The political superstate of Minnewisowa (Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa) is back as prime battleground for the 2012 presidential cycle. It behaved true to form in 2008, with all its 27 electoral votes going easily to Barack Obama. But the political landscape has changed notably in all three states since then.
Minnesota has elected a Republican legislature and, for the first time in 20 years, a Democratic governor (but barely). The GOP also picked up a U.S. house seat. A budget dispute has now closed the state government down for three weeks, although a just formulated “deal” will probably bring that to an end in days. It is unclear what the aftermath of this shutdown will be, although the Democratic governor did agree to the basic terms of the Republicans. On the other hand, incumbent Democratic U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar so far does not have a serious opponent.
Wisconsin elected a Republican governor in 2010 and a GOP legislature. Conservatives also picked up two U.S. house seats and a U.S. senate seat. Promised reform was enacted by the Republicans with much controversy, but state government is now considerably more Republican than it was.
Iowa elected a Republican governor, and has lost a U.S. house seat in 2012 which may reduce the Democratic congressional delegation from the state. As in the other two component states of Minnewisowa, urban unemployment remains high and the state’s ethanol production remains controversial.
Minnewisowa now has 26 electoral votes instead of 27 it had before, but with a faltering national economy that has also hit the midwest hard, President Obama’s prospects for the historic turnout that propelled him to victory nationwide and here in 2008 are significantly reduced.
The greatest political energy throughout Minnewisowa has been the reinvigoration of rural and outstate conservative voters. The confrontation with labor unions in Wisconsin has also brought new energy to urban liberals there for the time being, with union members efforts concentrated on recall and retribution votes taking place over the summer. The first of these, an attempt to prevent the re-election of the conservative state supreme court chief justice, fell short.
Many political observers have noted that the unpopularity and controversy of conservative-led austerity measures in all three of these states could likely fade by next years if these measures produced the economic turnaround they are designed to do. Reform Republican governors in Indiana, Ohio, New Jersey, Virginia and Florida,, and Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo in New York, have all seen their poll numbers decline, but they have brought about reduced government spending, lower taxes and restraint of labor union demands which are also expected to pay big dividends by mid-2012.
The components of Minnewisowa will have special circumstances in 2012. Two of the major GOP presidential contenders are from Minnesota (Tim Pawlenty and Michele Bachmann), two of the national figures who emerged from the 2010 national elections are from Wisconsin (Congressman Paul Ryan and Governor Scott Walker), and Iowa remains the first voting state in 2012 with its first-in-the-nation caucus, as well as its symbolic GOP Straw Poll in Ames next month.
More than a year out, similar economic and demographic patterns throughout Minnewisowa signal the “superstate” may be poised for further political change. The presidential campaign, in addition the state legislative and congressional elections here, just as it did in 2000, 2004 and 2008, provide special focus for voters, but this time perhaps with a different result.
______________________________________________________________________
-Please visit Mr. Casselman’s personal site, The Prairie Editor Blog.
I don’t like to toot my own horn, but after I suggested about a month ago that a Perry-Giuliani (Rick ‘n’ Rudy?) ticket would become an attractive option if the Texas Governor entered the race and won the GOP nomination, Chris Cillizza’s exposé on the two’s relationship today got the wheels in my head turning once again. Cillizza believes Perry has a lot to gain from the connection:
The two men are good friends, and Perry was the only Republican governor in the country to endorse Giuliani’s presidential campaign in 2008. Payback could benefit Perry on a number of fronts – most notably fundraising – and would likely strengthen his status as a top-tier candidate if he decides to run.First and most importantly, Giuliani has deep connections in the New York City Republican money world.
While Giuliani’s 2008 campaign was broadly disappointing, one thing he did well was raise money. Giuliani raised nearly $66 million for his 2008 campaign, despite the fact that he never won a single primary or caucus.
One of Perry’s major hurdles, according to those familiar with his deliberations, is whether he can raise the sort of money he would need to run competitive campaigns in each of the early states.
Perry has never had to raise money under federal contribution limits — $2,500 for the primary and $2,500 for the general election is all any single donor can give — and would have to change his model of finding a handful of major donors who can write huge checks to one centered around big bundlers who can collect hundreds of smaller checks.
His fundraising base in Texas gives Perry a foothold in one of the most donor-rich states in the country. With Giuliani making introductions for him in New York City, Perry would almost certainly have the financial foundation he would need to make a credible run – particularly given some of the less-than-inspiring sums reported over the past three months by his would-be rivals for the nomination.
Less obvious, but perhaps no less important, for Perry’s chances of winning the Republican nomination is the boost that a Giuliani endorsement would give him on the national security front.
…Giuliani is still a national hero within Republican circles for his handling of the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Giuliani telling GOP primary voters that Perry is the candidate in the race who can best protect America and keep us safe would be a powerful – and likely persuasive – factor in what is an incredibly wide-open race.
As one who believes that Perry’s cultural cues would present his biggest obstacles to a general election victory, a running mate like Rudy – the most urbane high-profile individual in the party – could go a long way toward addressing that concern.
Perry will obviously need a ton of cash to compete with Romney. As Cillizza explains, Rudy could help in that territory.
Furthermore, I contend that Rudy fans still hoping to see the Mayor in the Oval Office ought to get fully behind this idea and set aside their disagreements with Perry, as it would represent Rudy’s best shot at eventually winning over the GOP en masse and becoming a presidential nominee.
My questions to our wonderful Race community: for those of you who don’t think too highly of Rudy for his social views, would you have any objections to him becoming the Veep of a strong SoCon like Perry? Looking farther down the line, if a President Perry served two consecutive terms, would you have any qualms with him pulling a Bush 41 and becoming the next nominee? And for the Rudyites, would you enthusiastically get behind a Perry-Giuliani ticket?
The topline for the latest NBC/WSJ national horse race poll has been released. I post it below along side their last two results, as well:
(7/17) (6/12) (4/4) Romney 30 30 21 Bachmann 16 3 5 Perry 11 8 – Paul 9 7 – Gingrich 8 6 11 Cain 5 12 – Santorum 3 4 3 Pawlenty 2 4 6 Huntsman 2 1 – Palin – 14 10
Wow, look at Bachmann’s surge. From 3% to 16%, a rise of 13% in a month is quite impressive.
Gingrich’s once promising campaign has settled comfortably under 10% along side of Ron Paul.
Once rising star Hermann Cain has dropped like a stone — from 12% to 5% in one month’s time. No wonder he recently played the religion card on Mitt Romney. Desperation time for him, perhaps?
Pawlenty continues to dwindle. His trend-line goes from 6% to 4% to 2%. He just can’t seem to get any traction no matter how hard he tries. His situation in Iowa is nigh intolerable. Even if, hope against hope, Bachmann implodes, Perry is waiting in the wings ready to jump in.
