?
The only thing the Republicans can do to stick with their principles and to fight for America is somehow convince all thes new faces of color (Asians and Latinos), and the old faces of color (Blacks and some Latinos) that they are making a BIG mistake voting Democrats. The Democrat party will keep them and the rest of this party poor. Trickly up poverty as Radio host Savage describes. Drag down the wealth producers and we all go down. Now Obama has just said that is good. He said well all go up or down together. Obviously many have bought the koolaid. But more importantly more like the handouts. We have to somehow convince more people this is doomed to failure.
I don't know if we can accomplish this though. We will see over the next four years as times get worse and our debt goes up.
I am not looking forward to the pain. I wish I was independently wealthy as I would otherwise be very up for the fight. I just don't have any resources.
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/333116/edge-abyss-mark-steyn
November 9, 2012 4:00 P.M.
The Edge of the Abyss
The default setting of American society is ever more liberal and statist.
By Mark Steyn
Mark Steyn
Amid the ruin and rubble of the grey morning after, it may seem in poor taste to do anything so vulgar as plug the new and stunningly topical paperback edition of my book, After America — or, as Dennis Miller retitled it on the radio the other day, Wednesday. But the business of America is business, as Calvin Coolidge said long ago in an alternative universe, and I certainly could use a little. So I’m going to be vulgar and plug away. The central question of Wednesday — I mean, After America — is whether the Brokest Nation in History is capable of meaningful course correction. On Tuesday, the American people answered that question. The rest of the world will make its dispositions accordingly.
In the weeks ahead, Democrats and Republicans will reach a triumphant “bipartisan” deal to avert the fiscal cliff through some artful bookkeeping mechanism that postpones Taxmageddon for another year, or six months, or three, when they can reach yet another triumphant deal to postpone it yet again. Harry Reid has already announced that he wants to raise the debt ceiling — or, more accurately, lower the debt abyss — by $2.4 trillion before the end of the year, and no doubt we can look forward to a spectacular “bipartisan” agreement on that, too. It took the government of the United States two centuries to rack up its first trillion dollars in debt. Now Washington piles on another trillion every nine months. Forward!
If you add up the total debt — state, local, the works — every man, woman, and child in this country owes 200 grand (which is rather more than the average Greek does). Every American family owes about three-quarters of a million bucks, or about the budget deficit of Liechtenstein, which has the highest GDP per capita in the world. Which means that HRH Prince Hans-Adam II can afford it rather more easily than Bud and Cindy at 27b Elm Street. In 2009, the Democrats became the first government in the history of the planet to establish annual trillion-dollar deficits as a permanent feature of life. Before the end of Obama’s second term, the federal debt alone will hit $20 trillion. That ought to have been the central fact of this election — that Americans are the brokest brokey-broke losers who ever lived, and it’s time to do something about it.
My Hillsdale College comrade Paul Rahe, while accepting much of my thesis, thought that, as an effete milquetoast pantywaist sissified foreigner, I had missed a vital distinction. As he saw it, you can take the boy out of Canada but you can’t take the Canada out of the boy. I had failed to appreciate that Americans were not Euro-Canadians, and would not go gently into the statist night. But, as I note in my book, “a determined state can change the character of a people in the space of a generation or two.” Tuesday’s results demonstrate that, as a whole, the American electorate is trending very Euro-Canadian. True, you still have butch T-shirts — “Don’t Tread On Me,” “These Colors Don’t Run” . . . In my own state, where the Democrats ran the board on election night, the “Live Free or Die” license plates look very nice when you see them all lined up in the parking lot of the Social Security office. But, in their view of the state and its largesse, there’s nothing very exceptional about Americans, except that they’re the last to get with the program. Barack Obama ran well to the left of Bill Clinton and John Kerry, and has been rewarded for it both by his party’s victory and by the reflex urgings of the usual GOP experts that the Republican party needs to “moderate” its brand.
I have no interest in the traditional straw clutching — oh, it was the weak candidate . . . hard to knock off an incumbent . . . next time we’ll have a better GOTV operation in Colorado . . . I’m always struck, if one chances to be with a GOP insider when a new poll rolls off the wire, that their first reaction is to query whether it’s of “likely” voters or merely “registered” voters. As the consultant class knows, registered voters skew more Democrat than likely voters, and polls of “all adults” skew more Democrat still. Hence the preoccupation with turnout models. In other words, if America had compulsory voting as Australia does, the Republicans would lose every time. In Oz, there’s no turnout model, because everyone turns out. The turnout-model obsession is an implicit acknowledgment of an awkward truth — that, outside the voting booth, the default setting of American society is ever more liberal and statist.
The short version of electoral cycles is as follows: The low-turnout midterms are fought in political terms, and thus Republicans do well and sometimes spectacularly well (1994, 2010); the higher-turnout presidential elections are fought in broader cultural terms, and Republicans do poorly, because they’ve ceded most of the cultural space to the other side. What’s more likely to determine the course of your nation’s destiny? A narrow focus on robocalls in selected Florida and New Hampshire counties every other fall? Or determining how all the great questions are framed from the classroom to the iPod to the movie screen in the 729 days between elections?
