No Left Turns - The Ashbrook Center Blog

Published in Elections

Elections

The Democratic Nominee

Obama formally launched his re-election campaign this weekend at Ohio State University, and the occasion bodes well for Republicans. As the Columbus Dispatch reports:

...the event fell short of the 20,000 supporters the campaign had forecast as organizers moved people from seats to the arena floor in front of the dais to project fullness to television audiences. Obama volunteers had worked feverishly over the last week to gin up a crowd, making multiple calls to residents believed to be supportive of the president.

Twitter was abuzz with photos and comments about vast areas of empty seats in the arena's upper deck.

One such photo is below.

obamafail.png 

Obama's first-term celebrity status and the excitement with which it was accompanied has vanished. He will thus be forced to rely upon his record in order to compensate for the loss of enthusiasm among his erstwhile constituency. That effort was not helped by Friday's news that the "portion of Americans in the work force is at its lowest percentage since 1981." Coincidentally, 1981 would be the year that Carter conceded defeat after a single term in office to Ronald Reagan.The Obama-Carter parallels continue to arise.

The Obama campaign's efforts to divide the nation and distract voters from the economy have thus far fizzled and failed. Such attempts have proved uninspiring and ripe for mockery, such as the ridiculous claim that Romney would not have killed Bin Laden, parading out a government-dependent, ward-of-the-state power-point character named Julia as the latest evidence of a "war against women" and declaring the campaign motto to be the socialist-styled, "Forward" (to which Romney promptly replied, "What, off the cliff?).

Obama's campaign is off to a rough start. Voter disappointment in his weak record of accomplishments and America's continuing economic slump weigh against Obama's favor. As Ohio reveals, the election is practically tied at the moment (an unenviable situation for the incumbent candidate) and Obama faces a strong head-wind.
Categories > Elections

Elections

Julia

Julia has been the talk of the town here in Washington lately. President Obama's reelection campaign has come out with the "Life of Julia" on the campaign website, contrasting how Julia's life under President Obama would be different than under a Romney presidency. The Heritage Foundation has retorted with "A Better Life of Julia" on its website, while some libertarian-minded friends of mine have come up with their own vision of Julia's life here. All tell the tale of Julia, a name that has even been trending on Twitter of late. Biased as I am, though, I think the better story of Julia is told in this song by Chantal Kreviazuk and my uncle Johnny. The pair were sitting in a restaurant somewhere in Hollywood some years back and saw Julia Roberts at another table, so they decided to write a song about the pretty woman from Pretty Woman. Interesting refrain of the song, given the current use of the name: "Do they use you and then lose you/When you get scared again?/They could never forget you/But they could say they said your name,/Julia." Then there's always the song by the Beatles. "Half of what I say is meaningless/But I say it just to reach you,/Julia." Yes. Let's stick to the songs.
Categories > Elections

Elections

What Are Young People Thinking?

In today's New York Times, Charles Blow highlight a survey released this week by Harvard University's Institute of Politics which "asked respondents ages 18 to 29 to choose between pairings of issues to determine which ones they felt were more important."

Among domestic issues, creating jobs almost always won, while combating climate change almost never did. Immigration is also a losing issue (except when paired with climate change), while access to affordable health care is a winner.

"Reducing the role of big money in U.S. elections," a reference to the Citizens United decision which liberals had hoped to convert into a powerful election issue, also seems to be a non-starter among the young. One must doubt whether Obama's ruckus over student loan interest rates will have any effect, as well.

On the foreign affairs front, the youth vote cares about withdrawing from Afghanistan, combating terrorism and preventing a nuclear Iran. They are not particularly concerned about North Korea or solving the EU's troubles.
Categories > Elections

Elections

Quote of the Year

I nearly missed this one from Michelle Obama a few days ago:

"This President has brought us out of the dark and into the light."

I must say, Barack found himself a devoted and faithful bride in Michelle. This administration has a record that only a mother could love. But Michelle is still praising her man with psalmic reverence.

The quote, of course, mirrors 1 Peter 2:9:

...who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.

The Biblical quote references the messiah, though one wonders if the same is true for both quotes. Perhaps Michelle would subscribe to the whole verse, with minor substitutions:

But you are a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people: that you may declare his virtues, who has called you out of darkness into his marvelous light: Who in times past were not a people: but are now the people of [Obama].

After all, until Obama's ascension, America was a nation of "uninvolved," "uninformed," "complacent" "cynics" and "sloths," who were "guided by fear," whose "souls are broken" and who were "just downright mean." Michelle had never felt pride in America until Obama was elected. So it would not be difficult to imagine that America is now a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people, because it has declared Obama's virtues and become his people - a people called out of the darkness and into his marvelous light.

Is such an interpretation any less delusional than the claim that Obama has somehow delivered America out of darkness and into the light?
Categories > Elections

Elections

The General Election Begins

WaPo called the GOP primaries for Romney today, declaring "Mitt Romney's 'veepstakes' begin." WaPo's short-list includes Christie, Jindal, Rubio, McDonnell, Thune, Pawlenty, Ryan, Daniels, Portman and Susan Martinez. I'd halve the list to Rubio, McDonnell, Pawlenty, Ryan and Daniels. Regardless, it is obvious that the primaries are now effectively over. The New York Times also noted today, "Obama, Romney shift to general election."

The race for president shifted dramatically Friday into a general election matchup between President Obama and Republican Mitt Romney as the candidates delivered dueling, sharp-tongued speeches about the president's leadership.

Santorum and Gingrich - and all who hope to see Obama as a one-term president - should now put aside grudges, vanities and distractions in order to support Romney's up-hill battle to unseat the incumbent. The rest of America has moved past the foregone GOP primaries and is focused on the general election - the GOP would be wise to immediately do likewise.
Categories > Elections

Politics

What's Right about Kansas

Tim reposts a thumbnail portrait showing what's right about Kansas (other than some silly regulation), on the day of the Kansas primary-caucuses. This reminds me of my quick visit to Russell, KS in 1996, home at various points of both Bob Dole and Arlen Specter. Be sure to hit the A&W Root Beer when driving through Russell!
Categories > Politics

Elections

Romney will take Ohio

It seems pretty certain now that Romney will take Ohio.  Momentum is on his side, and has been for days.  I talked to two people who were lukewarm in their support of Romney until the Rush Limbaugh comment (combine that with Santorum bringing up things the people have decided on their own a generation ago); now they are sure they want someone who is stable and predictable and conservative enough.  Obama has to be beaten, they say. And I just remind you that he was the conservative candidate against McCain last time around.  For what it's worth, I predict he takes Ohio by five points.  The rest of the states on super Tuesday are just numbers, but Ohio is a moral victory.  The rest of the primaries are mere details to this.  From now on Romney should talk only about his programs and why Obama should lose.

Categories > Elections

Elections

Romney's Sell-Out Potential

"Given the increasingly likelihood that Romney is on his way to the GOP nomination," Steven Hayward has begun "Deconstructing Romney" over at Power Line. The theme of his first post contemplates his hope that, while Romney is far from a conservative star, "maybe he'll sell out to us."

It's a somewhat sad commentary on the times that the conservative movement must hope that our soon-to-be standard-bearer will betray his ostensible principles and pursue conservative policies. Obama was a far-left liberal who pretended to be a moderate during the campaign and subsequently governed as a far-left liberal. Nothing surprising there. Romney is a moderate running as a conservative - the manner of his actual governance is completely open to speculation.

Hayward (and the writers to whom he links) has a plausible argument that Romney will stay the rightward course. But wouldn't it be nice if we didn't need to speculate over plausible arguments?

Categories > Elections

Elections

Florida

I don't have much to say on the Florida primary that hasn't been said by others.  My assumption is that the creation of majorities in our republic
is--has always been--a messy business, and we shouldn't be surprised
that this GOP primary is messy and blurry, made more so by an
unimpressive media that focuses only on the fleeting.  Yet, the fog is
lifting now and it is becoming clearer that the only candidate who is
both a conservative and is able to practice the politics of
inclusion--of pulling folks toward his views on how to revivify
limited constitutional self government, and therefore creating a majority--is
Mitt Romney.  His impressive victory in Florida reveals this.  It is clear to me
now that he can and will cobble together a majority within the GOP because 
he is a smart man, a conservative, and let us admit, a well balanced individual.  
It is now also clear that his campaign is well run.  Gingrich, this so called man 
of ideas--all of them disconnected from one another and almost blurted out
as his ungovernable will may demand--is ungraciously appealing to--as he calls it--people power instead of financial power.  This makes me feel as if I'm participating in politics of the 
Philipines, instead of our constitutional republic.  This is not impressive and it is not conservative.  Gingrich, I should add, is  also tired, languid, and seems a bit desperate.  Romney should take the high ground from now on (he has made his point that he can be a tough guy)--as he did in last night's speech--and he will walk into the convention with a majority of the delegates and everyone will know he will have deserved  his victory.
Categories > Elections

Elections

Preemptive Politics

Good advice from Paul Rahe:

The Republicans should start right now -- pitching their campaign against "the do-nothing Democratic Senate." If they do so -- in, say, cheap radio advertisements all over the country -- it will throw a very large monkey wrench into the Democratic plan, and it will lay the foundation for their taking a large number of seats in the Senate.