Tim just can’t seem to catch a break. I am almost to the “stick a fork in him” stage. It will take a miracle for him to turn it around at this point. And I say that as one who has had him penciled in as my 2nd choice for months now.
Oh, did I happen to mention that I do believe in miracles? 
They have not released any numbers for Palin yet. I do not know why. They polled Perry, so I assume they would have polled Palin, as well. Perhaps it is because the article only talks about the toplines. The author may have inadvertently left Palin’s numbers out. When the full data is released, I will update if necessary.
The Wall Street Journal reports that American Crossroads, the Karl Rove-associated 527 group, has created an ad to emphasize the failures of the Obama administration for the Hispanic community:
The Journal also provides some analysis and translation:
“Sometimes it’s hard to sleep,” a woman says in the English version as the clock flashes 3 a.m. “I supported President Obama because he spoke so beautifully, but since then things have gone from bad to much worse.”
The volley against the White House is the first time Crossroads has reached out to the Hispanic community, a key, and growing, voting bloc.
…The ad will air in Miami, Orlando and Tampa, Fla.; Denver and Colorado Springs, Colo.; Albuquerque, N.M.; El Paso, Texas; Las Vegas and Reno, Nev., and in Washington, D.C.
Crossroads carries quite a bit of credibility when it comes to this matter; after all, Rove helped President Bush nab 44% of the Latino vote in 2004 – a total far greater than other Republican candidates, even President Reagan, have managed in recent elections.
By now many of us have seen the Daily Caller article about Michelle Bachmann claiming with anonymous sources that she is regularly incapacitated for days at a time by migraines. I read the post and the first thing that came to mind was that it was written with anonymous sources with only one example of Bachmann being unable to perform her duties. And by unable to perform her duties…she had to cancel on a fundraiser. The other examples do not provide any proof that she is actually slowed down by any medical condition. Ed Morrissey of Hot Air does a better job than I do dissecting this piece to point out that it does not appear to hold much water. Here’s an excerpt from the article:
What are the examples of Bachmann being “incapacitated” by her migraines? Strong only offers one — a missed campaign appearance for then-Rep. Roy Blunt in his ultimately successful Senate campaign. She was treated at a hospital and went home the same day. The only other incidents cited by Strong’s report came two months earlier, an episode that caused her to miss … er … no appearances, although she did visit an urgent-care center, and another event in October of last year, in which she laid down for a while and went to urgent care for treatment later…Bachmann doesn’t have a reputation for being a political wallflower. She has tirelessly traveled to Tea Party events, appears constantly on talking-head political news shows, and is perhaps the most prodigious fundraiser in the House. Bachmann didn’t do all of that by being incapacitated. I’ve known Bachmann for several years, and I’m only aware of her missing one event (the Blunt appearance) in all of that time. If her migraines were anywhere near as incapacitating as Strong’s piece suggests, we would have known about it a year ago or more.
In the original article as posted here, Bob Hovic asked the most important question – how has this reported issue impacted her voting record. Turns out – it doesn’t.
GovTrack has found that since January 1, 2007, Bachmann has missed all of 5% of votes. This has been exaccerbated by the fact that she’s running for President and a seemingly brief spike in early 2009. Below is the chart from GovTrack:
All in all, the claim does not seem to add up to me. While you all may have legitimate beefs with Bachmann or reasons you feel she is unqualified to be President. I don’t think this one really is an issue.
EDIT – 7/19/11 04:52 PM – Bachmann responds to the question about her health. Here’s the quote.
“Like nearly 30 million other Americans, I experience migraines that are easily controlled with medication. I am a wife, a mother, a lawyer who worked her way through law school, a former state senator who achieved the repeal of a harmful piece of education policy in Minnesota, and a congresswoman who has worke tirelessly fighting against the expansion of government and wasteful spending. Since entering the campaign, I have maintained a full schedule between my duties as a congresswoman and as a presidential candidate traveling across the nation to meet with voters in the key, early primary and caucus states of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. I have prescribed medication that I take whenever symptoms arise and they keep the migraines under control. Let me be abundantly clear – my ability to function effectively has never been impeded by migraines and will not affect my ability to serve as Commander in Chief.”
“The many questions I have received on this subject have allowed me to discuss this important condition that impacts individuals in nearly one in four households. However, as a presidential candidate and office holder, I am focused on performing my job, which has never been more important given the state of our economy and the millions of Americans that are out of work. While I appreciate the concern for me and my health, the greater concern should be the debate that is occurring in Washington over whether or not we will increase our debt, spending and taxes.”
_______________________________________________________
-Matt Newman is a conservative blogger from Maryland who blogs at Old Line Elephant and Tweets far too often.
PPP has released their National Horse Race poll for the month of July. The results are most interesting:
| (Horse Race) | w/ Palin | w/o Palin |
| Romney | 20 | 20 |
| Bachmann | 16 | 21 |
| Palin | 12 | – |
| Perry | 11 | 12 |
| Cain | 10 | 11 |
| Paul | 9 | 9 |
| Gingrich | 6 | 7 |
| Pawlenty | 5 | 5 |
| Huntsman | 2 | 3 |
| Other/Undec | 10 | 12 |
Romney continues to lead the field if Sarah Palin is in it. When she is not, Michele Bachmann now takes the lead for the first time.
Pawlenty continues to struggle way down in the dirt. I fear that our good Minnesota Governor is running out of time to prove his viability. There is still lots of time left on the clock, but it’s ticking. He is going to have to make his move soon.
This poll was taken before stories of Bachmann’s supposedly debilitating migraines began circulating. If proven true, that definitely has the potential of ending her campaign in a hurry.
The Daily Caller has the story. Is this a game changer?
Texas Solicitor General, Ted Cruz, has won the coveted endorsement over Texas Railroad Commissioner Michael Williams:
I am proud to announce the endorsement of Ted Cruz for the open U.S. Senate seat in Texas.
There are several good candidates in this race, but we’re endorsing the former Texas solicitor general for three important reasons.
First, Ted Cruz is the strongest conservative in the field.
We have spent a lot of time interviewing him and researching his record. He believes deeply in the principles of limited government, strong national defense, and traditional family values. Syndicated columnist George Will recently outlined his accomplishments in a piece titled “Ted Cruz, a candidate as good as it gets.”
Second, Ted Cruz has the support of the grassroots in Texas.
He has earned the endorsement of many conservative leaders across the state and is winning straw poll after straw poll because of his clear and unwavering commitment to our nation’s founding principles. He has also earned the endorsement of leading free-market organizations, such as the Club for Growth and FreedomWorks.