The good news is that reality (to use a quaint expression) doesn’t need to swing a couple of thousand soccer moms in northern Virginia. Reality doesn’t need to crack 270 in the Electoral College. Reality can get 1.3 percent of the popular vote and still trump everything else. In the course of his first term, Obama increased the federal debt by just shy of $6 trillion and in return grew the economy by $905 billion. So, as Lance Roberts at Street Talk Live pointed out, in order to generate every dollar of economic growth the United States had to borrow about five dollars and 60 cents. There’s no one out there on the planet — whether it’s “the rich” or the Chinese — who can afford to carry on bankrolling that rate of return. According to one CBO analysis, U.S.-government spending is sustainable as long as the rest of the world is prepared to sink 19 percent of its GDP into U.S. Treasury debt. We already know the answer to that: In order to avoid the public humiliation of a failed bond auction, the U.S. Treasury sells 70 percent of the debt it issues to the Federal Reserve — which is to say the left hand of the U.S. government is borrowing money from the right hand of the U.S. government. It’s government as a Nigerian e-mail scam, with Ben Bernanke playing the role of the dictator’s widow with $4 trillion under her bed that she’s willing to wire to Timmy Geithner as soon as he sends her his bank-account details.
If that’s all a bit too technical, here’s the gist: There’s nothing holding the joint up.
So Washington cannot be saved from itself. For the moment, tend to your state, and county, town and school district, and demonstrate the virtues of responsible self-government at the local level. Americans as a whole have joined the rest of the Western world in voting themselves a lifestyle they are not willing to earn. The longer any course correction is postponed the more convulsive it will be. Alas, on Tuesday, the electorate opted to defer it for another four years. I doubt they’ll get that long.
-
CCP:
I retain fondness for Noonan (I absolutely loved her Reagan book "When Character was King") but I agree, she has become increasingly wooly headed. Your criticisms have merit.
-
http://www.ftportfolios.com/Commentary/EconomicResearch/2012/11/19/election-musings
-
When Obama campaign aides surveyed the field of Republican presidential hopefuls early on, they saw a certain handsome Mormon candidate and thought he’d be trouble in a general election showdown.
It wasn’t Mitt Romney.
Jon Huntsman is the former Utah governor who took a moderate stance in a GOP field that leaned to the right. He didn’t get very far in the Republican nomination fight, but team Obama viewed him as a serious candidate who could pose real problems in a general election.
“We were honest about our concerns about Huntsman,” Obama campaign manager Jim Messina said at a Politico breakfast event Tuesday. “I think Huntsman would have been a very tough candidate.”
As for the president, he liked Mr. Huntsman enough to appoint him ambassador to China in 2009. Mr. Messina, who was working in the White House at the time, said he helped Mr. Huntsman win Senate confirmation.
“As someone who helped manage his confirmation for Chinese ambassador, he’s a good guy,” Mr. Messina said. “We looked at his profile in a general election and thought he would have been” a formidable candidate. Politico’s video of the remarks is here.
Mr. Huntsman’s candidacy never caught on. In 2011, he sent out a tweet affirming that he believed in evolution and trusted “scientists on global warming.”
“Call me crazy,” Mr. Huntsman said at the time.
So, did the White House shuttle Mr. Huntsman off to China in hopes of forestalling a presidential bid? Was the Obama team looking to remove Mr. Huntsman from the “chessboard?” asked moderator Mike Allen of Politico.
“No, I thought he was a committed American who would serve our country well, and he did,” Mr. Messina replied.
At that, the audience chuckled.
-
How ironic that the Russian Pravda is now reporting truth about the United States and our ignorant voters, while the U.S. media shills for the Obama administration:
Obama's Soviet Mistake
By Xavier Lerma - November 26, 2012
Putin in 2009 outlined his strategy for economic success. Alas, poor Obama did the opposite but nevertheless was re-elected. Bye, bye Miss American Pie. The Communists have won in America with Obama but failed miserably in Russia with Zyuganov who only received 17% of the vote. Vladimir Putin was re-elected as President keeping the NWO order out of Russia while America continues to repeat the Soviet mistake.
After Obama was elected in his first term as president the then Prime Minister of Russia, Vladimir Putin gave a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in January of 2009. Ignored by the West as usual, Putin gave insightful and helpful advice to help the world economy and saying the world should avoid the Soviet mistake.
Recently, Obama has been re-elected for a 2nd term by an illiterate society and he is ready to continue his lies of less taxes while he raises them. He gives speeches of peace and love in the world while he promotes wars as he did in Egypt, Libya and Syria. He plans his next war is with Iran as he fires or demotes his generals who get in the way.
Putin said regarding the military,
"...instead of solving the problem, militarization pushes it to a deeper level. It draws away from the economy immense financial and material resources, which could have been used much more efficiently elsewhere."