Categories > Elections

Elections

Iowa

Even though the outcome doesn't seem surprising because the polls
started revealing the likely outcome a few weeks ago, yet we should be
surprised that Romney won.  We should also be surprised that Santorum rose so high,
but in my opinion, he is just picking up left-over votes in
Iowa. No one expected this outcome, including Romney's people, a month ago.
Romney's campaign was, rightly in my mind, until about four or five weeks
ago, willing to give up Iowa. Then they saw an opening, in part
created by the Gingrich decline, and moved into it whole hog, a great
tactical move that will allow him to take New Hampshire by storm. And he should continue to grow in strength from now on. His last real battle will be in South Carolina, where Santorum will give him a bit of a run, but he then will fade, for he can only get so far
picking up Huckabee voters. And Ron Paul will fall into his more or
less natural 10 to 15 percent. The only surprise now will be if Romney
doesn't become the Republican nominee.  I also do not think it is a wise
argument to assert that Romney has a low ceiling problem. That ceiling will 
be overcome as the focus turns to him and he is allowed to make the case that he is a conservative; because he is, that shouldn't be difficult.  If I were him I would now focus entirely on Obama and how he differs.  The only real problem in his rhetoric is health care.  He should come out squarely against Obamacare, explain why he wants to repeal it, and stay away from talking about his Massachusetts program.

There is plenty of good commentary on the Iowa outcome and what it means. Go to NRO and 
Categories > Elections

Elections

Is it Romney?

The latest Gallup poll has Romney ringing in the new year at the top of the pack yet again. The theme of the 2012 Republican primary has been one challenger after another racing after Romney, only to shine for a moment and quickly burn out. Thus far, Romney has shown amazing endurance and his rivals have served only to distract the Democrat's ire from the once and future GOP forerunner.

Power Line's John Hinderaker recently issued a full-throated endorsement of Romney, quickly followed by a strong endorsement, on different foundations, from Ann Coulter. Chris Christie is speaking at Romney rallies. This isn't to say that the race is over. Power Line is a house divided, with Johnson and Hayward still resisting the potential inevitability of a Romney victory. But if Gingrich fades and Santorum fails to rise, the options are running thin.

NLT hasn't really come out screaming in favor of a (viable) candidate. Peter Schramm seems to be supporting Romney (or at least opposing Gingrich) along the lines of George Will and Ramesh Ponnuru. I tend to agree. While I'm not in love with Romney any more than the next conservative, he seems to fulfill the Buckley Rule without any aberrations which make him absolutely unpalatable.

This is all just a survey of the present lay of the land. I don't feel sufficiently compelled to root for Romney, and so am still willing to entertain opposition. And, politically, I think it's good for Romney to have continuing opposition - once he becomes the heir apparent, the left's political machine will begin a non-stop smear campaign which is presently diffused among the GOP field. Romney's star rose early, but constant competition has kept him from becoming a bore and beginning to descend.

Nonetheless, conservatives might want to begin privately accepting that Romney will be the party's standard-bearer in 2012.

Categories > Elections

Elections

Is the GOP Field Set?

Ron Paul has surged to first place in Iowa, and will probably maintain his position or at least a strong second by the very nature of the caucuses and Paul's enthusiastic supporters. It is important to note that Iowa is generally unimportant when it comes to setting the final nominee, but it can have an effect on donations and momentum. New Hampshire's libertarian bent, combined with a victory in Iowa, could give Paul a boost there, and Jon Huntsman is finally beginning to see his own numbers rise in the Granite State. A close victory for Romney over Gingrich in New Hampshire with Paul and Huntsman on their heels could do away with any "momentum" candidates hope to achieve going into South Carolina, where Gingrich is trumping Romney, and where Paul and Bachmann are both maintaining steady support that could swing up. Gingrich recently won the Tea Party poll--only barely beating out Bachmann. Florida is still up for grabs, and the latest Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal by its popular former governor are leading some to say the field is not set. Is it possible that someone can jump in to swoop up fresh-faced momentum before the major state primaries and their many delegates are up for grabs? If no one else jumps in, I would add that a Paul surge is probably very good for Mr. Romney.
Categories > Elections

Elections

Gingrich is not the one

There are many reasons why Newt Gingrich--the least conservative candidate--will not outlast Mitt Romney, George Will notes one big one: Gingrich faulted Romney for "committing acts of capitalism"   I also like the reference to Romney's "animal spirits," and also to Gingrich's "verbal ticks."  You might also want to read Ramesh Ponnuru's lengthy piece on Romney and why he should be elected.
Categories > Elections

Elections

Fortuño for the GOP?

Among a range of up-and-coming Latino leaders in the Republican Party is the relatively-unknown, fairly experienced, and ambitious Luis Fortuño, governor of Puerto Rico, and his name is beginning to make the circles as a potential nominee for the Vice Presidency next year. The Georgetown and University of Virginia-educated lawyer served four years as Puerto Rico's representative in Congress, where he held the chairmanship of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and is a member of the National Republican Committee. Prior to that he oversaw Puerto Rico's tourism industry and served as Secretary of Economic Development and Commerce. He was elected governor in 2009, and is currently the leader of the Southern Governors' Association and the Council of State Governments, as well as an Obama nominee to the bipartisan Council of Governors. His governorship has been marked by slashing the size of government and pushing a pro-growth economic agenda.

While his nomination would be a long-shot, choosing the governor of this far-southeastern territory makes more sense than having chosen the governor of that far-northwestern state. Youthful and eloquent, he could bring to the table a particular knowledge of problems in our own hemisphere as he must work frequently with our neighbors in the Caribbean. He could also help usher in a new conservative coalition in the country, and he seems to be interested in doing just that. Governor Fortuño is surely going to be someone to watch in coming years and, perhaps, next year.
Categories > Elections

Elections

Obama's Osawatomie Talk

Here is the whole of it and here is yesterday's Letter from an Ohio Farmer ("Ceasars and Presidents"), sent out about an hour before Obama spoke and, ironically, it is directly related; it uses the 1912 election to make a few points that are directly relevant to the Osawatomie speech.
I think this is an important speech. It revives hope and change, but makes it better, revives him as an angry populist who thinks that the United States--rightly understood--really begins with the Progressive movement; and explains why they all think Progressive, New Deal, Great Society legislation is more sacrosanct than the Constitution.  The purpose of government has changed.  The meaning of equality and liberty has changed.  If I were a Republican running for the presidency I would reply to this (and to Teddy's 1910 Osawatomie talk) as soon as I could.  This is a great opportunity.
Categories > Elections

Elections

Post-Debate Thoughts

I ended up working and attending the debate here in Washington last night; it was an interesting experience. Saw Steve Hayward briefly as he was coming in; he beat me to sharing his notes on the debate over at Power Line. Do read them. The most interesting part of being there in person was gauging audience and candidate reactions. Some things are small--such as Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman being the only ones remaining on stage during breaks, while Michele Bachmann was always running back onto the stage at literally the last second--and others big. The reactions of the live audience are important to shaping the tone of the room. When Cain made his "Blitz" mistake about Wolf Blitzer, the crowd struggled to hold in their laughter, and it was the prolonged giggling that finally clued Cain into his mistake a little while into his answer and allowed him to correct himself. Answers from Perry, Santorum, and Cain most often seemed to elicit eye-rolls, head-shakes, and uncomfortable shifting in the seats. Responses from Gingrich, Paul, Huntsman, and Romney tended to draw the most support, with Paul also receiving his own fair share of eye-rolls in the midst of applause for him.