Third, we believe that now is the time for freedom-loving Americans to unite behind a single candidate. An establishment candidate with deep pockets will enter the race soon so conservatives must unite behind Ted Cruz to help him build the support he needs to win.
For these reasons, I hope you will join us today in supporting Ted Cruz for U.S. Senate in Texas.
Ted Cruz will fight for the principles of freedom that will restore America’s greatness. He’s someone who respects the U.S. Constitution and will work every day to honor his oath of office to support and defend it.
The official release is here.
The radio in my car was tuned to WHO-Radio in Des Moines as the 4:00 p.m Top of the Hour Newscast today. Newsman Gary Barrett explained that the grandson of Democratic Congressman Leonard Boswell* had warded off an armed intruder to the rural Boswell household with a shotgun. The man was already attacking one of the women in the household and fled the scene after being confronted by the younger Boswell.
In an amazing display of hutzpah, the story ended with a quote from (I believe) a law-enforcement officer suggesting that residents should not take out their firearms when faced with an intruder because
How fool-hardy because
The first presidential debate to take place entirely via Twitter–love the idea or hate it–is set to take place this Wednesday, July 20th, from 3:00 pm to 4:30 pm Eastern time. You can watch it at http://140townhall.com/. Moderating will be conservative author S.E. Cupp and nationally syndicated radio talk show host Rusty Humphries. Participating will be:
My prediction: Sooner or later there will be a 10-person presidential debate held via a Google+ Hangout.
Civitas (R) 2012 North Carolina Presidential Survey
- Rick Perry (R) 45%
- Barack Obama (D) 42%
- Undecided 12%
This poll of 600 registered general election voters in North Carolina was conducted July 12-13, 2011 by National Research, Inc. of Holmdel, NJ. All respondents were part of a fully representative sample of registered voters in North Carolina. For purposes of this study, voters interviewed had to have voted in two of the past four general elections or were newly registered to vote since 2008.
The confidence interval associated with a sample of this size is such that: 95 percent of the time, results from 600 interviews (registered voters) will be within +-4% of the “True Values.” True Values refer to the results obtained if it were possible to interview every person in North Carolina who had voted in two of the past four general elections or were newly registered to vote since 2008.
Much more below the fold:
(more…)
EPIC-MRA Michigan 2012 Presidential Survey
- Mitt Romney (R) 46% (46%)
- Barack Obama (D) 41% (41%)
Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}
- Mitt Romney (43%) / (28%) {+15%}
- Barack Obama 47% (50%) / 47% (43%) {0%}
Survey of 600 likely voters was conducted July 9-11, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted February 12-17, 2011 are in parentheses.
–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.
The Wall Street Journal has an interesting piece entitled, “The Making of Brand Huntsman,” which talks about the odd and very different roll-out of his campaign. Will it work? Here’s an excerpt from the article:
He resigned just 11 weeks ago as the U.S. ambassador to China, but already Jon Huntsman has a logo, a musical theme, a small arsenal of promotional videos, a Hollywood narrator and a line of travel mugs, lapel pins, baseball caps and T-shirts emblazoned with the distinctive H of his infant presidential campaign. He even has a generation named after himself. “Generation H,” his campaign calls it.
Of all the GOP’s candidates for president, Jon Huntsman is arguably the one with the lowest profile. And so he’s taking an unusual approach to his campaign in a bid to separate himself from the pack. WSJ’s Neil King Jr. reports. Image courtesy of Getty Images.
His Republican rivals are doing what candidates usually do in the heat of an early campaign—ripping into the incumbent president, pitching economic plans, laying out ways to conquer Alzheimer’s.
But Mr. Huntsman is trying something different in GOP politics: a campaign based almost entirely on atmospherics. It is, in many ways, the political version of a Ralph Lauren product launch.
And it has the political class wondering: Can it possibly succeed? Can a guy who is marching well to the left of the core of his party—and garnering barely 2% in most national polls—surge to the fore on the strength of what his message guru calls “a phased branding” campaign designed to sell him as cool, young and different?
The Huntsman approach borrows elements from two famous presidential campaigns, Ronald Reagan’s in 1980 and Barack Obama’s in 2008, while paying homage to techniques more typically used to sell iPads or Chevy trucks.
It’s true – his campaign roll out and even his website are nothing like anything I’ve seen from a campaign. We’ll find out if it brings him results soon enough, I’m sure.
_______________________________________________________
-Matt Newman is a conservative blogger from Maryland who blogs at Old Line Elephant and Tweets far too often.
ARG South Carolina 2012 GOP Primary Survey
- Mitt Romney 25% (18%)
- Sarah Palin 16% (10%)
- Michele Bachmann 13% (5%)
- Herman Cain 10% (1%)
- Rudy Giuliani 6% (4%)
- Rick Perry 6%
- Newt Gingrich 3% (9%)
- Ron Paul 2% (1%)
- Rick Santorum 2% (1%)
- Buddy Roemer 2% (0%)
- Gary Johnson 0% (0%)
- Jon Huntsman 0% (0%)
- Tim Pawlenty 0% (2%)
- Undecided 15% (11%)
A couple items making the news. First, we have a real hearty debt reduction plan authored by Tom Coburn that would cut $9 trillion over ten years and bring significant change to the tax code by lowering rates and closing loopholes. It will be a commendable effort that he doesn’t expect to pass, and the reason it won’t will be the lack of seriousness on the debt issue.
In the meanwhile, Reid and McConnell are drafting their grand compromise which would allow the President to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally. In response to the fact that this does nothing to head off the coming crisis, McConnell and Reid are looking at their options including creating a bi-partisan commission. How well did that work last time?
Unfortunately, the efforts on Capitol Hill smack a lot more of CYA than actually trying to solve the problem. And ultimately whoever is President in 2013 will have to break through this logjam or we may reach a point of no return.
It’s just speculation at this point, but I think there is a Republican ticket that probably can’t lose, barring the unforeseen, the 2012 presidential election.
No votes have been cast yet; in fact, we are a month from the Iowa Straw Poll. So it is clearly speculative that the frontrunner, Mitt Romney will win the GOP nomination. Nevertheless, Mr. Romney does seem on the road to win in Tampa. Governor Rick Perry will probably enter the contest now, and that will slow the Romney train down, but neither Mr. Perry, Mrs. Michele Bachmann nor Mr. Tim Pawlenty seem yet to have the political force to stop this train on the tracks.
There are several excellent vice presidential choices for whomever is nominated. These include New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and several of those now running for the top spot, i.e., former Governor Pawlenty, current New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez, current Governor John Kasich of Ohio of and former Speaker Newt Gingrich. But there is one potential vice presidential choice whose impact on the election I think would tower over all others.