Well, any normal individual understands that as true but liberalism is a psychosis . O'bomber even keeps the war going along the Mexican border with projects like "fast and furious" and there is still no sign of ending it. He is a Communist without question promoting the Communist Manifesto without calling it so. How shrewd he is in America. His cult of personality mesmerizes those who cannot go beyond their ignorance. They will continue to follow him like those fools who still praise Lenin and Stalin in Russia. Obama's fools and Stalin's fools share the same drink of illusion.
Reading Putin's speech without knowing the author, one would think it was written by Reagan or another conservative in America. The speech promotes smaller government and less taxes. It comes as no surprise to those who know Putin as a conservative. Vladimir Putin went on to say:
"...we are reducing taxes on production, investing money in the economy. We are optimizing state expenses.
The second possible mistake would be excessive interference into the economic life of the country and the absolute faith into the all-mightiness of the state.
There are no grounds to suggest that by putting the responsibility over to the state, one can achieve better results.
Unreasonable expansion of the budget deficit, accumulation of the national debt - are as destructive as an adventurous stock market game.
During the time of the Soviet Union the role of the state in economy was made absolute, which eventually lead to the total non-competitiveness of the economy. That lesson cost us very dearly. I am sure no one would want history to repeat itself."
President Vladimir Putin could never have imagined anyone so ignorant or so willing to destroy their people like Obama much less seeing millions vote for someone like Obama. They read history in America don't they? Alas, the schools in the U.S. were conquered by the Communists long ago and history was revised thus paving the way for their Communist presidents. Obama has bailed out those businesses that voted for him and increased the debt to over 16 trillion with an ever increasing unemployment rate especially among blacks and other minorities. All the while promoting his agenda.
"We must seek support in the moral values that have ensured the progress of our civilization. Honesty and hard work, responsibility and faith in our strength are bound to bring us success."- Vladimir Putin
The red, white and blue still flies happily but only in Russia. Russia still has St George defeating the Dragon with the symbol of the cross on its' flag. The ACLU and other atheist groups in America would never allow the US flag with such religious symbols. Lawsuits a plenty against religious freedom and expression in the land of the free. Christianity in the U.S. is under attack as it was during the early period of the Soviet Union when religious symbols were against the law.
Let's give American voters the benefit of the doubt and say it was all voter fraud and not ignorance or stupidity in electing a man who does not even know what to do and refuses help from Russia when there was an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Instead we'll say it's true that the Communists usage of electronic voting was just a plan to manipulate the vote. Soros and his ownership of the company that counts the US votes in Spain helped put their puppet in power in the White House. According to the Huffington Post, residents in all 50 states have filed petitions to secede from the Unites States. We'll say that these Americans are hostages to the Communists in power. How long will their government reign tyranny upon them?
Russia lost its' civil war with the Reds and millions suffered torture and death for almost 75 years under the tyranny of the United Soviet Socialist Republic. Russians survived with a new and stronger faith in God and ever growing Christian Church. The question is how long will the once "Land of the Free" remain the United Socialist States of America? Their suffering has only begun. Bye bye Miss American Pie! You know the song you hippies. Sing it! Don't you remember? The 1971 hit song by American song writer Don McLean:
"And, as I watched him on the stage my hands were clenched in fists of rage.
No angel born in Hell could break that Satan's spell
And, as the flames climbed high into the night to light the sacrificial rite, I saw...
Satan laughing with delight the day the music died
He was singing, bye bye Miss American Pie
Drove my Chevy to the levee, but the levee was dry
Them good ol' boys were drinking whiskey and rye, singing...
This'll be the day that I die
This'll be the day that I die
So, the question remains:
How long will America suffer and to what depths?
Xavier Lerma
Contact Xavier Lerma at xlermanov@swissmail.org
His popular articles can be seen at http://xlerma.wordpress.com/
Hyperlink to Pravda is mandatory if you republish this article.
Дмитрий Судаков
Copyright © 1999-2012, «PRAVDA.Ru». When reproducing our materials in whole or in part, hyperlink to PRAVDA.Ru should be made. The opinions and views of the authors do not always coincide with the point of view of PRAVDA.Ru's editors.
-
Thought I might comment on this tread.
I am a firm believer in "Generational Theory", a Cycle Theory that society operates along generational lines, with every 4th Generation being a "Crisis Generation". This has been seen time and again since the 1400's. For the US, Pre Revolutionary Times about 1760s to 1780s was a Crisis, followed by the Pre Civil War period, the mid 1920s to 1940s, and again about 2005 for the latest cycle. In each 4th Generation, the US has undergone transformative changes, that have uniquely changed the culture and politics. What the changes will be can never be predicted, but once the crisis begins, then the changes cannot be stopped.
This election, at least for me, was in many ways, a "non-event". Though I thoroughly detest Obama, I knew that no matter how good Romney might have been, nothing would change, even if Romney had been elected. The powers that be were too well entrenched into society, and the "looters", or "renters" as it is called now, would not walk away from what they could take from the populace. (This applies to Crony Capitalists also.)