One of the most interesting exchanges of the night was on the immigration question. Gingrich managed to address it far, far better than Perry has been struggling to over the past few months, and the crowd reacted well to it--Newt's immigration answers drew a lot of applause from the audience. Thought that was interesting. Overall, it was a good night for Gingrich and he'll hold onto his place as the non-Romney candidate for now. Perry and Cain, meanwhile, both continued to have bad nights as they exhibited a sore lack of preparation for addressing foreign policy. I shared some of my real-time notes and pictures over on Twitter. This was the eleventh debate of the primary season; we have three more to go before the Iowa Caucuses on January 3rd, and five more before the New Hampshire primary on January 10th. 
Categories > Elections

Elections

Small-souled political parties

The formation of majorities is supposed to be difficult under the Constitution.  David Brooks takes a shot at explaining something fundamental about American electoral politics, constitutional government, and our two party system by referring to Sam Lubell's invented political solar system idea.  At any moment there is a Sun Party (the majority party which drives the agenda) and the Moon Party (the minority party which shines by reflecting the solar rays).  He gets it only partly right.  He understands that we are in a volatile period in which the "Sun"-like majority hasn't formed, but he misses the idea of realignment (and/or critical elections) that would help him explain his point. The point is not that both parties have developed minority mentalities, as he says, but rather the point is that neither party is capable of really dividing and polarizing the country in such a way that it may persuade the country to come in its direction (say the way Democrats did in the 1930s, thereby crafting the last of our Suns) electorally in order to create a grand majority, around which the Moon(s) would revolve. The Democrats are currently holding on to "policies" they have created over three generations, but are not persuading new folks that the centralized welfare state is worth saving (or constitutional). Mere interest and passion (entitlements) is what is holding the Democratic Party together, and sometimes it makes for a majority, sometimes not. On the other hand the Republicans are incapable of giving a sustained and powerful argument in favor of limited constitutional self-government. They thought they were doing it in the 1980s with Reagan, but not quite. The electoral victories they have had since seem fleeting. They really must become grand partisans and must make the persuasive intellectual arguments first, before making the electoral gains that could be said to look something like the formation of a new long term majority.  They have yet to do that; certainly the presidential candidates are not doing that; see tonight's debate and discover how none of them were born under a rhyming planet. Therefore, the next many (two, four, eight ?) electoral cycles will be much less meaningful than Brooks would like. Until the voters are presented with a real choice and an argument on an issue that seems critical to citizens, and one that transcends normal party lines or coalitions, there will be no Sun, there will be no long-term majority.  The next couple of decades will be fun, messy and fun, and inconclusive.  For those of you who are miserable in the midst of this massive fact and have no other medicine but hope, read the Letters from an Ohio Farmer.
Categories > Elections

Elections

1 Year and Counting for the "Underdog"

If Obama is to win re-election one year from today, he'll need to prove a "historic" candidate in less esoteric and more statistically significant ways than propelled him to victory for his first term. He'll have to defy the historic trends for presidential elections as they presently stand. As the Washington Times notes:

At 43 percent approval in a Gallup poll conducted Oct. 28-30, Mr. Obama recently referred to himself as an "underdog" -- with good reason. Of all the presidents since World War II whose job-approval scores were lower than 50 percent one year before Election Day, only one went on to win a second term.

That was President Nixon, whose job approval stood at 49 percent in November 1971. He rebounded to defeat Democrat George McGovern in a landslide in 1972.

Obama's approval rating is much lower than Nixon's and, hopefully, the GOP candidate will prove more formidable than McGovern.

Unemployment is another statistical guide.

No president since Franklin D. Roosevelt has won a second term when the unemployment rate was higher than 7.2 percent. Reagan won in 1984 with a jobless rate at 7.2 percent.

Obama, of course, is no Reagan and present unemployment hovers at 9%.

So, Obama has his work cut out for him. But he does have a few advantages going for him.

He is still a formidable fundraiser, having amassed more than $150 million for his campaign and the Democratic National Committee this year.

Also, his re-election operation is more robust than any of the GOP camps, which are waging a long and costly primary battle. Mr. Obama's campaign is able to build on a 50-state network from 2008, an email list of more than 9 million potential supporters and an experienced staff with unequaled savvy in digital marketing and social networking.

In early polling of head-to-head matchups with potential GOP candidates, Mr. Obama comes out on top in nearly every instance. One poll in the battleground state of Florida this week showed former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney tied with Mr. Obama.

And the Times contemplates the possibility of a third party candidate siphoning votes from the Republican nominee - but I don't foresee such a option in the tea leaves.

As I've noted previously, Obama is not being blamed by the American people for the state of the country. The buck, it seems, has not stopped with the president. It must be a priority for the GOP candidate to lay blame were it belongs and tie the economy as an albatross around the president's neck. Where the media has deflected blame from Obama, the GOP must nail it to his campaign bus. A Republican cannot win if Obama is not recognized as the culprit responsible for America's woes and deserving of its righteous anger.

Categories > Elections

Elections

Is the Electoral College Outdated?

This is the topic of a discussion taking place at Hillsdale College's Kirby Center this coming Friday. John Fortier, director of the Democracy Project at the Bipartisan Policy Center and the principal contributor to the AEI-Brookings Election Reform Commission, will be speaking on the growing support for the National Popular Vote and what the implementation of that system would mean for our nation. If you're in or near Washington, stop on by to participate on Friday at noon. If not, you can also view it online.

While on the subject of the Electoral College, I would also like to bring to your attention a recent memorandum by the Heritage Foundation's Hans von Spakovsky on the issue.
Categories > Elections

Elections

A Foreigner on Obama

A foreigner made the off-handed comment today that Obama would win another term. As this person does not religiously follow American politics but is a rather perceptive sort, I asked how she could speak so confidently. She replied that everything that could go wrong in America had gone wrong, yet Obama was still popular enough to win. What else could go wrong in America to significantly hurt him?

I reluctantly concede the foundation, while yet refusing to accept the conclusion. As I've posited many times before, the Democrats' greatest weapon and advantage in American politics is not their ideas, policies or message. It is an allied media. Had Fox News not come into existence, Republicans would score 10% lower in every poll against Democrats. But Fox is but one voice among many. Without the media's absolute support of the liberal line, the Democrats would be a different party - and I wonder to imagine a world with a comparable right-wing media dominance and sense of license.

Nevertheless, the world is as it is - which means Republicans must strive to control the message throughout the campaign. The Republican most able to implement this strategy has a significant "plus" as a candidate, and should be viewed as such in the primaries. The ability to control the media directly equates to electability. It is obvious that Obama is able to avoid the blame he deserves for objective faults - it is the Republicans' role to act as a substitute media for the American people.

Categories > Elections

Economy

Perry's Got The Babe's Promise

Babe Ruth Called Shot.jpgBut is there any chance he can deliver?

Perry just hit the WSJ op-ed page with an all-things-to-all-conservatives economic plan. "Cut, Balance and Grow," promises "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."

Well that should be easy enough.

Perry is pointing high into center field (or, in this particular simile, right field). Here are a few details:

Taxes

  • Individuals: Optional 20% flat tax rate or keep current tax rate (with $12,500 standard deduction). No death tax. No tax on Social Security benefits. No dividend or capital gains tax.
  • Corporations: 20% tax rate (down from 35%). 5.25% tax rate for repatriation. "Territorial tax system" which only taxes in-country income.

Spending

  • Balance the budget by 2020. Pass Balanced Budget Amendment. Cap federal spending at 18% of GDP. Freezes federal civilian hiring and salaries. Repeal ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank and Section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley. Allowing personal retirement accounts.

Perry is, of course, vying for the right-pole position, with it's spectacular view of the Tea Party Express. He needs energy and is diving to the right (although all of his suggestions are entirely sensible - and perhaps entirely necessary). Whether they are at all plausible absent a miracle in the Senate is another matter altogether - and a question Perry should be asked by the press. In the inevitable failure to pass so ambitious a package, where would he focus? 

For the actual liberal media response, read the NY Times' Q&A with Perry. It reveals the liberal obsession with "tax cuts for the rich," or "income inequality." Watch for the media to make their class-warfare obsession the principal talking point against the GOP candidate.

Categories > Economy

Elections

A Comment on Palin

Former Governor Sarah Palin said on Fox recently that she may not want to run for president because she would be shackled by the presidency and unable to wield the type of authority she has now. Jon Stewart has an appropriate take-down of this silly stuff. The spectacle of Sarah Palin is distracting from getting to the real substance of things, and much more of a disservice than the hype surrounding Governor Christie, who at least has something serious to say in a serious way and seems to be less-egocentric and far more genuine than Sarah Palin in the dancing around this issue (though I do share some of the concerns mentioned by Julie below about Christie). She needs to just accept the role she really wants, that of a well-paid and somewhat influential pundit, and stop with the presidential back-and-forth.
Categories > Elections

Elections

Christie

Well, if you have not read it or seen it by now, here is a link to both the transcript and the video of the Chris Christie speech at the Reagan Library two nights ago. 

Most of the commentary about it can be characterized as one of two things:  speculation or begging.  Although I am not inclined to think there is a lot of need for the former, I cannot avoid it if I am to say anything intelligible about the substance of Christie's fine and effective remarks.  I absolutely will not engage in the latter.  But more about that later.