Senator Marco Rubio of Florida would almost certainly accomplish what any ideal running mate could bring to a ticket. Not only would he bring Florida, with its huge number of electoral votes, to the GOP side (Florida’s votes went Obama in 2008), as the first Hispanic nominee for vice president, he would almost certainly swing many in the huge American Hispanic vote from the Democratic column to the Republican side. A charismatic, young and eloquent figure, and a candidate from the South, he would provide needed balance to Mr. Romney, a northerner and a Mormon. Although only in his first term in the U.S. senate, Mr. Rubio has considerable background in Florida state politics. (Considering that Mr. Obama was in his first senate term in 2008, and had much less experience in state politics than Mr. Rubio, the Florida Republican’s credentials could not be credibly challenged by Democrats.)
I am sure that, at this point, Senator Rubio will deny any interest in the vice presidency, and he would probably be sincere. Like Governor Christie, he is not ready to run for the presidency (although both are prominently mentioned as candidates in 2016 or 2020), but in September, 2012, in Tampa, it would be very difficult for Mr. Rubio to say no to an invitation from just-nominated Mr. Romney. (I point out that even Lyndon Johnson, the powerful senate majority leader in 1960, could not resist the invitation from John F. Kennedy.)
I realize that Mitt Romney, despite his growing lead now, might not win the GOP nomination. Anything can happen in U.S. politics these days. Even so, Senator Rubio might prove an irresistible choice for Mr. Pawlenty should he win the nomination. (In that case, two young GOP nominees on the ticket could prove just as effective as the youthful Bill Clinton-Al Gore ticket was in 1992.)
As I said at the outset, this is all just speculation. But I would suggest that it might be worthy to store these thoughts for a moment about a year from now when the GOP nomination almost certainly be decided, and the vice presidential choice becomes the number one item of political discussion, and possibly, key to the outcome of the November election.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
-Please visit Mr. Casselman’s personal site, The Prairie Editor.
Make room for one more on Super Tuesday:
Idaho’s Republican Party Central Committee, at its meeting in Moscow, Idaho on Saturday, approved moving to a caucus system – like the Idaho Democrats’ – for its presidential delegate selection in 2012, making the state’s presidential primary meaningless for both parties.
The Presidential Primary occurred in May when the nomination has almost always been decided. I’m somewhat gratified that Idaho will have a voice as I pushed this at the 2008 State Convention and got defeated pretty overwhelmingly.
Having an Idaho Caucus helps two candidates in particular: Ron Paul and Mitt Romney And in one way, that may be part of why the deal got done. The state’s political establishment is almost universally behind Romney, while party insurgents have strong loyalty for Ron Paul. The new contest provides something for both.
If Romney wins New Hampshire and stays in the race, he has to be the favorite to win Idaho. However, Paul supporters in the state are extremely well-organized and Paul could win, particularly if Romney doesn’t last that far. If Paul doesn’t win, he should pick up quite a few Idaho delegates as a result of the Caucus.
It’s been a long while since I’ve written about the thirteen keys, the presidential election prediction system which has retroactively predicted the result of the popular vote back to 1860 and from 1984 on.
The keys are true/false statements. If six of the statements are false, then Obama will lose, less than six are false, he’ll win re-election. Here is how the thirteen keys stand now. First, those in the President’s favor:
The policy change key deserves an asterisk because while Obama achieved a major change in policy, it was not a change in policy the American people supported unlike the New Deal and the Great Society which had significant support. Enacting a major sweeping policy change against the will of the electorate is not something with a whole lot of precedent to back it.
Beyond that, several of these “True” statements are subject to change. For example, the Third Party key. Regardless of how the debt ceiling debate goes, there’s a risk of a third party either on the left or on the right. Obama has also been very lucky so far with foreign policy. But a major failure or crisis can come up at any time. At this point in Jimmy Carter’s presidency, the Iran Hostage Crisis hadn’t happened yet.
I do think the Challenger Charisma key is safely in the President’s pocket. None of the GOP candidates are going to claim the White House through sheer force of personality. The only real charismatic candidate in the bunch is Cain and he seems to keep getting himself into needless controversies. Now on to the keys against the President. Again, these statements are all all false:
Regarding the Incumbent Charisma key, it’s over, it’s not 2008 anymore. He doesn’t have that same force of personality that drove his 2008 campaign.
The foreign/military success key is one where some including Professor Lichtman think Obama needs to be given a “True” on this because of the killing of Osama bin Laden. Here, I’ll disagree with the professor’s call. The “True” statement on this key is usually assigned if a President concludes a successful treaty or wins a war. Do the American people think killing Bin Laden was really the equivalent of winning the Gulf War or the signing of the Camp David accords? Perhaps, Lichtman’s right, but I’m dubious that killing one guy in a Pakistani town even if it is Bin Laden will be seen by Americans as the same thing as winning World War II. If Obama has 9 or more keys in his favor on election day according to Lichtman and wins, we may never find out whose right as Obama would win with or without the key. If Lichtman gives Obama 8 keys and he loses, then I’ll suggest that this key is the one that messed up the calculation.
I’ll also put one key in toss up territory:
Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
Here, I have to honestly say that I don’t know whether we’re in recession or not. Remember that in 2008, until August and September, no one in the political world really thought the economy was in recession. Though economists determined the recession actually began December 2007. With Goldman Sachs’ recent downgrade of economic projections under the President. I’m not sure we aren’t in a recession or soon going to be in one. Although, it will take a while for the political world to realize it.
My friend and colleague at Pajamas Media Clayton Cramer explained why he believes Republicans shouldn’t nominate Mitt Romney. Put simply, the Democrats will make hay of Romney’s Mormonism in order to win the election:
I can guarantee you that once Romney has the Republican nomination, Obama’s people will play the Mormon card. They may be subtle about it, and make documentaries and television programs about the “weird” Mormon beliefs. They may focus on polygamist breakaway sects, such as the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and hope that many Americans will not realize that the FLDS is not part of the same church as Romney.
Cramer does write that regarding whether Mormonism should disqualify a candidate from the presidency, “I don’t think it should.” His argument is that political reality demands that Republicans not nominate a Mormon because it could lead to a GOP defeat.
I agree with Cramer that the Democrats will attack Mormonism if Romney is nominated. However, I disagree that it should dissuade Republican voters from backing Romney for three reasons.