Most will agree that the US is not far from a complete financial collapse. With continued increasing debt, and with the likelihood of increasing taxes, there is no way out of where we are, at least in a "reasonable" and "less harmful" manner. Because of this, I was "torn" hoping that Romney would win, and delaying any collapse, or having Obama winning and then hastening the collapse.
At this point, I foresee that the US will continue its march to collapse. We will muddle through into the 2016 elections, and likely having another Dem president, even after a fiercely fought campaign over the economy, debt and deficit. People simply will not wish to make the sacrifices needed to "save" the Republic from collapse.
Probably about 2018, the feared "Crisis Trigger" will occur. It might be financial, military, or another event that will bring into play the "revolutionary zeal" that each previous crisis has had occur. At that time, the "Me Generation", born from the Mid 60's to the Mid 80"s will take the reins and lead the country into the "New Republic", in whatever manner and shape to come. The 80's to 2004 Generation will be the one whereby the "burden of change", likely warfare, will fall on their heads.
From this Crisis, a New Republic will rise from the ashes, in a form that we could not likely predict at this time.
-
I hope we have that much time to prepare. I fear we have anywhere from a few months to a few years at best.
-
A results page:
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/index.html
Clickable map for states at the link. Crafty, YOU will like this map.
"Key: This Site uses Red for Democrats and Blue for Republicans".
Votes are still not all counted, still being updated.
Barack H. Obama, Joseph R. Biden, Democratic 64,175,423 50.79% 332 Electoral
Willard Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Republican 60,044,046 47.52% 206
Gary Johnson, James P. Gray, Libertarian 1,247,710 0.99%
Jill Stein, Cheri Honkala, Green 452,497 0.36%
Other 426,307 0.34%
One thing striking above is that President Obama the corporate cronyist had no real challenge from the third party left. Had this been close, the Libertarian at 1% could have swung it for Obama.
As ugly as group against group politics is, we need to get the final tally on all the major divided-America groups before we close this thread IMHO.
-
GM,
I believe that we will have a few years to prepare individually for what is to come. The government will try to use any method available to prevent a crash, and will manage to put it off until at least the next election.
I am working to prepare my own finances to allow my family, kids and grand kids, to be able to live through the crisis to come. In the event of war, the gradson will still be too young to get drafted, so he should be immune from it. If I can just get him and his sister fully funded, then I can rest easy.
-
Crafty, YOU will like this map.
"Key: This Site uses Red for Democrats and Blue for Republicans".
8-) 8-) 8-)
Agreed that this thread is not quite done.
-
Glass half full. Voters in off-year elections who follow the process more closely choose Republicans. Voters chose Republicans again for the House of Representatives which was perhaps more issue oriented where the Presidential race was more personal.
Cherry picking some exit poll results for glimmers of hope:
Obamacare: 44% said they believe the program should be expanded or left as it is. 49% said they wanted the program fully repealed or partially repealed.
Income tax rates: 13% of Americans said they favored raising income tax rates for all citizens. 47% said those earning over $250,000 a year should be taxed more.
33% said taxes should be raised to help cut the budget deficit, 63% saying no more taxes.
Size of Government: 43% said government should do more to solve problems. 51% of voters agreed with the statement that “government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals.”
Ideology: 41% of Americans said they were moderate, 35% said they were conservative, 25% described themselves as liberal.
Tea Party: 63% of voters say that they either support the tea party or are “neutral” toward it.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/2012-election-exit-polls/2012/11/25/id/465284?s=al&promo_code=10E10-1#ixzz2DSFc4Yt2
-
This is absolutely on-target. Whittle is one of the wisest conservative voices out there, IMHO:
http://blip.tv/davidhorowitztv/bill-whittle-6444929
-
This is absolutely on-target. Whittle is one of the wisest conservative voices out there, IMHO:
http://blip.tv/davidhorowitztv/bill-whittle-6444929
Obj, Bill Whittle IS excellent. Wow. Thank you for great post! I wrote some time ago that what Republicans and conservative need to win is clarity. Bill Whittle exudes clarity while our candidates exude meandering thoughts and muddled messages.
-
Mitch Daniels is the latest to point to the 47% remark as the problem. I thought there would be a constant drip of these clandestine gaffe releases and there wasn't. Romney should have reacted strongly to correct that to what it was and let it be more than that.
This was the biggest turning point of the 2012 campaign, totally unmentioned by all the professional analysts: NFIB v Sebelius, the Roberts decision on Obamacare.
Strike that down and Romney could point out the difference between a Massachusetts plan and a federal takeover of healthcare - one was constitutional, one wasn't. One man who hinted that America could just strike it down in the election removed the entire argument, that his signature achievement was unconstitutional, from the Presidential campaign.
(Side note: I will read this holiday season what I was too angry to read last summer, the decision in its entirety, and hope to discuss it in detail over on the constitutional thread if anyone else is interested.)
-
(Side note: I will read this holiday season what I was too angry to read last summer, the decision in its entirety, and hope to discuss it in detail over on the constitutional thread if anyone else is interested.)