Here's what I think:  It is entirely possible that Chris Christie misread his moment.  I think he was sincere when he said that he did not mean to run for President and I think his reason for not running--at least, initially--had partly to do with his own personal concern with being "ready," but it had mainly to do with a suspicion that no Republican was likely to beat Obama in 2012.  He thought he could and should wait.  He was wrong on both counts. 

Consider his long (and, yes, very good) reflections on Obama's 2004 Democrat Convention speech.  Everybody who knew anything about politics in 2004 knew that watching Obama warming up for Kerry brought on feelings reminiscent of those you get when the previews at the movies look better than the movie you came to see.  That was as close as Obama ever got to a Reagan moment.  And Christie was at the Reagan Library, so he can be forgiven if visions of "A Time for Choosing" were dancing in his head.  I think Christie meant to do something like that at the Reagan Library or, perhaps, to give us a taste of what he must mean to do at our coming convention whether or not he is the candidate.  I think that explains why this 2004 speech of Obama's was so close to the forefront of Christie's mind; that, and it is a good hook for explaining to people, who once trusted in Obama, the ways in which their original opinion is wrong. Without question, Christie did that well. 

But this brings me to the second part of my thoughts about Christie's speech.  If he's not running, why is he waxing eloquent on Presidential politics in this way?  Well, it must fry him to watch these debates, right?  He's sitting there watching these guys do it in ways that seem, to him, wrong.  It's killing him.  Maybe he thought he could at least offer a tutorial to the GOP candidates.  "Watch me.  This is how it's done."  And his substance was good.  What he said about compromise (contra Rush and others who, though they mean well, seem to be suffering post traumatic stress disorder whenever they hear that word) was good.  

But the thing about this speech is that, as with most pros who step in to demonstrate skills to talent that is already playing at the top of its game, Christie is only succeeding in showing the rest of them up.  It's not going to do anyone any good for him to continue in this mode.

"Maybe showing them up is all part of his plan?" suggest some prognosticators who, like me, don't see much point in all of this talk if the man doesn't mean to run.  So, therefore, he must mean to do it.  Well, if that is the case, here's what the rest of me is saying:  I have loved Chris Christie for a long time.  And I long, just as much as the next citizen, to hear someone come and speak simple truths to power with good effect and without cringing.  But if he is planning like that, to hell with him.  No, really.  This is becoming unseemly.  He may be the best guy (though I don't think that is, by any means, a settled matter) but he ain't the only guy.  Please.

And here's something else.  What is this with the begging of this guy to run?  This suggestion that he must do it?   I don't like it.  I thought his answer to the (sincere, but sad) woman who was begging him to run was good, respectful and, even, sweet.  But it bothers me to see Americans so desperate for one man to run for the Presidency.  There is something weak and pathetic about it, I am sorry to say.  Have some pride.  Americans don't beg anyone to be their boss.  It reminds me, in a way, of the scheming that went on to get George Washington to declare himself emperor . . . maybe without the Washington.  

Perhaps it is unfortunate that Chris Christie's moment has passed and that he seems to have made the wrong call.  But if he is a man of integrity, and I think he is, he can use this opportunity to remind Americans that this is their country.  No one man is so essential, so wise, or so wonderful that he must be deign to be their king as if he were part of some Platonic dialogue writ large.  Of course his consent in the thing matters.  This is a regime built on the principle!  Enough, already.  There is serious work to do and Chris Christie will best contribute to that effort when he makes it clear that he means to support someone else for the Presidency this go around.   If, on the other hand, he means to jump in, he had better do it quick.  And, if he does that, there's no getting around the fact that he is going to have a lot of explaining to do and he should not be surprised if a lot of voters, instead of thinking that he has finally lived up to his duty, consider that he's not really as much a man of his word as they once thought he was.   
Categories > Elections

Elections

Congressional Realignment

While most of the punditry is focused on President Obama's recent campaigning and the quest for the Republican Party presidential nomination, the bigger story seems to be that of the United States Congress. Every four years, congressional elections are usually seen as second fiddle to the race for the White House; 2012 may prove to be very different, and thus very much important. The political stress and economic turmoil engulfing the country right now have coincided with perfect timing for the Republican Party in the congressional elections, and placed the Democrats at a disadvantage.

In the 2010 elections, Republicans came to regain control of the United States House of Representatives, gaining 63 seats in the largest turnover of that chamber since 1948. Six seats in the United States Senate drifted into Republican hands, allowing the still-minority party to maintain the power of the filibuster over the majority Democrats. More importantly, though, a stunning 680 seats in the various state legislatures shifted into Republican hands, the largest turnover in our history, granting Republicans control of 25 of this country's legislatures (compared to the 15 controlled by Democrats, and the remaining being split). After 2010, Republicans took charge of 29 governors' mansions. Timing here will be key to future Republican victories, as the newfound widespread GOP influence came at a time when we took our regular census and are set to draw new congressional districts. Through the process of gerrymandering (which, just to be clear, is something I personally dislike), Republicans are protecting their incumbents and weakening Democratic positions from North Carolina to Ohio to Pennsylvania and more, giving them an advantage in at least the next two election cycles.

With the gerrymandering throughout the country mostly favoring Republicans, not only will they retain their control of the House of Representatives, they are likely to pick up at least a dozen more seats. It should be noted, though, that the approval rating of Republicans in Congress is just as low as the approval rating of Democrats, and anti-incumbency is a huge problem for everyone right now, but from what it looks like this will still favor Republicans instead of Democrats. With President Obama now focused on repealing tax cuts and raising taxes, and if the economy fails to see any type of improvement over the next year, another wave could hit the House. A long way off to know for sure, of course, and much can change in a year, but it is entirely safe to wager that the Republicans will at least maintain the House and likely increase their numbers a bit.

Now comes the much more interesting and much more important matter of the Senate. In this election, as has been pointed out by many before, the Democrats are already playing defense--24 of the seats that caucus with the Democrats are up for reelection, while only ten Republican seats are. Republicans need to only gain four seats and they become a majority in the Senate, and this task looks likely to happen. Michigan, Missouri, Montana, and Virginia all seem to be pretty safe bets to go to the GOP, and Florida and Wisconsin may very well end up in Republican hands as well. Ohio and New Mexico are both leaning the way of the Democrats, but Republicans have a serious shot in those races. Scott Brown will probably end up on the losing end in Massachusetts, which will be a Democratic gain there-- though these traditionally liberal areas have been very surprising of late. Olympia Snowe may also face a bit of a tough race, but given the flip in the Maine legislature last election, I think she's pretty safe. At minimum, the Republicans will probably grab a 52-seat majority in the Senate, with a chance at having as many as 56 of the seats. But wait--there's more!

Thinking long-term, the 2014 U.S. Senate elections will present a further disadvantage for Democrats. True, the opinion of whoever is president at the time may drastically change things and circumstances are volatile, but the seats up for grabs already put the Republicans at an advantage. Democrats will be defending 20 seats, while Republicans will be defending 13. Except for perhaps Susan Collins (like Snowe, depending on how much Maine has shifted or not at the time), most all of the GOP seats will be safe or leaning GOP. Some of the Democratic seats, however, could very well be in toss-up territory--Arkansas, Iowa, North Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia, and West Virginia. 2014 (which will coincidentally mark 100 years of the direct election of Senators) will present the Republican Party with the opportunity to do something it hasn't done in the past century--grab a filibuster-proof majority in the United States Senate.

All-in-all, I would venture to say the congressional elections are what to pay very close attention to this year, and the Senate in particular. How much Republicans shore up their majority in the Senate will set them up for most of the next decade. After a century of progressive dominance in Congress, if the Republicans are successful in this (and bear in mind that they are not only able to but often prone to shooting themselves in the foot), it could signal the start of a long-term realignment much more than the fight over the Oval Office. Regardless of the fight for the White House, it just looks like the next five years are going to be bad for Democrats in Congress, and Republicans ought to realize how rare such an opportunity is and start working now if they want to do something with it. Interesting stuff to watch.
Categories > Elections

Elections

Pennsylvania and the Electoral College

A fight is brewing in Pennsylvania as some Republicans indicate that they wish to transform the way the state allocates its electoral votes for the presidency. The President of the United States is not elected by the national popular vote, but rather by the popular vote in each of the 50 states--if one candidate in Ohio gets 55% of the popular vote in Ohio, that candidate receives Ohio's electoral votes. To win the presidency, one needs to win at least 270 of the 538 electoral votes; these votes are divvied between the states based on congressional representation, plus three for the District of Columbia. The Electoral College is designed to support federalism by forcing candidates to campaign across a broad spectrum among the states and also maintains for us a relatively stable and fraud-free system, especially compared to other nations. Yes, there is occasionally a fluke when the popular vote and the electoral votes do not match up--the 2000 Election an example of this--but these are rare, and not a reason to discount the entire system.

Every state except for two operates on the winner-take-all system mentioned above. Maine and Nebraska use the Congressional District System, which apportions the votes by district rather than the entire state. In these states, elections are held within each congressional district and whoever wins in those districts gets the votes, and the winner of the popular vote in the state receives a bonus two electoral votes. Pennsylvania is considering adopting this method of voting instead. Some people seem to be decrying it as unconstitutional or an attack on the Electoral College; this is plainly wrong. The Constitution allows each state to decide how its electoral votes are split up. Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 states: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors." So, there are no constitutional arguments to be made against this way of divvying up the Electoral Votes.

There are, however, some practical and political concerns with shifting over to the Congressional District System. While it is a bit more democratic and may comfort those seeking to abolish the Electoral College in favor of a national popular vote, it may have the adverse consequence of increasing gerrymandering, which is already a huge problem in the country; parties will have further incentive to strengthen districts for themselves in order to ensure electoral success. The fact that the GOP in Pennsylvania is trying to do this purely for partisan reasons rather than concerns of suffrage and whatnot is also disconcerting (and strengthens my concern about gerrymandering), and furthermore foolish as it would very well harm Republican candidates in the future as well as Democrats. It is also worth noting that, based on the various data and articles I've been looking over, if every single state operated on a Congressional District System for their electoral votes, it would not change the outcome of any single election in recent history.

So, while it is perfectly within the constitutional rights of Pennsylvania to apportion its electoral votes in whatever way it sees fit, it is foolish to do so for the perceived political gain of a party, and could have some bad consequences. I have also seen proposed that one divvies the electoral votes up by percentage (if someone wins 55% of Ohio, they get 55% of the Electors, and second place gets their percentage and so-on), but my chief concern with that is that it would give more success to third party candidates which may cause systemic problems by making it more difficult for anyone to receive 270 votes in the college, opening the way for Congress to vote on the matter. The winner-take-all system is not perfect, but it is better than any alternative yet put forth.
Categories > Elections

Elections

New York Special Election

In a special congressional election to fill the seat vacated by the disgraced Anthony Weiner, citizens of New York's 9th congressional district--encompassing parts of Queens and Brooklyn--voted for businessman Bob Turner over Assemblyman David Weprin, electing a Republican for the first time in its history by a handed 54-46% of the vote. In a district with a large Jewish population and where Democrats outnumber Republicans 3-1, the fact that Weprin, an Orthodox Jew and established member of the Democratic Party's NYC political machine, lost can at first seem surprising. While I do not think Republicans should get too hopeful over the victory--wedge issues like gay marriage and Israel were substantially more important in this race than they would be nationally, I think--it does indicate massive problems for Democrats in particular elections next year. The citizens of this district do not trust Democrat's leadership on the economy right now, and even voters who typically vote for Democrats they disagree with on major issues--Jews with Obama on Israel, for example--because they're good on everything else, are not buying into that "they're good on everything else" line anymore. Losing a district with a heavy Jewish and Catholic population may indicate that there could be damage to Democrats in their traditional strongholds--cities--and also hamper fundraising efforts.

Additionally, it appears that the Democratic strategy of using GOP entitlement reform attempts to defeat opponents--as in the New York 26th District special election earlier this year, where Democrat Kathy Hochul ran more against Paul Ryan's plan than her actual opponent--is not a winning bet at this point. Weprin attempted to pin Turner with the same thing, but it did not work in exactly the same way as now Democrats have said in the ongoing debt negotiations that entitlement reform is not off-the-table, but have otherwise not been really forthcoming in how exactly they plan to address it. While voters may disagree with various Republican plans to fix the problem, this indicates they seem to trust the GOP more for at least having a plan. Obama's jobs bill also did not seem to assuage worries that the Democrats lack a feasible plan. Democrats still have a year to figure out their message on this, though, and Perry's schtick with "Ponzi scheme" probably isn't going to be helping the GOP case.

All in all, I think after this race you may see congressional Democrats begin to distance themselves from Obama, particularly on Israel. One example that springs immediately to mind is in California, where several Democratic lawmakers may have to challenge each other in primaries due to new redistricting. Congressman Howard Berman, one of the most senior Democratic voices in foreign policy (who once famously said, "I was  Zionist before I was a Democrat"), and Congressman Brad Sherman have both been placed in the same Los Angeles district; both are Jewish Democrats, and both have defended President Obama's foreign policy. As they battle each other for the new seat (I've handicapped Berman in the race given his experience, influence, and more charismatic persona), it will be telling if one or the other begins to distance himself from Obama (disclosure: my voting address is currently in the district they are fighting over, hence my particular attention to it). I'd say this joins other indications that the Republicans will have complete control of Congress in next year's election, and that the race for the White House is a toss-up (still leaning Obama, in my opinion) at the moment-- all cause for serious concern among the Democrats. As said, though, don't get too wrapped up in this victory; it is probably not so much a rebuke of Obama (except for explicitly on Israel) as it is frustration with the party in power during a bad economy. That is to say, Republicans appear to be "worth a try" to fix the economy-- not exactly safe footing, but it is an open window to try move the electorate their direction.
Categories > Elections

Elections

Related Headlines Reveal Candidate Obama

Today's major headline is that, for the first time since World War II, the economy had "precisely net zero jobs created for a month." And, following on the heels of this economic woe, is breaking news that Obama ordered the EPA to withdraw an environmental regulation that "would cost up to $1 trillion per year and kill thousands of jobs."

It's tempting to hope that Obama has finally learned a lesson, finally become aware of the real harm done to real people by job-killing, economically-ruinous regulations - which, while ostensibly related to environmentalism, are more precisely intended as fines and taxes on "evil" corporations. But, I suspect that Obama has simply been reading the tea leaves and has shrewdly begun "compromising" in order to compete for re-election.

This is the novel sign of practical political savvy from Obama, following years of ideological recklessness with public opinion. That is to say, Candidate Obama has re-emerged. He has finally taken a simple and obvious action intended to create (or, to use his own more exact language, "save") jobs. (These jobs, of course, are being saved from his own regulations, but let that pass....)

Too little, too late? Time will tell.

Categories > Elections

Elections

Huntsman's Latest: Too Little, Too Late

Huntsman seems not to have noticed that he has missed the boat. He's not a contender and - unlike other non-contenders such as Paul, Gingrich and Trump - adds nothing to the conversation.

His latest attempt to appeal to ... someone (I'm not exactly sure who) is a promise to strip the tax code of loopholes and deductions (which sounds a bit like Obama's promise to save entitlements and reduce debt by eliminating "government waste"). Of course, this alone is a promise to raise taxes. So Huntsman adds that he would adopt a simplified three-tier tax structure.

But the devil's in the details. I fear a "moderate" Huntsman tax compromise would cut deductions but do little in the way of lowering the overall tax rate - thereby effectively handing democrats a tax (increase) "compromise" victory. Huntsman's does not dissuade me of this uncertainty by the use of progressive rhetoric, identifying "special-interest" as the beneficiary of tax "carve-outs" and denouncing that liberal boogey-man, "corporate welfare."

Categories > Elections

Elections

Palin

Pundits have gotten a case of the vapors over Sarah Palin's latest youtube video. Take a look below. It does seem to be a campaign video - but then again, if it's just Palin's way of staying relevant and in the news, it's working. As long as people are talking about whether she'll run, she has a platform from which to speak. I hope Palin is just staying in the spotlight. Her candidacy would be problematic (to say the least), but her message is a good one.

Categories > Elections

Elections

Perry Has New York Times Running Scared

In the apparent absence of any worthwhile scandals to report, the Grey Lady is running one substanceless hit piece after another on Perry. Today's paper leads:

Over three terms in office, Gov. Rick Perry has doled out state aid to his most generous supporters and their businesses.

In the wake of Obama's unprecedented stimulus spending - which did nothing for the economy, but lined the pockets of union bosses and other liberal interest groups - as well as Obamacare waivers for generous liberal donors, it seems ridiculous that the Times would have the audacity to accuse Obama's opposition of political favoritism. And yet, New York Times, shamelessness be thy name. 

The Times sneers at Perry for "enacting policies that have benefited allies and contributors," as well as,

helped Mr. Perry raise more money than any politician in Texas history, donations that have periodically raised eyebrows but, thanks to loose campaign finance laws and a business-friendly political culture dominated in recent years by Republicans, have only fueled Mr. Perry's ascent.

Again, the implication that raising record campaign funds is somehow wrong, coming from the same paper which praises Obama for the same acheivement, is absurd. The Times simply states that Perry has done nothing wrong, but asks the reader to conclude malfeasance on the part of the governor and Republicans nonetheless. It likely never occurs to the Times that Perry's "allies and contributors" may be business-minded individuals who recognize that Perry shares their interests: growth, job creation and wealth.

The article goes on ad nauseum listing people who have benefited from Perry in some manner, and then revealing their political donations to him as a form of scandal. One will wait in vain for a similar roll call article on union donors to Obama's campaign.

This sort of hit job relies on low-hanging fruit. Politicians surround themselves with like minded-people, and people contribute to like-minded politicians. It is a symbiotic relationship typical to every politician in America. There is no scandal unless donors receive illegal or unethical favors - such as waivers from general laws, as unions commonly receive. 

The Times' desperate attacks on Perry imply that he is a strong candidate, and the shallowness of their attacks imply that he hasn't given them much ammunition. Both are fine indicators that Perry is a serious candidate for the Republican nomination.

Categories > Elections

Elections

Races to Watch: Brown vs. Warren

The Washington Times reports that "consumer advocate" Elizabeth Warren has filed paperwork to form an exploratory committee for a possible challenge to Mass. Sen. Scott Brown in 2012. If you don't recognize her name, Warren was the architect and first czar (since Republicans opposed for appointment as director) of Obama's latest bureaucratic boondoggle, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The CFPB is the latest attempt to massively expand the federal government's (and, particularly, the executive branch's) regulatory power over everything, since the agency's authority is very broadly defined and it operates largely beyond the reach of Congress.

The CFPB provides an insight into Warren's political philosophy as a czar, shall we say, of big-government liberalism. However, she - like all liberals - has attempted to masquerade as a moderate conservative (the prevalence of liberals pretending to be conservative, and dearth of examples in the opposite direction, is an interesting topic for another time). In a Weekly Standard article, "Elizabeth Warren, Closet Conservative: The Most Misunderstood Woman in Washington," Christopher Caldwell praises Warren's 2003 book, The Two-Income Trap.

Todd Zywicki, blogging for The Volokh Conspiracy, chides Caldwell for falling for Warren's ruse. Zywicki observes that Warren intentionally hides the impact of higher taxes on middle-class families by using a different calculation with regard to taxes than other expenses.

What this means is that once taxes are converted to an apples-to-apples comparison-percentage change in dollars instead of percentage change in percentage-household spending on taxes actually increased 140%, not 25% [as Warren misleads].

Conservatives often note that the MSM never seems to make a mistake which disadvantages liberals or Democrats - "mistakes" are reserved for conservatives and Republicans. Is it mere coincidence that Warren's "mistake" conceals the disastrous role of taxation as the central culprit in her thesis problem?

Warren has now resumed her post as a Harvard Law professor, where here views are very likely regarded as conservative. And in Massachusetts, it may be likewise. But in the nation as a whole, she seems to be a liberal wolf in sheep's clothing. Scott Brown's senate seat is a boon for the GOP which cannot be surrendered lightly.  

Categories > Elections

Elections

"We May Have Been Tricked"

"Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek." ~Senator Barack Obama, Feb. 5, 2008 (following Super Tuesday).

I spent last night listening to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony at the Hollywood Bowl with some friends and family, all hopelessly liberal. Conversation drifted towards politics, and frustration with politics, and annoyance with this Tea Party thing, fear of Congresswoman Bachman and Governor Perry, and disenchantment with Barack Obama. There was frustration at his foreign policy, his weakness in the debt debate, and many other domestic policies of his. One in the party said something I found to be very telling, and very important, when asked if the president might yet still improve. "I don't know. I don't think he really believes what he campaigned on. I think we may have been tricked." That is, even in Hollywood are former admirers of President Obama beginning to think that he may just be a normal politician more interested in reelection and legacy than anything else. Telling.

On a related note, I stumbled across an old JibJab video with a comic President Bush reviewing the year 2005. Among the problems that Bush sings about are terrorists, Kim Jong-Il throwing fits, pirates in Somalia, a nutjob in Iran, problems in the Gaza Strip, a rising deficit, low approval ratings in the United States, low approval ratings in Europe, high gas prices, scandals with allies in Congress, scandals in the White House, Gitmo, and economic woes. Last time, Barack Obama campaigned on change-- leaving the woes and actions of the Bush Administration. Though all signs indicate that he plans to still run as a Washington-outsider, man of the people, hope and change type, that is going to be a lot harder to do. That's the problem when you try to portray yourself as a radical harbinger of change in a wonderfully divided constitutional republic. Like McCain was to many conservatives in 2008, Obama will be to many liberals in 2012-- the least undesirable candidate. Having only won the popular vote by ten million votes in 2008, with all the hype surrounding him, this should worry the president-- whose victories in North Carolina, Indiana, Nebraska, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania were narrow enough that a drop in enthusiasm among activists from "the change we've been waiting for" to "we may have been tricked" could dramatically alter the electoral map in 2012. This is the GOP's race to lose.

(Another interesting addendum-- in conversation of potential GOP candidates, there seemed to be some admiration of Chris Christie. While none would vote for him, they were drawn to his personality and how unlike a usual politician he is. This could be good.)
Categories > Elections

Elections

Has Obama Lost His Mojo?

Since Steven Hayward is now blogging at Power Line, it's necessary for us to occasionally bring him back to NLT:

So let's see where we stand this week: the stock market tanked another 419 points today, the housing market continues to slide, the European banks are on the brink, and Obama decides to . . . take a bus tour.  Followed by vacation in Martha's Vineyard.  And announce that he'll have a plan next month.  Perhaps a new federal Department of Jobs.  Yeah, that's the ticket; that'll surely work just as well as Jimmy Carter's remedy for the energy problems of the late 1970s--the Department of Energy.  (Just how many BTUs of energy does DoE produce?  [Crickets laughing.])  Why not just skip the nonsense and just go straight to a Ministry of Silly Walks?

Either Obama's handlers are negligently failing him, or his vanity is persuading him that he needn't heed their advice. Try to imagine the media frenzy if Bush had taken a luxury golfing vacation in the months following 9-11 (promising to get back to us with an Iraq plan in a month or so) and the slight criticism now befalling Obama should seem blessedly mild. The mind boggles attempting to decipher the strategy behind blatantly campaigning and vacationing during unmitigated national suffering. The only message seems to be one of disconnect, callousness and frivolity.

My purpose is not to simply denigrate Obama for his poor leadership and perception decisions, but rather to note that these political missteps are being made by a politician lauded for his political savvy. During the 2008 campaign, it was easy for conservatives to find fault in Obama's tune, but he routinely managed to hit the notes on key. One wonders if two-and-a-half years in office have corrupted his instincts and robbed him of his all-important cadence. It will be interesting to see if Obama can replicate the prowess of his former campaign. I think, despite the greatest efforts of the media to the contrary, Obama will prove unequal to his former glory - and nothing rewards so unkindly in politics as disappointed expectations.

Categories > Elections

Elections

Obama Losing on the Issues

While President Obama's dismal 39% approval rating made news this week, his newly released approval ratings on the issues are even more disastrous.

Obama Approval.gif

Since May, Obama's approval rating on every issue has plummeted. Overall approval declined at -11, terrorists -10, foreign affairs -9, education - 13 (since February, no data in May), Afghanistan -20 (the SEALs effect having apparently worn off), economy - 11 and the federal budget deficit -8.

Further, these numbers would be far, far worse except for the resiliency (some would say obliviousness) of Democrats.Obama Approval by Party.gif

Can it really be that 60% of Democrats approve of Obama's job creation record? Do they actually approve of record unemployment and share Obama's seeming acceptance of America's increasingly Euro-style social democracy (with it's high unemployment and robust welfare bureaucracy)? One hopes these partisans are simply lying to pollsters in order to artificially prop up their candidate. Thankfully, less than a quarter of independents [Though who are those 24%?] share the Democrats' view.

RONLT know that I generally downplay the importance of polls until about 48 hours prior to an election. However, these numbers show two important factors for the present. First, Obama's rapidly decreasing popularity could allow a Republican challenger to gain a foothold among voters just out of the gate. Simply being "the other guy" could suffice to propel a challenger into a comfortable lead.

Secondly, Democrats and Republicans couldn't be further apart. And the reasons for this divide can only be explained, as Steven Hayward and others have been intimating, by a deep ideological gap on first principles. The Republican failure to acknowledge this philosophic dissonance led to the Tea Party revolution. The next GOP candidate would do well to mind this underlying division, acknowledge the Tea Party's charge on this front and present the contrasting ideologies with crystal clarity to the rest of the nation.

Categories > Elections

Elections

3 More Endorsements for Perry

Greg Pollowitz, at NRO's Media blog, notes three reactions from MSNBC on Rick Perry:

Perry's been in the race for a few days now and we have Maddow lying about the governor wanting to lynch Ben Bernanke, we have Ed Schultz calling him a racist and we have Chris Matthews calling him "Bull Connor" with a smile. What a trio of sad-sack lying hacks MSNBC has chosen for their political coverage.

If three MSNBC "sad-sacks" such as these are salivating to denounce Perry ... well, he can't be all that bad. The more screeching, cliched and ridiculous are the slurs from the usual suspects, the more I am persuaded that Perry has something worthwhile to contribute to the nation's politics.

Categories > Elections

Elections

The Republican Trinity

Pawlenty's departure, Perry's entrance and stagnation among Gingrich, Santorum, Huntsman and the other hard-to-remember GOP candidates seem to indicate that the Republican nominee will emerge from a battle between Perry, Romney and Bachmann.

Marc Thiessen has a solid case for Perry in today's WaPo. Much will be decided for Perry in the next few weeks. If he flounders and disappoints expectations, voters will quickly look elsewhere. But he has the potential to rally a base divided between a lackluster resignation toward Romney and hesitant uncertainty toward Bachmann. Perry needs to thread the needle and poach supporters from both candidates - all the while representing himself as the GOP moderate between Romney's unreliable conservatism and Bachmann's uncompromising conservatism.

Romney and Bachmann are still in the fight because they emerged as leaders of the pack - Romney as the party's crown-prince and Bachmann as the hero of the people. Perry needs to define himself as something superior to both - and soon - if his star is going to rise as far as the nomination.

Categories > Elections

Elections

Obama's 39%

Obama is resilient. Despite economic catastrophe, hyper-partisanship and a growing list of deeply unpopular decisions, Obama has consistently polled above Congress, general sentiments about the state of America under his watch and even his own policies. He is striving to become the next Teflon president.

The single most significant factor in Obama's resiliency is undoubtedly the support he enjoys from the mainstream media. Rick Perry's presidential campaign has already endured more stinging attacks by the media than Obama has faced during his entire presidency. John Hinderaker noted today that Michele Bachmann's appearance on several Sunday morning talk shows included a barrage of persistent questions about ... gay marriage. The reason, of course, is not that anyone is talking about gay marriage, but rather a partisan drive on the media's part to portray Bachmann as a socially conservative "extremist" who holds "out-of-the-mainstream" views (nevermind that Obama ostensibly shares the same views). The liberal media has kept Obama afloat by simply ignoring scandals, explaining away failures and stubbornly enforcing a double standard toward conservatives.

As a result, Obama has been able to remain above 40% in opinion polls until now. But a bit of dust is being raised over Obama's dip below 40% for the first time on Sunday. Continuous pounding by the GOP (who have snatched the spotlight) in the wake of a bruising debt-ceiling confrontation have driven Obama's approval rating to 39%-54%

While 39% is dismal, it is neither unprecedented nor apocalyptic. It surely stings liberals that George W. Bush was at 60% at this point in his first term, but George Bush Sr. was at 70% and failed to gain re-election. Clinton and Reagan both had comparable approval ratings in the mid-to-low 40's and easily won second terms. And Carter had already sunk into the 20's by this point.

So Obama's numbers are bad, but not dispositive of his 2012 fortunes. Carter nearly doubled his approval rating in just over two months, though to no avail. Voters have short memories and polls are event-driven. Indeed, the single most important variable - the identity of his GOP rival - is utterly uncertain. So predictions at this early stage are useless. All that is certain is that Obama is entering the presidential race with the political winds blowing against him, and he is trending southward.

Categories > Elections

Elections

Pawlenty Quits

Pawlenty-Bachmann 2012

- Justin Paulette, May 25, 2011

Quite simply, the Iowa straw poll "is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

- Justin Paulette, Earlier Today

If you're going to be wrong, you might as well be really wrong. I stand corrected. Tim Pawlenty is out of the presidential race and Iowa apparently matters quite a bit. Speaking of the Iowa straw poll, Pawlenty stated:

We needed to get some lift to continue on and have a pathway forward. That didn't happen, so I'm announcing this morning on your show that I'm going to be ending my campaign for president

Many of us thought that Pawlenty's experience as governor of a blue state, record of successfully negotiating with a hostile legislature and "generic" character would prove a potent foil to Obama's shrill partisanship, failed policies and empty rhetoric of hope and change. Perhaps it would have proved so. But Pawlenty apparently didn't believe that he'd ever make it out of the primaries in order to test the theory.

I think the withdrawal is premature. Other candidates haven't had sufficient time to implode, which is a distinct possibility. Further, some candidates' stars are still on the rise, but may soon crest and descend with equal alacrity. Bachmann has the potential for both of these perils and her demise would have opened up the conservative field for Pawlenty. Pawlenty has called it quits at the same time that Rick Perry is just announcing his candidacy (Perry will likely lead the rush to pick up Pawlenty's donors and political aides).

Nevertheless, with Pawlenty out, Perry in and Bachmann rising, the GOP field proves fluid, diverse and energized.

Categories > Elections

Elections

What's Wrong With Iowa?

There's fly-over country, and then there's Iowa. Basically a patch of corn somewhere in mid-western America which no one could point to on a map without the little dotted lines marking state borders, Iowa assumes untoward influence during each presidential election cycle for no other reason than someone has to go first in the primaries. And Iowa makes the most of its privileged position - yesterday they had a pre-primary test primary, just to get warmed up. And in the absence of any other electoral news 15 months out from the actual election, this is just the sort of breaking news which is irresistible to Washington-centric journalists.

The fact that Ron Paul consistently ranks among the forerunners in these straw polls (he ranked second this time) ought to indicate their absurdity. Mitt Romney, the obvious GOP frontrunner, didn't make the top three. So Bachmann's first-place result should neither console her followers nor distress her adversaries. Quite simply, the Iowa straw poll "is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Categories > Elections

Elections

The More the Merrier

Rick Perry makes it official: He's running for president.

The best commentary I've yet heard on Perry - and his best endorsement yet - comes from Kevin Williams in NRO:

The guy that NPR executives and the New York Times and your average Subaru-driving Whole Foods shopper were afraid George W. Bush was? Rick Perry is that guy.

Perry's the new kid on the block and has the national microphone for the next few days - let's see what he can do with it.

Categories > Elections

Elections

Oh Perry

Kevin Williamson makes Rick Perry sound like an attractive candidate, at least to conservatives.  Best line: "The guy that NPR executives and the New York Times and your average Subaru-driving Whole Foods shopper were afraid George W. Bush was? Rick Perry is that guy."

I'm sure there's more to the story.  And there's nothing on foreign policy here.

Bonus question: in politically correct America, can the GOP ticket be two white guys?

Categories > Elections

Elections

Aristocracy in America

New York's Democratic machine, where the powers that be decide who is "entitled" to serve in the state legislature.  "Democratic" party, indeed!
Categories > Elections

Presidency

The 14th Amendment Consequences

Right now several senators are on the floor calling on President Obama to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling through some twisted interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and earlier today Nancy Pelosi declared her support for this "option" as well. Senator Harkin went so far as to say that presidents can gain extra powers in emergencies, likening this debt debate to Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation in the midst of the Civil War. President Clinton came out a few weeks ago in support of this option as well. However, President Obama himself has said that his lawyers tell him he does not have the constitutional authority to do something like this without congressional approval-- but he stopped short of saying that he would not do it. As we can see from his chameleon-like changes on the war powers of the executive, his views of the Constitution are not rooted in any coherent or steady interpretation-- it is truly a living document, transforming to fit whatever the White House wants it to.

The 14th Amendment was passed in the aftermath of the Civil War and has mostly been used in past public discussions for its citizenship standards, the equal protection clause, and the application of the Bill of Rights to the states. One section of the amendment states the "the validity of the public debt...shall not be questioned," and goes on to say that the United States was not going to count the debt incurred by the Confederacy as part of the legitimate public debt. From those few words, some Democrats in Congress have decided that it mandates the Federal Government to pay the interest on our debts on time and that the President therefor has the option to do whatever it takes to ensure that we meet our debt payments. There are two massive problems with this logic.

First, we have the money to pay the interest on our debts even if we hit the debt ceiling. We literally have enough cash on hand to pay what we are supposedly mandated to pay. Second, even if we did not have the cash on hand to pay our interest--which we do--those ten words do not grant the President the authority to exceed his authority and unilaterally raise the debt ceiling. The president cannot violate one part of his Constitutional duties to fulfill another.

If President Obama does follow the cries of his allies in Congress and decide to raise the debt ceiling himself, it may very well set off a cascade of political intrigues that will have tremendous consequences for the 2012 elections. If he does do it, Obama is seeming to hold the upper hand insofar as the public will be more concerned about economic issues rather than separations of powers. But that would be the only early advantage that Obama has, and the public response would depend significantly on what both parties do following such a move by the White House.