What Cramer has cited is a line of attack Democrats will use. However, for every candidate, the GOP offers, there will be multiple lines of attack. Of other candidates, Cramer says, “They may attack Bachmann or Palin for inconsistency in not being meek little wives, but they can’t directly attack them for being Christians. ”
They can’t attack them directly for being Christians in a nation the vast majority of Americans identify themselves as Christian, but they can attack them indirectly being observant orthodox conservative Christians and for many other things. For Bachmann, it’s her husband’s mental health clinic. For Palin, it’s her family and Trig and a thousand other things. For Rick Santorum, it will be how “creepy” the way he handled the death of his son Gabriel For Rick Perry, it will be his state’s rights statements that many have interpreted as sympathetic to secession as well as his association with some preachers.
Telling us that a candidate is vulnerable to an attack doesn’t tell us the attack will be successful. Indeed, the example that Cramer cited in his piece (CBS doing a piece on Ron Reagan, Jr.’s ballet career to hint at homosexuality before the election) didn’t work.
The second problem I have with the argument is that if Obama can be beaten (big IF), people are not going to care about Mormonism, because the country will be a wreck, that is the only way he’ll win. People will put aside their prejudices and vote for a change. This happened in 2008 as Nate Silver recounted when a Democratic volunteer called a home in West Virginia and was told, “Ma’am, we’re voting for the n***er.”
Finally, I also have a problem with an argument that encourages us to take an action to win an election that violates the spirit of our country’s founding. Washington in his letter to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, Rhode Island said that our national government should give ”to bigotry no sanction.”
Mormons have fought and died under the country’s flag. Most are decent citizens. They have also given Republicans more support than any other political group. To reject a candidate because of their Mormon beliefs is to sanction people’s prejudices, to try and win an election by violating the principles the nation is founded on isn’t an acceptable trade.
To be clear, I’m not a Romney backer. I don’t trust him. I don’t think he has the political courage or skills needed for times like these, but his religion has nothing to do with it.
This week will mark President Obama’s two-and-a-half year anniversary of ascending to high office, in which time the president has managed to go from stratospheric approval ratings in the high 60s to his current polling average in the mid 40s. Should Obama lose the presidency next year, the question that high school students will ponder a half century from now will be just what went wrong with the Obama presidency.
My own view goes something like this: I believe President Obama would have a much higher approval rating right now had he understood the political pulse of “Main Street America.” To be sure, a lot of Republicans don’t understand Main Street either, trotting out caricatures of “Real Americans” created by cynical political strategists who have never been to flyover country. But if GOP strategists’ biggest crime is assuming that everyone outside of New York and Washington speak in colloquialisms and chop brush, Obama’s mistake can be found in his assumption that Americans view their country in terms of its institutions, instead of as a collection of individuals yearning for self-determination. That assumption has been at the backdrop of most of the president’s unpopular moves and has earned the highly accurate description of “corporatism” from Ron Paul and others.
I have long believed that President Obama missed several major opportunities to govern as a member of the Populist Left. If he had done so, he would have remained popular, even if his policies would have been equally dismal, or perhaps dismal in a different way. Obama’s first error was directing his stimulus and bailouts at fortifying large institutions. The president likely felt that Americans would view saving corporations like GM as a positive, as companies like these were a hallmark of the traditional American economy, where folks enjoyed lifetime employment and boffo benefits from a single, highly regulated, often unionized employer. What Obama didn’t get was that, unlike 90 percent of social science and humanities professors in America, most Americans realize that the economic model of the ’50s is over and would prefer a government that reacts to the world as it is now. Instead of fetishizing GM and her ilk, Obama should have directed government money to the people, essentially “bailing out” the citizens, via more generous unemployment benefits, job training programs, student loan forgiveness, and mortgage assistance programs. Conservatives may have their qualms with each of these ideas, but the point isn’t that Obama would ever have governed as a conservative, but that he should have governed as a “liberal of the people.”
ObamaCare is another example of a major miscalculation by the president. Throughout the ObamaCare debate in 2009 and 2010, vast majorities of Americans in pretty much every poll favored any and every new regulation on insurance companies that pollsters could imagine, including a ban on exclusions for pre-existing conditions and bans on rescinding policies. Instead of trying to build a piece of legislation that focused on the insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry, Obama should have simply proposed heavily regulating insurers to accept all comers. Republicans would have argued that such a policy would increase premiums for everyone. But no one would care, because insurance companies tend to be unpopular, and regulating insurance companies tends to be popular. What killed ObamaCare was the individual mandate, the Medicare cuts, and the convoluted nature of the bill that suggested that the health care sector was being uprooted in a way that would have lots of unintended consequences in an area very personal to Americans.
As such, it shouldn’t be surprising that the president’s popularity has remained high in the realm of foreign policy, where Americans do have an institutional mindset — with respect for the U.S. military being widespread — and where Obama is able to call the shots from Olympus without descending into the realm of we mere mortals, with our Dionysian impulses and irrational emotions. If the president loses next year, he will probably do so without ever truly understanding why.
2012 Republican Presidential Nomination
| Poll | Average | Quinnipiac | FOX News | McClatchy-Marist | Morris | Rasmussen |
| Date | 6/14 – 7/11 | 7/5 – 7/11 | 6/26 – 6/28 | 6/15 – 6/23 | 6/18 – 6/19 | 6/14 – 6/14 |
| Romney | 23.60 | 25 | 18 | 19 | 23 | 33 |
| Bachmann | 12.80 | 14 | 11 | 8 | 12 | 19 |
| Giuliani | 11.50 | 10 | 13 | |||
| Palin | 10.33 | 12 | 8 | 11 | ||
| Perry | 10.25 | 10 | 13 | 13 | 5 | |
| Paul | 7.20 | 5 | 7 | 5 | 12 | 7 |
| Cain | 6.20 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 10 |
| Gingrich | 4.80 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 9 |
| Pawlenty | 4.00 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 6 |
| Santorum | 2.40 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 6 |
| Huntsman | 1.80 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| Johnson | 0.75 | 1 | 0.5 | |||
| McCotter | 0.50 | 0.5 | 0.5 | |||
| Roemer | 0.50 | 0.5 | ||||
| Karger | 0.50 | 0.5 | 0.5 | |||
| Moore | 0.50 | 0.5 |
Alibis – Get Your Red Hot Alibis Here!
First, my alibi. In case I offend anybody (I doubt I’ll offend as many as last week, but you never can tell) and they challenge me to a duel, the fact that I don’t respond should not be taken as a sign of cowardice. I will not be responding because I’ll be too engrossed in the finals of the World Cup.
The USA-Brazil game was one for the ages – no scriptwriter could have done it better. Brazil is favored, but additionally gets an amazing amount of help from a hopelessly incompetent ref. USA has to play one player down for the final hour of the game. Brazil takes the lead in overtime on a missed offsides call. As the clock winds down, Brazil engages in outrageous stalling tactics, offending the fans and turning a neutral audience overwhelmingly pro-USA. But things look grim, as it goes down to the very last minute:
And now for the finals. So if you want a showdown with pistols — sorry, I’ll be otherwise occupied.