A bit of advice, spend your time on better things to read and squeeze every bit of joy out of the holidays.
-
Doug:
Many key moments in the campaign, but I agree that the Obamacare decision was both huge and unmentioned in this context.
-
Wrapping up the old year's politics with two different looks with hindsight, Peggy Noonan and Michael Barone below.
Peggy Noonan today: "...the most wrongheaded criticism of the year. The thing I denigrated not only turned out to be important—it was probably the most important single element in the entire 2012 campaign.
In writing about what struck as the president's essential aloofness, I said there were echoes of it even in his organization. I referred to a recent hiring notice from the Obama 2012 campaign. "It read like politics as done by Martians. The 'Analytics Department' is looking for 'predictive Modeling/Data Mining' specialists to join the campaign's 'multi-disciplinary team of statisticians,' which will use 'predictive modeling' to anticipate the behavior of the electorate. 'We will analyze millions of interactions a day, learning from terabytes of historical data, running thousands of experiments, to inform campaign strategy and critical decisions.' "
This struck me as "high tech and bloodless." ... It was unlike any politics I'd ever seen. And it won the 2012 campaign. They didn't just write a new political chapter with their Internet outreach, vote-tracking data-mining and voter engagement, especially in the battleground states. They wrote a whole new book. And it was a masterpiece.
----------------
Michael Barone sees it differently:
"Barack Obama got 6 percent fewer popular votes than he had gotten in 2008. And Mitt Romney got only 1 percent more popular votes than John McCain had four years before."
"[Obama carried Florida by 1 percent, Ohio by 3 percent, Virginia by 4 percent, and Colorado and Pennsylvania by 5 percent."
----------------
Yes, there was an amazing turnout operation for Obama to not slide even worse. But the bottom line is that Romney failed to inspire more people to switch or to just come vote for him. Failure to bump up the Republican vote by a mere 5 or 6% over McCain's disaster in 2008 cost Romney those 5 battlegrounds and the election.
-
Pres. Obama "held onto 95% of the people who supported him in 2008" - Karl Rove today:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323374504578217314219235692.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion
That is amazing. Still it should have been enough lost support to defeat him.
Knowing that minds are really hard to change, I would have guessed 5% of his 2008 voters would have stayed home because the hope change hype made no improvement but they still aren't Republicans, and 5% would switch sides and vote the other way. That would have been enough to change the result and would have changed our policies already, even before inauguration.
-
A horrible thought
In the one surviving photo of Lincoln's inauguration one can see a person standing not more than twenty feet away who is identified as John Booth.
Hey it ain't me. Obama and his teamsters love to compare him to Lincoln.
http://news.yahoo.com/big-party-democrats-quiet-reflection-gop-130531648--politics.html
-
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Abraham_Lincoln_giving_his_second_Inaugural_Address_%284_March_1865%29.jpg
-
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=Av178uk.1in179vSQFFoJKSbvZx4?p=john+booth+in+lincoln+photo&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-701
-
After you see the circled guy in the second post above you can go to the first and enlarge and see exactly who they identify as JWB.
-
And for the record I absolutely would not want him assassinated.
Even more BLVDs, airports, government buildings, schools and the rest will be named after him and he will be elevated to virtual sainthood.
-
Interesting. There are two people identified in the photo as maybe being JWB. One is enlarged in my second post of photos and one can make out a figure that has a resemblance to JWB. You cannot really see it without the photo being enhanced while the other guy a little farther to the right who also may be JWB is much clearer.
Is there any record of JWB definitely claiming to have been there?
-
Well, not to worry-- with Biden as VP the chances of BO being assassinated are quite low :lol: -- which may have been one of the reasons Biden was chosen for the job :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
http://www.rollcall.com/news/obamas_inaugural_address-220934-1.html
-
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/01/21/scalia-wears-martyrs-cap-to-inauguration/
-
One suspects that was not a coincidence , , ,
-
http://www.mercatornet.com/Newsletterv0810/view_txt/mitt_romneys_bad_day
Mitt Romney’s Bad Day
Matthew J. Franck | 4 July 2013
It is worse than trite, it is downright tautological, to observe that in American presidential elections, there are always winners and losers. But bear with me for a moment. I mean to say that winners win, and losers lose. No, that’s not much of an improvement. What I am really trying to get at is that the outcomes of our elections are not foreordained by ineluctable forces of history.
More than that: neither is any victorious candidate, whether an incumbent or not, simply bound to win because of his record, his character, the condition of the country, media bias, events during the campaign, or the mood of the electorate. Nor is any defeated candidate simply bound to lose for any such reasons.
The independent variable above all others in our elections is the actions of the candidates during the campaign—their words and deeds—and these actions are above all matters of choice on their parts. Prudent or canny choices on one side, and imprudent or dunderheaded choices on the other, account more powerfully for the outcome than the GDP, the inflation and unemployment rates, or crises in international affairs. Winners are responsible, never entirely but always in part, for winning, and losers likewise for losing.