The Republicans could very well start impeachment proceedings against President Obama for grossly exceeding his constitutional authority. This would set up a flood of fighting in Washington, D.C. that would probably irk the public even more than the Clinton Impeachment proceedings did, which would be risky for Republicans depending on how the entire thing is seen-- however, if President Obama cannot offer strong arguments for exceeding his authority and depending how long it is dragged out, it could certainly weaken Obama's image and ability to campaign fully if he is being impeached. But, since Republicans and the anti-war Left in the House of Representatives barely lifted a finger outside of some rhetorical whining after President Obama launched his unfunded and unauthorized not-war in Libya, it has weakened the ground that Congress has to oppose Obama's expansion of his executive powers. Though, it might prove possible to try roll the Libyan war, still opposed by most Americans, into President Obama's invoking the 14th Amendment as a campaign to impeach him--multiple grievances and such--and pull in the Operation Fast and Furious gunrunning debacle in the background. 

Conviction would not make it through the Senate, but such a move could bring questions of the constitutional limitations of the Executive Branch back into the public discussion in the run-up to the 2012 elections, which would force progressives like Obama to publicly defend the lack of constitutionality to their positions and would also bring the subject up in a more clear way during the Republican nominee debates and next year's presidential debates. This would hinge on the ability of the Republicans in Congress to execute it well and try to avoid seeming like petulant politicians, so I would really not stake my hopes upon such a line-- but it is certainly a possibility.

The other massive consequence would be how Democrats respond to such a move by President Obama. The president would exceed his authority to increase the nation's debt, but the question of the nation's fiscal solvency would still be at the forefront and, unless the Democrats immediately act to make cuts, it would be politically devastating to the Democratic party in the upcoming elections. The public knows we need to make cuts. I suspect that the Democrats would in turn offer some gimmicks as they have been to make it seem like they are cutting back, at which point the onus would be on the Republicans to expose their false cuts. Again, this would be a more precarious position for President Obama as it just makes it so much easier for his rivals in 2012 to show that the Democratic Party is fiscally insane. "They raised our debt $2 trillion by themselves without any spending cuts! They are leaving our fiscal house in complete disarray!"

All in all, I do not think it is certain that President Obama will invoke this 14th amendment option, but with all the cries of support from his friends in Congress and his progressive penchant for claiming extraordinary powers in whatever he deems to be extraordinary situations, it may very well be likely. The consequences of such a move might make him appear to be the hero who saved us from collapse, but with the current mood of the country it may very well energize the Tea Party movement even more and push moderates towards the Republican candidates due to the ensuing fiscal issues. Presidential politics aside, it is no small fact that two-thirds of the Senate seats up for reelection are currently held by Democrats-- even if Obama manages to skim by on all this, such a mood could not only guarantee Republicans a majority, but a filibuster-proof supermajority to boot.
Categories > Presidency

Elections

The Huggable and Lovable Gov. Christie

In case you ever wonder why Gov. Christie has a bit of a following, see this short report regarding his response about what school his kids attend.  He just doesn't sound like a politician (as that is now understood).
Categories > Elections

Elections

Mitt Divided

Mitt Romney's support is being challenged on two separate fronts.

Politically, he is now tied with Michele Bachmann in Iowa. While Romney was always likely to lose a portion of the conservative vote to one of the many candidates to his right, the Minnesota congresswoman is also stealing his spotlight and leaching away his star-powered popularity. Romney is a household name - an advantage he holds over most of his intra-party rivals (now that Trump is out of the race and Gingrich seems to have stalled). But Bachmann is fresh and attractive (politically, I mean) - she has the power to siphon votes founded upon Romney's charm and charisma. She's the only candidate who can compete cosmetically with Romney's "hair factor."

Economically, Romney's critical base of donors among Utah's Mormons is being courted by Jon Huntsman. Romney must be reeling from the statistically improbable appearance of another Mormon in the presidential race. The dueling Mormons have now created a fissure in the Mormon constituency - which is conservative on most issues, but very liberal in campaign donations.

Romney is still a well-funded frontrunner - but that makes him a legitimate target for other Republicans and threatens that his political star may have risen too quickly in electoral time. He's the king of the hill, but Queen Bachmann and the rest of the GOP brood are eager to knock him from his perch. Romney will need to display true political skill if he is to stave off contenders and preserve his elevated stature. 

Categories > Elections

Elections

One Vote for Queen

I posted an article on Michele Bachmann "Queen or Kingmaker?" at my second on-line home last week, and the Weekly Standard's latest edition has followed up with an answer: "Queen of the Tea Party." Matthew Continetti's canvassing bio and assessment of Bachmann's avoids the breathless outrage and (not-so) subtle disdain which often accompanies mainstream accounts of the rising star.

"Energetic, charismatic, intelligent, and attractive, the 55-year-old Bachmann is . . . ." So leads Continetti's dive into her popular perception among voters. The article covers her youth, faith and political style, as well as specific moments which define her strengths, weaknesses and inspirations. Of course, Continetti addresses the obvious comparison to Sarah Palin ("What unites Bachmann and Palin, above all, is the contempt with which they are treated by liberals.") and Bachmann's connection to the Tea Party ("Michele Bachmann was Tea Party before Tea Party was cool.").

You'll either read about her now, or you'll play catch-up later when Bachmann's national role can no longer be ignored by scholarly observers. The Standard article is a very good introduction. 

Categories > Elections

Shameless Self-Promotion

No More Mr. GOP Nice Guy (and Girl)

The Washington Times has published my article predicting the end of the Republican's moratorium on internal feuding.

The Republican presidential candidates have presented a united front. They've held hands and stuck to the message. President Obama is the problem. They - the mature, resolved and above-the-fray Republican opposition - are the solution. Newt Gingrich momentarily strayed from the path by criticizing Paul Ryan's budget plan and was swiftly reprimanded by the greater GOP establishment. Even the recent GOP debate in New Hampshire was more of a GOP powwow. There has been an obvious consensus to defer the intraparty feuding until the GOP has collectively, convincingly and resoundingly identified Mr. Obama as the nation's albatross.

However, Obama's decline and Romney's ascent in the polls "have emboldened the Republican field to abandon their familial camaraderie and adopt a new strategy."

So, after playing nice in New Hampshire - and being widely criticized by the media for refusing to take CNN's repeated invitation to begin in-fighting - the candidates have begun lining up to take shots at the current king of the hill.

Please RTWT.

Politics

Revising the Constitution

After learning of the fact that tiny Iceland is rewriting its constitution, Fareed Zakaria makes the suggestion that our own United States Constitution needs some revisions as well. While it does seem like he would be open to another constitutional convention in order to just rewrite the whole thing if need be, he stops short of calling for that with a clear understanding of American views on the rightfully-respected document. While he rightfully points to the unintended power that the courts have acquired as a flaw within the document that could use some correcting, he then goes on to lament that the Senate and the Electoral College are not democratic enough, exhibiting a lack of understanding of the document. Yes, those two bodies are absolutely intended to limit democratic tendencies and permit some sort of local governments to exist via the states. Like many anti-EC types, he wrongfully points to the disputed 2000 election as a great failure of the system. The 2000 Election was a failure in electoral management by the state of Florida and an arguably bad decision by the Supreme Court to support Florida's decision not to count some votes; had Florida not had the problems it did, and had Bush still won the state, I believe that the arguments against the system would not be nearly as loud despite Bush winning the college's vote and Gore the popular vote.

However, the discussion on new amendments to the Constitution is perhaps a good one to have, and he asks people to mention three amendments that they would like to see. Personally, I think amendments that give a supermajority of the states the power to veto federal legislation, repeal the 17th amendment, and figure out some way to address the mess that the courts are would all be good ones to consider. What amendments would you propose?
Categories > Politics

Elections

The Ever-Growing Conservative Pool

Former Utah governor John Huntsman has joined the GOP presidential field with a mild-mannered anti-Washington and fiscally conservative message. Now that Huntsman is officially in the ring, Texas governor Rick Perry's expected announcement should just about round out the Republican field.

The only problem with all these delightfully conservative candidates is that they are generally indistinguishable to most Americans - which means that a moderate in their midst, such as Mitt Romney, will be the only candidate who is not dividing his share of the primary vote among a half-dozen other candidates. (The same is true for Ron Paul and the libertarian vote, but I don't expect that vote to pose a threat.)

A fractioning of the conservative vote among all the rest will allow Romney to seize the entire moderate vote in the GOP primary. Romney's name recognition and well-honed political skill could secure any remaining votes necessary to boost him above the fray. A conservative candidate either needs to rise above the crowd, or the herd needs to thin itself out. As it stands, the mere contrast between Romney and the rest bode poorly for conservative hopefuls. 

Categories > Elections