My excuses, I admit, are nowhere near as good as North Korea’s. Last week we discussed their creative alibi about the team being hit by lightning. This week it got better. After several players tested positive for steroids, they built on the lightning excuse – to aid in their recovery from the lightning strike, we are told, the players had taken musk deer glands, which caused the positive test results.
Right. At this very moment, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens are on the phone with their attorneys, discussing musk deer glands.
The Suburbs are Aging
Forty percent of suburbanites are 45 or older, up from 34% a decade ago. If the coming election will turn, as I’ve argued often that it will, on how the Midwest (and more specifically, Midwestern suburbs) vote, then this is an important development.
As people age, they generally become more conservative. With one exception – they are not conservative in thinking about how the government ought to fund their retirement. The Republicans must win the battle for middle-aged and older Americans by selling the idea that it is the Republicans who are trying to save Social Security – that the Democrats’ status quo approach will imperil everyone’s future.
This will not be an easy sell, with the Democrats having the full-throated support of the media.
Did Obamacare Kill the Recovery?
Coyote Blog uses this graph …
… to argue it did. Look at the orange line, which is private sector hiring. From the pit of the recession to March 2010, it looked like an ordinary recovery, but then it fell apart. What happened in March? Obamacare passed on 3/18/10.
No one event could kill a recovery, in my opinion. But I think Obamacare may have crystallized in a lot of business owners’ minds the thought that they’d be crazy to hire anybody as long as this crew is running things in Washington.
James Pethokoukis notes that the White House should be going into panic mode over the latest forecast from Goldman Sachs, which says that unemployment will still be close to 9% on Election Day, and raises the possibility of a return to ‘official’ recession. I’m of the school of thought that recessions end, certainly in political terms, when unemployment returns to – or at least heads clearly toward – normal levels. Therefore, I consider the recession to have never ended, but if things turn downward from what the economists are calling a recovery, Obama would be well advised to start packing.
The Weekly Public School Report
Last week we brought up Maryland’s inclusion of ‘environmental literacy’ as a graduation requirement. Fearing that the east coast might be gaining the edge on educational silliness, California trumped them by requiring the study of gay history. Take that, Maryland!
Senate Bill 48 requires public instruction in social sciences to include the role and contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans, as well as people with disabilities and members of other cultural groups.
Public schools in the heartland are trying to match this bicoastal plunge into ever deeper pits of foolishness, but are finding it difficult. The best Omaha could do, for example, is to spend $130,000 (of stimulus money, of course) on buying diversity manuals – 8,000 of them, one for every employee from superintendent to janitors.
The authors assert that American government and institutions create advantages that “channel wealth and power to white people,” that color-blindness will not end racism and that educators should “take action for social justice.”
The book says that teachers should acknowledge historical systemic oppression in schools, including racism, sexism, homophobia and “ableism,” defined by the authors as discrimination or prejudice against people with disabilities.
Though we love the idea of your janitors sweeping school hallways more sensitively, we fear that Omaha will have to do better than that if you want to stem the mockery of flyover country by the coastal elites.
Canada, too, is trying to keep up, and the Toronto District Shool Board is putting in a noble effort by making it official policy that only white people can be racist.
… racism, in a North American context, is based on an ideology of the superiority of the white race over other racial groups. Racism is evident in individual acts, such as racial slurs, jokes, etc., and institutionally, in terms of policies and practices at institutional levels of society. The result of institutional racism is that it maintains white privilege and power …
Lessons on Democracy from Gilligan’s Island
Sherwood Schwartz, the creator of “Gilligan’s Island”, died this week. His death is noted by an academic who wrote a book entitled Gilligan Unbound: Pop Culture in the Age of Globalization – which argues that:
… “Gilligan’s Island” reflected the political confidence of 1960s America in the midst of the Cold War. A representative group of Americans could be dropped anywhere on the planet and they would rule, creating a small-scale model of U.S. democracy and fending off a sampling of its enemies, from Soviet cosmonauts to a Japanese soldier still fighting World War II to a Latin American dictator.
Gilligan is the perfect democratic hero because he has no claims to superiority. The Professor has wisdom; the Millionaire has money and social status; the Skipper has a kind of military authority as captain. Gilligan is the pure common man. And, of course, the only time the castaways hold an election, he is chosen as president. Throughout the series, Gilligan represents the triumph of the ordinary over the extraordinary.
Not sure why he excluded Ginger and Mary Ann. Sexism, no doubt. Anyone who wishes can tell us in the comments what those two represent (but keep it clean).
And add any other Miscellany, as well.
Yesterday, July 15, 2011, was the 32nd anniversary of Jimmy Carter’s famous Malaise speech. In it, Carter essentially told the nation that it’s problems were just the way it is; we were just going to have to learn to live with it. He called it his “Crisis of Confidence” speech. It should have been entitled, “A Crisis of Leadership” speech instead. As historian Roger Wilkins commented: “When your leadership is demonstrably weaker than it should be, you don’t then point at the people and say, ‘It’s your problem.’”
We see something similar today in what our current President is saying. To drive the point home Laura Ingraham has done a re-mix interweaving key soundbites from the Carter speech with Obama soundbites from today. It is a very effective effort.
Our President today is very weak at leading. The man thoroughly enjoys the perks of the job but avoids the responsibilities of it as much as possible. Instead of concentrating and focusing on the important issues facing America, we find him shooting countless rounds of golf, heading off to yet another “vacation”, and jetting around the country to hold multiple fundraisers. Instead of saying, “Let’s solve this problem”, we find him using class warfare and casting blame for our troubles on his political opponents.
Our current crop of candidates holds a number of hopefuls with proven track records of executive leadership. Anyone of them would be able to do a better job of running the country than the current occupant of the White House. Let’s hope the majority of American voters agree in November 2012.
| 2011 Q2 Fundraising Leaderboard | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rank | Candidate | Raised For Primaries | Other Revenue | Cash on Hand |
| 1 | Romney | $18.38 million | — | $12.72 million |
| 2 | Paul | $4.52 million | — | $2.96 million |
| 3 | Pawlenty | $3.73 million | $0.6 million1 | $1.4 million |
| 4 | Huntsman | $2.1 million | $2 million2 | ? |
| 5 | Gingrich | $2.1 million | — | $0.32 million |
| 6 | Cain | $2.08 million | $0.5 million2 | $0.48 million |
| 7 | Bachmann | $1.64 million | $2 million3 | $3.4 million |
| 8 | Santorum | $0.58 million | — | $0.23 million |
| 9 | Johnson | $0.18 million | — | $0.006 million |
1General election funds
2Self-funding loans
3Transfer from Congressional account
In light of the debt ceiling debate, many are warning that a failure to raise the debt ceiling which leads defaults or to a partial government shutdown would be a political catastrophe for Republicans and call to mind the . Indeed, back in April when facing the issue of the FY2011 budget, Speaker Boehner and several grizzled veteran house members warned the GOP caucus that a government shutdown would be politically devastating for the GOP, just as it was in 1995.
The problem with these stories of the horror, woe, and doom of 1995? They’re not true.
In the 1996 elections, Congressional Republicans lost nine house seats, but picked up two senate seats. The Republican losses in the Houses were to be expected after the landslide 1994. Any time a party has a national wave, here will be districts that the party wins that they can’t possibly maintain as well as members who lack the political skills and judgment to be elected without the aide of political tsunami in their party’s favor.
Then there’s the argument raised by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) that the 1995 Government shutdown “helped” Bill Clinton get re-elected. This is a quaint idea that disregards the role that nation performance plays in American presidential elections. When voters decide on a President, they ask questions about how the country is doing.
Looking back to 1996, what reason did swing voters have to throw President Clinton out of office? The economy was doing well with the dot com boom serving as a political windfall for the President and unemployment was moving down. President Clinton had struck a grand bargain to reform Welfare and at the same time raise the minimum wage, fulfilling a key campaign promise that wouldn’t have been possible if Democrats had kept control of Congress. The deficit was smaller than when Clinton took office with a growing GDP. Outside of Clinton’s early misstep in Somalia, the U.S. was in a relative state of peace with only peacekeeping deployments to a few trouble spots. He’d even joined social conservatives in support for the Defense of Marriage Act.
Conservative activists had plenty against President Clinton including his appointments, his stance on social issues and gun control, esoteric scandals that the electorate either didn’t understand or didn’t care about, and the fact that he had raised taxes on those making more than $127,000 per year. None of this resonated with the American people or provided the high burden of proof that voters demand to remove an incumbent President, particularly in good economic times.
With President Obama, many of these situations are reversed. Unemployment is higher than when the President took office and the economy is stagnating. Rather that shrinking deficits, the President offers us a future with trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. Unlike Clinton, Obama has no unfulfilled moderate impulses that can be parlayed into a major popular policy achievement with the Republican House. All he has to credit is a highly unpopular health care bill that was cobbled together in the last Congress and led to electoral disaster for his own party.
Are there lessons to be drawn from the period? Sure, but not the doom and gloom being concocted by pundits and DC politician.
In the first place, Republicans in 1995 lost the PR battle. Some of this was personality driven with Newt Gingrich’s complaints about his Air Force One seating on a trip to a state funeral. But there was also a policy articulation problem. That the event is referred to universally as “the Republicans shutting down the government,” shows how badly the GOP mismanaged its communications. Technically, the GOP didn’t shut down the government. President Clinton did. He vetoed a continuing resolution that would have kept the government running and force changes that would lead to a balanced budget in seven years. The GOP ought to have been on the air with ads slamming the President for shutting down the government and touting the Republican Majority as doing what it promised to do in reigning in fiscal profligacy. Instead, there was none of that. President Clinton and the media got to define what had happened, so they won the debate. Republicans need to be prepared for a PR war as the debt ceiling deadline looms.
The second lesson is the danger of timidity. Then-Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole the government shutdown by passing a continuing resolution that met President Clinton’s demands. The Republican Revolution of 1994 was effectively over. The GOP determined to go along to get along and became the party of earmarks, big spending, and the preservation of political power. The new boss became the old boss. In 2005, then-House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-Tx) best exemplified this new establishment attitude when he declared the budget had been “pared down pretty good.”
They maintained their majority for eleven more years but they failed to address the serious fiscal issues with entitlements that were always there, other than making them worse by expanding into Medicare Part D. The Republicans failed to advance any Conservative health care plan that could have headed off Obamacare-style reform. The Republicans failed to reform the U.S. Tax Code. Tentative attempts were made at some of these items, but under media fire, the GOP always wilted as retreat seemed to be easier than explaining their program to the American people.
The GOP Majority of 1996-2006’s timidity in the face of big issues played large role in creating the crisis we’re in right now. In this debt ceiling debate, one cannot help but hear echoes of that wasted Congressional decade in nervous voices of those who warn about the dangers of the 1995 government shutdown. If America’s fiscal problems are going to be addressed, the GOP needs to act in the spirit of the old Latin proverb, “Fortune Favors the Bold” rather than the GOP motto of recent years when facing tough issues, “Duck and Cover.”
Family Leader Pledge: Suicidal Pact With the Devil.
I wish I were overstating the case. I have already established the wrongness of adding to our “yea and nay”. It is actually an admission that you can’t take us at our word. I have also stated I am not against certain vows in formal cases, but political gain is not one of those cases. I should also say here that I would likely lean towards Bachmann or Santorum for the GOP nomination (and possibly Pawlenty), regardless of whether they signed “The Pledge”. This is not about protecting my candidate as some people are already claiming. I don’t have one, yet.
It is necessary now to establish one more nearly undeniable fact, and issue a challenge. It is that neither Bachmann nor Santorum can or will actually keep the pledge. It is simple. The vow requires a promise, before God, that they will not support any candidate who refuses to sign the pledge. A betting man would be safe to risk a million bucks that both of these candidates will blatantly violate the pledge long before November, 2012.
Keep in mind that the pledge not only requires that you keep the pledge yourself, but that you will not in any way support a candidate who refuses to sign the pledge. Here is the critical part: The Vow Itself:
The Vow of Civic, Religious, Lay, Business, and Social Leaders:
We the undersigned do hereby solemnly vow* that no U.S. Presidential primary candidate – nor any primary candidate for the U. S. House, Senate, Governor, state or municipal office – will, in his or her public capacity, benefit from any substantial form of aid, support, endorsement, contribution, independent expenditure, or affirmation from any of us without first affirming this Marriage Vow. Furthermore, to uphold and advance the natural Institution of Marriage, we ourselves also hereby vow* our own fidelity to this Declaration and especially, to our spouses.
Here is the two-fold challenge.
Ask Congressman Bachmann or Senator Santorum “Will you support Romney or Pawlenty if they win the GOP nomination?” Keeping the vow means the answer is “no”.
Ask them this follow-up question:
“If you are picked to be the GOP nominee for president are you promising that you will not endorse or campaign for any candidate who refuses to sign the pledge?
(For Rick Santorum add this, ask him if he will promise never to vote or endorse someone like Arlen Specter again. If Rick Perry gets in and signs the pledge, ask about his endorsement of Rudy Giuliani.)
I warned readers that the vow would make vow-breakers out of decent, God-fearing people. Upon further reflection, it is much, much worse than I thought. It is also tearing up a segment of the body of Christ. I don’t think Bob Vander Plaats sees what is going on in the trenches.
This has been one of the most divisive political acts I can ever remember. It could end up splitting, not just the Republican Party (that is the least of our worries), but dividing Christians.
I have been shocked to see Huckabee supporters[1] run not just to defend taking the pledge, which is fine (to each his own, if he or she can keep it); but some are using it as a hammer to bludgeon other Christians, calling into question their faith, and using it to condemn candidates and their supporters. This is pharisaical legalism at its worst. And it is exactly these evils Jesus warned about that accompany unwarranted vows.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
[1] Huckabee has not commented, as far as I can tell, on the pledge. Many of his supporters are saying that they wouldn’t support him if he didn’t take the pledge. This is foolishness. Regardless of what you think of Huckabee’s other positions, there is not a political leader among us who has been more solid on life and family issues. This shows the wickedness of the whole pledge thing. Its proponents have raised their own opinions and schemes above the character and record of Godly men, as well as the word of God.
Gary Johnson never leaked or announced his fundraising totals, and now we know why: I looked up his FEC report, and according to the official filing he managed to pull in just $180,236.80 in the last three months. At the end of June, he sat with $6,006.55 in the bank.
Which might be a good total if you were running for, say, student council President. Heh.
At the same time, he has managed to rack up $227,000 in debt that he owes. Ouch.
I expect him to drop out of the race before Ames. It’s difficult to even travel anywhere to make any appearances with just six thousand bucks to your name while you sit on two hundred thousand dollars of debt.
Real Clear Politics has a great article by Erin McPike and Carl M. Cannon entitled: Romney Applies Lessons of 2008 to 2012 Run. They focus upon the differences between Mitt Romney’s 2008 run for President and what he is doing doing now. Here are a few excerpts:
…
Insanity, Rita Mae Brown once wrote, is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results. Although Romney is certainly ambitious, nobody has ever called him insane. And before he takes on President Obama — and even before he can vanquish a restive and rowdy field of fellow Republicans — the Mitt Romney of 2012 must vanquish the Mitt Romney of 2008.
Four years ago, Romney was nothing if not accessible to the press, and he often took questions twice a day. This summer, he’s treating reporters as though they have an unpleasant social disease.
In the previous campaign, former Romney aides say (only half-jokingly), their plan was to sink money into straw polls — like the Iowa Straw Poll in Ames — so that they could effectively buy an organizational victory to show strength. He won the straw poll but lost the Iowa caucuses. Romney, a business consultant by trade, doesn’t plan to waste money organizing for the straw poll again.
In 2007-2008, Romney took up hard-line immigration reform as a pet issue — among many such stances he used in hopes of convincing grass-roots conservatives that he was one of them. This time around, Romney is focusing on one big-picture issue of interest to conservatives, moderates and liberals alike: job creation and the federal role in guiding the U.S. economy.
At this point in his last race, Romney was already pouring money into advertising on TV in the early nominating states. Now he’s letting inexpensive web videos do the talking.
…
But that might be just what the (spin) doctor ordered. In 1976, Ronald Reagan’s brain trust had the candidate stumping in Illinois, of all places, on the day of New Hampshire primary. The upshot was a narrow victory by Gerald R. Ford. Reagan always believed he would have won that day if he’d followed his instincts — and perhaps won the nomination for[sic] years earlier than he did. In any event, by 1980 Reagan was rooted in New Hampshire until after the votes were counted. He had learned his lesson.
I am NOT going to claim that Romney is another Reagan. He is not. Nobody is. I will, however, point out that both of them appear to have at least one trait in common — the ability to learn from their mistakes and to seldom repeat them.
What a refreshing change from the current resident of the White House.
The liberal Concord Monitor recently ran an editorial attacking Romney for his “hyperbole” against Obama. (If you have any doubts about their ideology, check out this editorial declaring that if the US defaults, only the Republicans will be to blame.) Mitt responds to their attack with an editorial of his own. Once again he takes the President to task for his failed economic policies:
Elections are about differences. Yes, I have some differences with the Concord Monitor’s recent editorial about my views. Newspapers play a vital role in the democracy and the Monitor, publishing daily since 1864, is among the venerable. Accordingly, I think it’s valuable to hash out our respective views.
I do indeed believe that President Obama has failed us. I am delighted that the auto industry is recovering, but that would have been less costly to taxpayers had Presidents Bush and Obama encouraged the companies to reorganize under the bankruptcy code, as do other companies in distress. If needed, government guarantees should have come after the restructuring, not before it. I am pleased that New Hampshire unemployment is faring better than the national average. But the President is the leader of the entire nation, not of just one industry or of one state.
The nation is suffering. Three years into his four year term, 20 million Americans are out of work, have given up, or are underemployed in part time jobs. Home values continue to go down. Foreclosures are at near-record record levels. Our national debt is skyrocketing–President Obama is on course to add as much debt by the end of his term as all the former presidents combined. Your editorial labels my conclusion that the President has “failed us” as an “absurd charge.” But given this record, I can reach no other conclusion.
Your editorial takes me to task for saying that he made the recession worse. He did. I have spoken with employers across the country and with few exceptions, they point to the President’s policies on taxation, cap and trade, card check, Dodd-Frank, Obamacare, regulatory expansion, and alarming federal deficits as having deepened and lengthened the recession. Economists tell us that we have been in the recovery period for two years, but as The Wall Street Journal concluded, President Obama’s recovery is not only anemic, it is one of the worst on record. The President made the recession worse and he made the recovery worse.
The President faces a new test. In 2006, then Senator Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling and decried the lack of leadership in Washington. Now the buck stops on his desk. It is entirely within his power to cut government spending. But rather than take such action, he has resorted to class warfare and fear tactics. With the recovery so tepid, with housing in decline, and with millions of Americans out of work, we should not now raise taxes nor chill hiring and investment by threatening to do so in the future.
New Hampshire is indeed doing better than the nation as a whole. That is good news for the citizens of the Granite State. It is also instructive for the nation. Could New Hampshire’s good fortune have something to do with its legacy of self reliance, the absence of a sales tax, the absence of an income tax, and its fiscally conservative pro-growth policies? Yes, yes, yes and yes. The tax and borrow paths taken by states like California and Illinois which suffer from high unemployment and fiscal jeopardy stand in stark contrast to the path taken by New Hampshire. The President would be better served to look to New Hampshire.
-Mitt Romney