As Shaw observes, “the 2012 election was a could-win election for the Republicans. Could is the key word.” To defeat an incumbent is always an uphill struggle, but it was certainly not the case in 2012 that President Barack Obama could not have been beaten. And it is false that Mitt Romney was a man who could not have beaten him. He could have. Why didn’t he?
Gabriel Schoenfeld, a Hudson Institute senior fellow, former senior editor of Commentary, and veteran observer of national security and foreign affairs, is well-positioned to fill in some of the reasons that Mitt Romney did not win a winnable—albeit long-shot—presidential election. (Full disclosure: Schoenfeld was affiliated with the Witherspoon Institute prior to his employment in the Romney campaign, and I commented on the book in draft form.)
First writing for the Romney campaign as an outside consultant, he joined the operation full-time in the late summer of 2011 as a writer of speeches and other campaign materials, and remained a campaign senior adviser to the bitter end. In his brisk new e-book, A Bad Day on the Romney Campaign: An Insider’s Account, Schoenfeld looks backward and forward from one pivotal day in the campaign—September 11, 2012—that exemplified both cause and effect of Romney’s loss, along several dimensions.
September 11, 2012, was the “Bad Day” of the title because of the Romney campaign’s egregious misstep, taken in response to the news that anti-American mobs were engaged in violent attacks on our diplomatic missions in Cairo, Egypt and Benghazi, Libya.
Our embassy in Cairo put out a statement in apologetic tones about “misguided individuals” (alluding to an obscure video maker) who “hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.” Without taking the time to get their facts straight—and ignoring a prior decision, made at the highest levels, that this anniversary would not be a day for partisan assaults on the president—the campaign’s top foreign policy hands put out a statement that night, in Romney’s voice and with his approval, that claimed that “the Obama administration’s first response” to the news out of the Middle East was “to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”
When it turned out that the true object of this criticism was not “the Obama administration” but a foreign service officer in Cairo acting contrary to orders, and that subsequent events proved even worse, with the death of the American ambassador to Libya and three others in Benghazi, Romney looked like a desperate candidate who had gone off half-cocked, acting opportunistically on incomplete information at a moment of crisis in our foreign affairs.
As more facts came to light about Benghazi that made the president and his administration look bad—as inept or deceptive or both—Romney was in no convincing position to take a just advantage of Obama’s shortcomings or vulnerabilities. Thus, on the subject of Benghazi, the Republican candidate was effectively muzzled in his debates with the incumbent, and the president won through to November with no substantial electoral damage from this event.
How did the Romney campaign put itself in a position where it was practically compelled to forfeit a serious foreign-policy issue to the president? Therein lies the burden of Schoenfeld’s book, which convincingly argues that Mitt Romney surrounded himself with “professionals” in the campaign business who served him ill, especially with respect to his own lack of experience in the field of foreign affairs, time after time.
Moreover, these hacks and flacks turned a man with considerable virtues—smart, likable, and highly capable—into a candidate easily caricatured as plutocratic, out of touch, and unprepared for real leadership. They pursued a “technocratic” and “preposterously robotic approach” to scripting the campaign, animated by a “crude materialist conception of politics” in which the candidate needs only to be packaged like the latest in whitening toothpastes in order to win.
Sadly, Romney himself evidently bought this view of our political order, as he demonstrated in his infamous comment that 47 percent of the electorate had already been bought off by President Obama’s determination to make them dependent on the government. And Romney hired the “professionals” who thought this way, and signed off on their strategy—and so to a large extent deserved his fate on election day. The country, on the other hand, deserved better.
Schoenfeld focuses most consistently on what he knows best—the field of international relations and national security—without pretending that the Romney campaign’s missteps in this field can comprehensively explain its defeat. But the campaign’s largest strategic error was of enormous dimensions: the decision to make the challenge to Obama turn entirely on the state of the domestic economy, and the president’s record on that front. This could be seen as playing to Romney’s strengths as a businessman and a fairly successful governor, but it meant downplaying, practically to zero, any serious investment of campaign resources in building up Romney where he was obviously weak, on the foreign-policy side. And it too reflected a purblind understanding of what voters care about, or can be persuaded to care about.
Aside from chief strategist Stuart Stevens, probably the most powerful figure in the Romney campaign was Lanhee Chen, a four-degree product of Harvard in his early thirties who was “senior policy adviser” on both domestic and foreign affairs, but who appears to have known essentially nothing in the latter field.
Working under him was his even younger friend Alex Wong, who knew more than Chen but was still too inexperienced to be saddled with the heavy responsibilities of “foreign-policy coordinator.” Between them, Chen and Wong formed a nearly impenetrable screen between Romney and the outside foreign-policy experts the campaign had itself engaged to give the candidate advice. It seems that they did not want anyone questioning their own acumen, nor their prior decision that time spent on foreign policy was a “costly distraction” from hammering on the Obama record on the domestic economy.
And so Mitt Romney stumbled from one gaffe to the next in the field where all Americans recognize that the president has unique and nearly exclusive responsibilities—the conduct of American diplomacy and the safeguarding of the nation’s safety and interests.
Whether it was commenting on the Chinese government’s treatment of the dissident Chen Guangcheng; or engaging and then losing a campaign foreign policy spokesman because of a vetting failure; or the candidate stepping all over his own message on a visit to London; or an eleventh-hour draft of a national convention speech that conspicuously failed to mention that the nation was at war or to thank the troops fighting overseas—time and again, the campaign suffered from its complete absence of any senior adviser on foreign policy who could have the candidate’s ear at will or travel with him as needed. When the anniversary of September 11 arrived, a pop quiz on foreign affairs gravitas was sprung on Mitt Romney and his campaign, and they flunked it.
Schoenfeld is candid about his own helplessness, one rung down from the Stevens-Chen-Wong level of the campaign, to do anything about what he was witnessing as it happened. Though he was senior in years to the young chieftains, he lacked any prior experience in the “profession” of electoral politics; he was hired for his considerable gifts as a writer but had not previously written speeches for other men’s voices and rhythms, and he reports that the campaign “burned through” speechwriters one after another.
But as an analyst and commentator on American national security policy and foreign affairs who has followed politics closely as a journalist for a long time, Schoenfeld’s “insider’s account” shows the virtues of an outsider who got inside for a look. Unlike his erstwhile campaign colleagues, he has no future career in electoral campaigns to guard and protect. And one detects no wounded pride in him, no rancorous recriminations for not having been better appreciated by Romney or his top people.
So, standing now outside the suffocating house afire that was the campaign, and viewing the smoldering wreckage of it, he asks, what were these people missing about American politics that they should have understood? What was at the root of their strategic errors? Here is Schoenfeld’s answer, a painful one to give for an author who professes a lingering fondness for the candidate he served:
“A pinched understanding of human motivation led Romney to believe that a significant fraction of the voters had been bought off. They would be unalterably closed to his arguments no matter how cogent they were. That same pinched understanding led him to say things that repeatedly earned him opprobrium. It also led him to choose campaign strategists who reduced the high art of democratic politics—persuasion through reason and rhetoric, the heart of genuine political leadership—to the low crafts of polling and advertising.”
The value of A Bad Day on the Romney Campaign, for conservatives but not only for them, is its warning that our political life is too important to be turned over to the cynical “professionals” who promise better electoral results through more sophisticated data crunching and sales methods. What conservatives—but not only they—need to relearn is the meaning of statesmanship. This small book is a spur to such relearning.
Matthew J. Franck is the Director of the William E. and Carol G. Simon Center on Religion and the Constitution at the Witherspoon Institute.
-
I don't know. I think the previous article is full of hot air.
It didn't help Romney has zero charisma. Indeed I don't recall anyone on this right of center board falling over their own feet getting to the head of the line to cheer for him during the Republican primaries.
I disagree with this statement:
“A pinched understanding of human motivation led Romney to believe that a significant fraction of the voters had been bought off. They would be unalterably closed to his arguments no matter how cogent they were. That same pinched understanding led him to say things that repeatedly earned him opprobrium. It also led him to choose campaign strategists who reduced the high art of democratic politics—persuasion through reason and rhetoric, the heart of genuine political leadership—to the low crafts of polling and advertising.”
Polling most certainly did help Obama win. Even Rove admits that the crats were way ahead of the Republicans with daily continuous polling data not static once a quarter stuff.
The Republicans were relying on polls that were flawed. I recall Axelrod, when asked before the election what about the Rasmussen polls and he blew them off as "flawed". Unfortunately he *was* right.
And if this author thinks that it is easy to sell ideals like "freedom" liberty" "Constitution", etc. against cold hard cash in your pocket courtesy of taxpayers than he must reside in fairy land.
Until Republicans can come up with a strategy that is an appealing alternative to the 75% who live from paycheck to paycheck and have someone with charisma to persuade voters they will always fight the uphill battle. IMHO of course.
-
Noonan: How Obama Wooed the Middle Class
It took both painstaking research and a ruthless attitude.
By
PEGGY NOONAN
Dan Balz's "Collision 2012" is the best presidential campaign chronicle in many years. It is a great book, in part because it isn't about what happened as much as about how people in the campaigns were thinking. It is unusual in that it gives proper place to the impact of thought on political outcomes.
The Obama campaign had a lot going for it in 2012, but a lot going against it, too, most obviously the economy. A year before the election Americans weren't sure who the president was. He held himself at bay, observes Mr. Balz: "An Obama friend once suggested to me that the teleprompter was a perfect metaphor for the president, a physical symbol of how he kept the world at arm's length." His ties with the institutional Democratic Party were "minimal." Members of his own White House were still trying to explain his ideology and leadership style. One compared the president's relationship with the left to Lincoln's with the radical Republicans who thought him too cautious, when in retrospect he was daring.
Others around President Obama said he was no centrist like Bill Clinton. He saw no particular virtue in staking out the middle or splitting differences. Compared with Mr. Clinton, Obama "had less capacity to put himself in the minds of his opponents, to understand where they were coming from and why," Mr. Balz writes. That hindered his ability to negotiate successfully with Republicans in Congress, which in turn damaged his reputation for competence.
So the Obama campaign faced real challenges. But they loved research and data, which they used to help think it all through.
They knew the economy was the president's biggest obstacle to re-election, that they couldn't win a referendum on his economic stewardship. They wanted a way to "leapfrog" the immediate economic debate. In Iowa they convened a focus group of independents who had supported Obama in 2008 but voted Republican in 2010. They found themselves fascinated by one frustrated man in his 50s. An Obama adviser summed up the man's stated grievances: "I can't send my kid to college next year. . . . I haven't had a raise in five years. . . . I am sick and tired of giving bailouts to the folks at the top and handouts to the folks at the bottom. I'm going to fire people [politicians] until my life gets better."
That is as succinct a summation as I've seen of how the American middle class has been thinking the past few years: The guys at the top and the bottom are taken care of while I get squeezed.
The Obama people took his comments seriously. It would be nice to say they were primarily looking for policies to help him, but their job was politics: They sought ways to reach him, to make him an Obama voter.
What followed was a "massive research effort" to help the Obama campaign develop a message. They came to see a long erosion, in the words of an aide, "of what it meant to be middle class in America."
The campaign asked middle-aged, middle-income Americans to keep online financial journals. Over 100 people took part, twice a week for three weeks. The Obama campaign did not reveal it was behind the effort. Participants were asked such questions as whether or not they were putting off various purchases, or buying a used car rather than a new one. They were also asked: When was the last time you were treated unfairly at work? The journals yielded 1,400 pages of raw material.
I'll add here that when I told a young friend, a professional in her 20s, about this, she asked: "Do they have to do things like that to understand their own country?" Yes, they do. Ideology is only part of it. The American political consultant class lives rarified lives. Business is good for them in the modern democracies and likely always will be. That's true of those on the Republican side, too.
What followed the journals was a series of focus groups in which members, according to an aide, "shared a strong sense that America was changing in a way that was out of their control." They felt the old rules of the economy no longer applied. They didn't know how to get ahead anymore, and they feared sliding behind.
The groups revealed that the American dream meant less to younger workers than to older ones. Here a departure from the book. There is pervasive confusion about what the American dream is. We seem to have redefined it to mean the acquisition of material things—a car, a house and a pool. That was not the meaning of the American dream a few generations ago. The definition then was that in this wonderful place called America, you can start out from nothing and become anything. It was aspirational. The limits of class and background wouldn't and couldn't keep you from becoming a person worthy of respect, even renown. If you wanted to turn that into houses and a pool, fine. But you didn't have to. You could have a modest job like teacher and be the most respected woman in town.
When we turned the American dream into a dream about materialism, we disheartened our young, who now are forced to achieve what we've defined as success in a straitened economy.
Back to the book. The Obama campaign's research produced three findings. The first was obvious: People were dissatisfied with the economy. Second, people hadn't quite given up on the president. Third, they weren't sure he was up to the job. They feared the nation's problems were bigger than he was, and they criticized his failed negotiations with the Republicans in Congress. Amazingly, people in focus groups kept bringing up Lyndon Johnson, who knew how to knock heads and twist arms. A campaign aide told Mr. Balz, "I've never had so many damned references to Lyndon Johnson in my life!"
Washington journalists usually blame Mr. Obama's failures to work with Congress on the GOP—its tea-party nuttiness, its "nihilism." But the president's own focus groups, which didn't contain Obama haters on the assumption they were unreachable, put the onus on him: It's your job, make it work, get it done.
The Obama campaign decided not to make the campaign about the state of the economy but about who could look after the interests of the middle class in a time of historic transition. At the same time they decided to go after Mitt Romney hard, and remove him as a reasonable alternative. His selling point was that he understood the economy and made it work for him: He was rich. They turned that into a tale of downsizing, layoffs and rapacious capitalism. An Obama adviser: "He may get the economy, he may know how to make money . . . but every time he did, folks like you lost your pensions, lost your jobs."
Somehow the Romney campaign never saw it coming.
Republicans, now and in 2016, should remember the colorful but not at all high-minded approach of Obama campaign manager Jim Messina. "My favorite political philosopher is Mike Tyson," he told Mr. Balz. "Mike Tyson once said everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." Obama's people punched first, and hard.
-
And the Winner: Mitt Romney
The latest WashPo/ABC News poll asks voters, if the election between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama were held today, who would win? The results: Romney beats Obama 49 percent to 45 percent. And a new Gallup poll reveals 56 percent of Americans now believe that government should NOT be in charge of who has what healthcare.
-
I am pretty excited to watch this. If others watch it, I'd be interested in your takes. Thanks!
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116250/mitt-netflix-documentary-best-thing-romney-campaign
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/mccain-beaten-obama-dick-morris-tv-history-video/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports