The Archdiocese of New York, headed by Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., headed by Cardinal Donald Wuerl, the University of Notre Dame, and 40 other Catholic dioceses and organizations around the country announced on Monday that they are suing the Obama administration for violating their freedom of religion, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution.
The dioceses and organizations, in different combinations, are filing 12 different lawsuits filed in federal courts around the country.
…
“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.” (Gerald Ford)
If it weren’t so disastrous a strategy, President Obama’s urging Europeans to abandon current attempts at “austerity” in favor of returning to their old policies of creating more public debt through “job creation” spending, would be laughable. Mr. Obama, now finding his soul-mate in new socialist French President Hollande and his economic ideas, is not without a political purpose, however. He is trying to hold off the collapse of the euro currency, and possibly the European Union itself, at least until the U.S. presidential election in November. A European economic catastrophe would have much impact on the U.S. economy in the long run, and it would dash any chance of U.S. economic recovery in the short tun, the latter almost certainly precluding Mr. Obama’s already problematic re-election.
Mr. Obama’s recommendation to Europe could be likened to a proposal that, after the Titanic had struck the iceberg that cold night in the north Atlantic, the Titanic crew should have destroyed the few lifeboats they had for the purpose of making firewood.
After more than a century of central government entitlement spending in the various European nations, and after two horrific world wars of violence and self-destruction, “austerity” is a complicated public policy to follow in Europe. To be fair, European politicians, especially in the smaller member nations which have more limited resources, have a genuine dilemma. It is especially difficult, and its measures are especially painful and shocking to those populations which know no other way of life. When you fully realize that one-quarter of adult employable Spaniards are out of work, for example, you have some true perspective on the extent of the economic crisis on that side of the Atlantic.
Compared to Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy, the French are much more capable of enduring a program of austerity. The French economy is not in as bad shape as many others on the Continent. But, for now, the French seem turned in the wrong direction. Germany is the strongest economy in the European Union. Chancellor Merkel is being heavily pressured to abandon austerity measures, not only from the Obama administration, and her EU partners, but from restless German voters, some on the left and some of whom no longer want to bail out the rest of Europe.
The indelibly simple reality of world economics today, however, and especially in Europe, is that forms of “austerity,” sacrifice, “biting the bullet,” and adjustments of entitltements, are the only way out of the economic crisis. The longer it takes to happen, the more severe it will be on the populations of Europe and its member nations. The idea that the problem can be solved by “job creation” and more public spending is delusional. It is also a residue of the socialistic ideas born in Europe almost two hundred years ago, and practiced there to various degrees and in various forms since.
These ideas clothed in the language of idealism, compassion and egalitarianism (e.g..,”redistribution of wealth,”) have in practice brought to Europe cynicism, violence, suffering and depravity for more than a century.
____________________________________________________________________________
Copyright (c) 2012 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved. Please visit Mr. Casselman’s personal site.
The question has been raised recently; should the Romney Campaign attack Barack Obama on his long-time association with Jeremiah Wright, former pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ where Obama was a member for twenty years? Mitt says no. Others say yes.
In this I agree with Mitt. He should not use Jeremiah Wright to attack Obama. My reasoning has little to do with what is right or wrong, or high road versus low road. It is really more strategic than anything else. Let me explain.
First, let’s take a stroll down memory lane together and revisit the just recently concluded primaries.
Think back. How many times did we hear during the primaries the lament from the ABR supporters that “if only someone would really take RomneyCare and stick it to Romney, he would fail”? Well, various opponents tried, and they all failed. And yet the lament continued to be heard. “Why doesn’t anybody nail Romney on RomneyCare?”
The problem lies in the fact that MassCare was old news. People had long heard about it, and it was already part of their opinion of Romney. It was baked into the cake, as the saying goes.
I remember several occasions on this board where I likened the idea that “finally” vetting Romney for RomneyCare would hurt him to that old definition of insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. “This time it will be different. This time it will hurt him.” It never did. Yet still they insisted that it would.
So it is with Rev. Wright. That line of attack might have been useful four years ago when it was still a fresh topic, but for whatever reason John McCain refused to go there. The moment was lost. The good reverend is now baked into the Obama cake. All the harping in the world about Wright will likely now move the needle against Obama no more than a point or two. It’s old news. People have moved on.
To those who say, “it may only move the needle a point or two, but any amount will help”, one must ask, “Yes, but at what cost?” What will it cost us to do so? Mitt has worked hard over the past six years to maintain the high road, and he has largely succeeded. Do we want to throw that advantage away? And then there is the fact that if Romney brings up Rev. Wright, that attack legitimizes any and all attacks on Mitt’s religion, and the religions of his supporters. All this for just a slight twitch of the needle?
No, I don’t think so. Let’s leave that can of worms on the shelf unopened.
That doesn’t mean Obama’s long association with Rev. Wright is of no used to us, though. On the contrary, it serves as a very nice counterweight to the Democrats’ desire to make Mitt’s Mormonism an issue. “Oh, you wish to talk about Romney’s religion, do you? Let’s talk about Rev. Wright, shall we?”
Few Democrats will want to go there once that consequence becomes well established.
American Crossroads hits President Obama for inserting himself in the biographies of other presidents and for the inflated view he has of his own record. Funny stuff.
From the official release:
Boston, MA – Today, Romney for President, Romney Victory, and the Republican National Committee announced fundraising totals of over $40.1 million in April. The campaign and RNC have $61.4 million cash on hand.
“We are pleased with the strong support we have received from Americans across the country who are looking for new leadership in the White House,” said Romney Victory National Finance Chairman Spencer Zwick. “Along with the hard work of the Republican National Committee, we will continue to raise the funds necessary to defeat President Obama in November.”
“Voters are tired of President Obama’s broken promises,” said Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus. “Mitt Romney has the record and plan to turn our country around – that is why he is receiving such enthusiastic support from voters across the country. Along with the campaign, we will work to provide the resources so that we can defeat President Obama and change the direction of the country.”
FAST FACTS About Romney For President, Romney Victory, and RNC Fundraising:
· Over $40.1 Million Raised In April
· 95% Of All Donations Received In April Were $250 Or Less
· $10.1 Million Raised By Donations Under $250 In April
· 259,836 Donations Received Under $250 In April
· $61.4 Million Cash On Hand
· Contributions Received From All 50 States And Washington, D.C.
More from NPR:
The campaign for GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney and the Republican Party together raised $40.1 million in April, just shy of the $43.6 million that President Obama and the Democratic Party took in.
This is the first monthly report since Romney effectively wrapped up the Republican presidential nomination. And because money is one way to keep score during a presidential campaign, the news is getting a great deal of attention from the political media this morning.
Politico points out that “it’s a strong showing for Romney and his allies as they move into the general election. The clearer test of the Obama-Romney fundraising match-up will come with the May money reports, since that’ll be the first time both candidates will be raising campaign and victory money for the entire month.”
The Los Angeles Times says the April figures signal that Romney is beginning to “chip away” at Obama’s fundraising advantage.
Full story here.
The New York Times has the story:
WASHINGTON — A group of high-profile Republican strategists is working with a conservative billionaire on a proposal to mount one of the most provocative campaigns of the “super PAC” era and attack President Obama in ways that Republicans have so far shied away from.
Timed to upend the Democratic National Convention in September, the plan would “do exactly what John McCain would not let us do,” the strategists wrote.
The plan, which is awaiting approval, calls for running commercials linking Mr. Obama to incendiary comments by his former spiritual adviser, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., whose race-related sermons made him a highly charged figure in the 2008 campaign.
“The world is about to see Jeremiah Wright and understand his influence on Barack Obama for the first time in a big, attention-arresting way,” says the proposal, which was overseen by Fred Davis and commissioned by Joe Ricketts, the founder of the brokerage firm TD Ameritrade. Mr. Ricketts is increasingly putting his fortune to work in conservative politics.
The $10 million plan, one of several being studied by Mr. Ricketts, includes preparations for how to respond to the charges of race-baiting it envisions if it highlights Mr. Obama’s former ties to Mr. Wright, who espouses what is known as “black liberation theology.”
The group suggested hiring as a spokesman an “extremely literate conservative African-American” who can argue that Mr. Obama misled the nation by presenting himself as what the proposal calls a “metrosexual, black Abe Lincoln.”
A copy of a detailed advertising plan was obtained by The New York Times through a person not connected to the proposal who was alarmed by its tone. It is titled “The Defeat of Barack Hussein Obama: The Ricketts Plan to End His Spending for Good.”
Be sure to read the full story here.
Gov. Romney has reacted swiftly to this development, personally repudiating the Super PAC’s strategy of attack:
“I repudiate the effort by that PAC to promote an ad strategy of the nature they’ve described. I would like to see this campaign focus on the economy, on getting people back to work, on seeing rising incomes and growing prosperity — particularly for those in the middle class of America. And I think what we’ve seen so far from the Obama campaign is a campaign of character assassination. I hope that isn’t the course of this campaign. So in regards to that PAC, I repudiate what they’re thinking about … It’s interesting that we’re talking about some Republican PAC that wants to go after the president [on Wright]; I hope people also are looking at what he’s doing, and saying ‘why is he running an attack campaign? Why isn’t he talking about his record?’”
Read Guy Benson’s full story here.
Although it is unlikely that the President will lose the Arkansas Primary next Tuesday, a new poll shows that this incredible outcome may not be out of the realm of possibility:
A week ago, a federal inmate and Democratic Presidential candidate Keith Judd pulled 42% of the West Virginia primary vote against incumbent Barack Obama.
The President’s 57% tally in a state that will be non-competitive in the fall was a signal of disillusionment among conservative Democratic voters who dominate West Virginia’s party politics.
Obama is likely to experience a similar wave of discontent from Fourth District Democratic voters in Arkansas.
In our latest Talk Business-Hendrix College Poll, conducted last Thursday, May 10, 2012, 38% of Democratic primary voters in the Fourth say they’re casting ballots for John Wolfe, a Tennessee attorney who filed paperwork to qualify for the Arkansas Democratic primary.
Less than half — just 45% — say they presently support Obama.
45% – Barack Obama
38% – John Wolfe
17% – UndecidedThe poll was taken just one day after President Obama made public his support of gay marriage; however, Obama has never performed extraordinarily well among voters in rural Arkansas.
Three weeks ago, a Talk Business-Hendrix College Poll showed Obama performing better in the culturally conservative First Congressional District of Arkansas. In that poll, Obama received 65% of the vote compared to Wolfe’s 24%.
Full story here.
[Update]: More over at Powerline.
The New York Times recently came out with a poll that showed Obama trailing Romney by an insignificant amount — well within the margin of error. The same poll showed Mitt up among women. Team Obama’s response? “The poll is biased.”
Obama campaign deputy manager Stephanie Cutter dismissed today’s CBS/New York Times poll showing that 67 percent of people believed Obama made his decision on gay marriage for political reasons. Only 24 percent said that Obama did it “mostly because he thinks it is right.”
…
“We can’t put the methodology of that poll aside, because the methodology was significantly biased.” Cutter insisted on MSNBC this morning.
Three thoughts come to my mind on this:
I have mentioned a number of times on these pages the number one rule of organizations. They tend to take on the characteristics of their leader. You can see this play out here.
When Team Romney is faced with a problem, their first instinct is to do like their boss and identify the problem and fix it. When Team Obama is faced with a problem, their first instinct is to do like their boss and figure out how they can avoid the blame for it.
It has been my long experience that a team with the first attitude will likely succeed far more than a team with the second attitude. The first approach allows the team to rapidly identify problems and quickly deal with them. It also lets team members know that it is safe to bring up issues of concern. The second approach tends to cover up problems more than solve them. People become afraid of bringing up problems that they might get blamed for, so the tendency is to hide problems instead of dealing with them.
Things like “Julia” would never had made it very far in a team like Mitt’s that is more concerned about solving problems than affixing blame. Someone would have expressed misgivings about it, the problems would be addressed, and if they couldn’t get it to work, it would have been scrapped. In teams that place a high priority on avoiding blame, any criticism of ideas is looked upon as attempts to cast blame, and people get defensive. You do NOT want to make your boss defensive, so you learn to keep your mouth shut if you see a potential problem. So “Julia” likely sailed through the various committees and levels with nary a dissenting voice.
I suspect that this, more than anything else, may be a big reason why little if anything coming out of the Obama Campaign seems to be working. Their internal error checking is severely impaired by their instinctual blame avoidance. With Barack Obama as their head, I don’t see that changing anytime soon.
Robert E. Lee is often popularly thought of as a military genius. In truth, he was really very good, but not quite great. What gave him that reputation is for three years of war, he faced mediocre generals at best. It is very easy to appear a genius when faced with poor opponents, and that is all he faced until the Battle of Gettysburg where he faced George Meade.
Meade was certainly not a great general. You really couldn’t say that he a very good one, either. His grasp of strategy was not the best, nor was he inclined to show much initiative. However, he was superb at tactics, and if given a specific limited task to do, he could and would do it. It made him the perfect subordinate general. Ulysses S. Grant later kept him on as the head of the Army of the Potomac when he took over as General-in-chief. Grant would issue the orders, and Meade would competently and efficiently carry them out. It worked out very well for the both of them.
At Gettysburg Meade’s job was to hold on to the high ground against the Confederates. And as usual for him when given a specific limited task, he did a superb job.
By July of 1863, Lee had had success after success. When all you face are opponents considerably below your level, that’s an easy thing to do. Unfortunately for him, he began to believe his press clippings on how great he and his army were. He became convinced that they were invincible, that they could do anything he asked of them. All he had to do is just say it, and it would be done. That attitude was his undoing at Gettysburg.
Even with that attitude, however, if Lee had faced at Gettysburg McClellan, Hooker, Burnside, or any other Union generals he had previously fought, he probably would have won. But he was facing George Meade, and Meade was fully up to the task at hand.
I see the same sort of thing in the Obama Campaign. For almost his entire political career Obama has faced inept, incompetent, and/or reluctant opponents. And he, with his soaring rhetoric, zero record, and fawning press won campaign after campaign. As a result, his campaigning skills and the talents of his campaign team have become the stuff of legend. The legend declared that defeating Mitt Romney was going to be a cakewalk, and he, his team, and fellow Democrats bought into it.
But the history so far suggests otherwise. Mitt Romney, unlike nearly all Obama’s previous opponents, is not rolling over and playing dead. Instead, they are proving very adept at deflecting Obama’s attacks, and even boomeranging them back on their source. This is exposing unforeseen weaknesses in Obama’s campaign. John Ellis comments:
…
Because we have been told for so long that Team Obama is the very model of the modern campaign operation, we have come to sort of believe it. In reality, they’ve been surprisingly inept since they set up shop last year. They’ve been through three slogans and four over-arching re-election “themes.” They’ve made a big deal out of Romney’s dog. They’ve introduced us to “Julia,” which seemed like a right-wing parody of the perfect constituent of the nanny state. One could on (and on).
…
Ellis makes the point that Team Obama’s incompetence to date is beginning to concern a growing number of Democrats. This election was supposed to be in the bag. This incredible campaign team wasn’t supposed to be making these many mistakes. Democratic alarm bells are starting to sound because of it.
Can Team Obama turn things around? Certainly. Anything is possible, and Romney’s team had best remember that. Unfortunately Obama’s team is handicapped by the first rule of organizations: an organization takes on the basic traits of its leader, and Obama is not much of a turnaround artist. That’s Mitt Romney’s specialty, not his.
So will they turn things around? We shall see. One thing is for certain, however. If Team Obama continue in this slipshod manner, Ann and Mitt Romney will be changing their residence to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington, DC next January.
Romney team to paint Obama as lousy businessman
The Romney campaign wants to introduce a new concept into the debate over President Obama’s economic record. Imagine the president ran an investment firm. He poured billions of dollars into green energy projects that didn’t work. People lost jobs. He poured billions into sometimes implausible stimulus projects that didn’t work, either. And even when he succeeded in keeping companies afloat, as he did with General Motors and Chrysler, he did it by downsizing and laying off thousands of workers.
And now, with that record, the president is attacking Mitt Romney for a successful career as a private equity investor at Bain Capital. Obama launched the first Bain attack ad Monday morning, blaming Romney for the failure of a Kansas City steel company, a failure that resulted in the loss of 750 jobs.
…
“In the general election, I’ll be pointing out that the president took the reins of General Motors and Chrysler, closed factories, closed dealerships, laid off thousands and thousands of workers,” Mitt Romney said in January. “He did it to try to save the business.”
That’s the same sort of thing private equity investors do, Romney says — they just don’t do it with taxpayer dollars, as Obama has. And Romney supporters will likely emphasize that Obama’s taxpayer-paid investments often went to people and organizations that contributed big money to Obama’s campaign.
“When you’re in the private sector, people make decisions based on profit and loss and what’s going to create jobs and what’s going to work,” Romney adviser Ed Gillespie told conservative reporters on a conference call Monday afternoon. “When you have this level of government involvement in our economy, you have things like Solyndra and the decisions relative to the auto layoffs, and you don’t have that transparency, you don’t know if there’s political influence — who gets a health care waiver from the mandate and who doesn’t? — and they still don’t say how they make those decisions.”
“This crony capitalism … is rampant in this administration and is a real problem,” Gillespie said, “and yes, we are going to continue to talk about that.”
…
Will Barack Obama decide to dump Joe Biden as VP and go with Hillary Clinton instead? Jack Kelly suspects he might:
Vice President Joe Biden isn’t invited to Sunday campaign strategy meetings at the White House, The New York Times reported May 4.
President Barack Obama designated Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., his top surrogate on foreign policy issues, fueling speculation he’d be secretary of state in a second Obama administration.
So Washington is abuzz with rumors the president will replace Mr. Biden with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
…
But there are downsides to dumping him. The move would reek of desperation.
…
Still, I expect the switch to be made, because if Team Obama wasn’t desperate before this week, it must be now.
A federal prisoner won 41 percent of the vote against the president in the Democratic primary in West Virginia Tuesday.
Mr. Obama opposed the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage on the ballot in North Carolina. It won overwhelmingly. Then he evolved into an outright supporter of same-sex marriage.
…
For workers under age 25, the unemployment rate last month was 16.4 percent. Which helps explain why there were so many empty seats at Mr. Obama’s “official” campaign kickoff at Ohio State University last weekend.
“At times, the rallies (at OSU and Virginia Commonwealth University) had the feeling of a concert by an aging rock star,” wrote Mark Landler of The New York Times.
For one of the youngest presidents ever, that sounds like an epitaph.
(h/t: greg)
We wondered this morning how Team Romney would fight back against Obama’s dishonest attack ad highlighting Romney’s time at Bain Capital.
Now we know, and we’ve gotten to see just how good Romney’s rapid response team is in the process. Hey Barry, probably not a good idea to mess with these guys.
First, Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul sent out this statement to the press as well as on the Romney website and social media outlets:
“We welcome the Obama campaign’s attempt to pivot back to jobs and a discussion of their failed record. President Obama has many questions to answer as to why his Administration used the stimulus to reward wealthy campaign donors with taxpayer money for bad ideas like Solyndra, but 23 million Americans are still struggling to find jobs. If the Obama Administration was less concerned with pleasing its wealthy donors and more concerned with creating jobs, America would be much better off.”
Then, Team Romney followed that up with a press release blast that followed that same line of defend and attack — using Solyndra as their foil of choice:
President Obama’s Idea Of The Free Market Is “Crony Capitalism” That Showers Federal Dollars On His Friends And Allies, While Leaving Taxpayers On The Hook For Losses:
The Washington Post: “You Can Call It Crony Capitalism Or Venture Socialism — But By Whatever Name, The Energy Department’s Loan Guarantee Program Privatizes Profits And Socializes Losses.” (Editorial, “The Energy Department’s Loan Guarantee Program Is The Real Solyndra Scandal,” The Washington Post, 11/17/11)
The Washington Post: “The Problem Is That Bureaucrats Are More Likely To Bet Wrong Because They Are Generally Not Full-Time Investment Experts And Have No Skin In The Game Themselves.” (Editorial, “Solyndra: A Bad Bet Obama Should Regret,” The Washington Post, 10/6/11)
Obama Bundlers Worked In His Department Of Energy “As It Showered Billions In Taxpayer-Backed Stimulus Money On Alternative Energy Firms.” “Several of Barack Obama’s top campaign supporters went from soliciting political contributions to working from within the Energy Department as it showered billions in taxpayer-backed stimulus money on alternative energy firms, iWatch News and ABC News have learned.” (Ronnie Green And Matthew Mosk, “Bundlers On The Inside,” iWatch, 9/29/11)
…
The Energy Department’s Inspector General Found That Contracts Were Steered To “Friends And Family.” “The Department of Energy’s inspector general, Gregory Friedman, who was not a political appointee, chastised the alternative-energy loan and grant programs for their absence of ‘sufficient transparency and accountability.’ He has testified that contracts have been steered to ‘friends and family.’” (Peter Schweizer, “Obama Campaign Backers And Bundlers Rewarded With Green Grants And Loans,” Newsweek, 11/12/11)
“$3.9 Billion In Federal Grants And Financing Flowed To 21 Companies Backed By Firms With Connections To Five Obama Administration Staffers And Advisers.” (Carol D. Leonnig and Joe Stephens, “Venture Capitalists Play Key Role In Obama’s Energy Department,” The Washington Post, 2/14/12)
And The Result Of Those Taxpayer Giveaways To Obama Allies? Lost Jobs And Bankrupt Businesses:
The Obama Administration Loaned Over Half A Billion Dollars To Solyndra – Which Later Went Bankrupt – And Engaged In A “Risky Investment Strategy” With Other Similar Projects. “Solar panel maker Solyndra received a $528 million Energy Department loan in 2009 – and went bankrupt last year. The government’s risky investment strategy didn’t stop there, as a CBS News investigation has uncovered a pattern of cases of the government pouring your tax dollars into clean energy.” (Sharyl Attkisson, “Tax Dollars Backing Some “Risky” Energy Projects,” CBS, 1/13/12)
Solyndra’s Bankruptcy And 1,100 Layoffs Represented “A Blow To The Obama Administration’s Efforts To Create Green Jobs.” “In a blow to the Obama administration’s efforts to create green jobs, solar-cell maker Solyndra announced Wednesday that it will close its remaining Fremont factory, lay off its 1,100 employees and file for bankruptcy. The news marked an abrupt end for a company once considered among the most innovative in a fast-changing industry. The bankruptcy also represents a high-profile failure for a federal stimulus program that gives loan guarantees to green-tech manufacturers.” (David R. Baker and Carolyn Said, “Solyndra Closes Fremont Plant – Stimulus Hopes Dim,” San Francisco Chronicle, 9/1/11)
…
After that, the Romney campaign organized a conference call for reporters, where Ed Gillespie continued the counter-attack on Obama, continuing to use Solyndra as an example of “crony capitalism”.
Then, Romney press department shot off a shorter memo which counter-punched Obama for mentioning this morning that Bain Capital added debt to GST:
In the short time since this morning when the Obama campaign attacked Mitt Romney’s business record, the President has added more debt to our national debt than he accuses GS Industries of having two years after Mitt Romney left Bain. (Note: $500M is .01% of Obama’s new debt since taking office; Obama has been in office 1210 days; .01% of his time in office is .12 days, or slightly less than 3 hours.)
The Debt That Barack Obama Attributes To GS Industries, At A Time When Romney Was No Longer At Bain, Would Pay For Less Than 3 Hours Of The New Debt Of Obama’s Presidency.
And now to end the day, Team Romney has cut their own one minute ad, highlighting the story of another steel company Bain Capital invested in — one that became highly successful and went on to create more than 6,000 jobs:
If Obama expected Romney to roll over and play nice like John McCain did in 2008, he’s going to continue to be surprised like he was today. We will see how many times the Obama campaign can try and fire the Bain bullet throughout the remainder of the campaign, but I have a feeling their failure to keep their powder dry until later in the game is going to come back to haunt them.
We knew they were coming, but I don’t know if we expected them to come this early. This morning, Team Obama is showing signs of nervousness and launching a full frontal assault on Romney’s time at Bain Capital – and they are doing it just as Republican strategists thought they would: by using interviews of people who were laid off when Bain bought their employers.
Today, the Obama campaign begins airing a two-minute attack ad in five swing states (Ohio, Iowa, Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Virginia) and also launches a new website named RomneyEconomics.com. The ad and the website features a couple stories from laid-off workers, and the campaign is hosting a conference call with one of those workers this morning as well. It has the potential to be quite poignant, especially among low-information voters.
There are three things worth noting, however, as Obama rolls out these attacks. First, this is still incredibly early in the campaign to be launching an attack of this magnitude. It’s the middle of May. It’s about to be summer vacation. The old axiom is that no one pays attention to politics in the summer, and that the race will truly begin after Labor Day weekend. That may not be as true as it used to be with social media and 24/7 access now, but it’s still true at some level. This was one of the highest cards the Obama campaign held in their hands – and for them to play it now would seem to indicate that they are playing out of a position of weakness rather than strength.
Secondly, it’s impossible to imagine the Romney campaign didn’t see these attacks coming. It will be interesting to see how Romney counters. His campaign’s rapid-response team has been incredibly strong thus far, capitalizing swiftly on Obama missteps and gaffes. Now we’ll get to see how they respond to the bigger attacks.
And thirdly, there needs to be some clarification about Romney’s time at Bain. Liberals, who generally hate the free-market principles that companies such as Bain are built on, will always demonize these sorts of businesses as heartless and cruel, putting profit over people. The Obama ad even uses some of that exact language to tap into that leftist angst. But Romney’s record deserves to be looked at honestly, not through the lens of capitalist hatred. It’s true: while Romney ran Bain they had several companies they invested in close their doors. People were laid off. It would be pretty easy, I would imagine, to find one or two or three folks out of the hundreds of thousands Bain interacted with who would like to be paid to cut an anti-Romney ad. However, there were many more significant success stories at Bain than there were failures, and those are the stories Romney needs to get out in front with.
There is no full list of companies that Bain Capital invested in or worked with during Romney’s tenure – it’s not public records, and the company will not release such a list, citing privacy concerns. However, there is a public list of 77 companies that Bain invested in which has been floating around since 2000. The Wall Street Journal looked at those 77 companies and found that a total of 17 of them filed for bankruptcy. However, two things must be considered here as well: first, filing for bankruptcy does not mean that a company fails (despite what unknowledgeable liberals might believe — take GM as a high profile example, for instance); and secondly, only five of those 17 companies filed for bankruptcy while they were owned by Bain. The other twelve filed for bankruptcy when Bain had shifted to minority ownership or was not in any ownership of the company any longer. So even if you use bankruptcy as a bottom line determinent of failed companies (which it is not), Bain still comes out looking good.
This attack campaign against Mitt Romney, in the middle of May with the election still six months down the road, is clearly an attempt to cement voters’ views of Romney as rich, out of touch, and heartless. However, by bringing out their big guns so early, it’s difficult to know what they will have left when people really begin paying attention to the campaign.
For your entertainment:
The President’s Horrible, Terrible, Very Bad Week
Rarely, in fact, has a candidate had as bad a week as President Obama did over the past Friday to Friday.
An awful jobs report was followed by election results in Europe that foreshadow the fall’s rejection of the president, and then it got worse.
The hilariously overdone Julia made the president and his vaunted Chicago Team an object of scorn, and the president’s imaginary friend won’t be forgotten by Team Romney –well, forever. “Julia, Julia, Julia” will be the chant in Tampa Bay. Can we get a remix of Bobby Sherman’s “Julie” please? Close enough as it is, but just a tweak will make it perfect as a reminder of the president’s vision of dependency for all, power for a few.
Slow Joe Biden got out over his skies and tripped the president for the 50th time, and president fell hard, declaring for same sex marriage the day after North Carolina –a key swing state– rejected the idea by an overwhelming margin. Even the president’s cheering section at Politico had to admit the move hurt the president in pretty much every swing state.
Then the president jetted off to be with George, Babs and the Hollywood set, which Manhattan-Beltway media elites think is grand but which doesn’t sit well with the 11% who are unemployed or so discouraged they have dropped out of the hunt. He did arrange to raffle off two tickets for the masses, which is pretty much how his economic policies have worked for the past four years. His close friends do well. The people he promised to help get a glimpse in the window.
…
The president’s in a political free fall, but his pals in MSM don’t/won’t see it. Instead they write about Mitt Romney’s problems even as the former Massachusetts governor has brought the GOP together behind him –what, no “brokered convention”– and even as he moves from Obama-indicting backdrop to backdrop, this week with the Colorado oil fields that haven’t been explored and tapped messaging to the country that gas need not be as high as it is, or unemployement as high as it is.
…
There is more where that came from. Have a click here to read it all.
Long time readers of this blog have heard me say over and over and over again that I have a statute of limitations on stupidity of ten years. If somebody did something stupid more than ten years ago and hasn’t repeated it, then as far as I’m concerned it’s water under the bridge; it never happened. I apply this to all, whether I support them or not, whether I agree with them or not, or whether I even like them or not.
Why do I do this? It’s simple. I would truly hate to be judged by something stupid I did ten years ago. I have grown and changed over the years. I would expect others to do the same. So when I hear that Sarah Palin went to five different schools to finish her bachelor degree, or that Rudy Giuliani dressed in drag way back when, or that Obama used coke when he was a youth, I reply “Who cares?” Unless it can be shown that they’ve been that stupid recently, then it is irrelevant to the person today. If anything, it means they are a better person today for recognizing their mistakes and learning from them.
And so it is with the recent story in the Washington Post from fifty years ago concerning Mitt Romney’s high school days. Oh brother, talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel! I don’t even care what the story is, or if it is true or not. That is ancient history. Is there anybody who has ever lived past the age of twenty who has not regretted something stupid they did in high school?
—
Coming soon to an attack ad near you:
It does beg the question, though: Obama would have to know there was a recession in order to forget about it, right?
UPDATE: The Romney campaign is running with this one, trying to get the hashtag #ObamaForgot trending on Twitter. So far, they’ve come up with some doozies, and other folks are joining in the fun:
Not surprising president who forgot 2 create jobs, cut debt & 2 change Wash, admitted forgotten about recession #ObamaForgot
— Andrea Saul (@andreamsaul) May 10, 2012
.@BarackObama has forgotten he’s been in office for last 3 1/2 years #ObamaForgot
— Andrea Saul (@andreamsaul) May 10, 2012
#ObamaForgot he has a RECORD
— Andrea Saul (@andreamsaul) May 10, 2012
#ObamaForgot (or would like to) that women account for more than 99% of jobs lost under @BarackObama
— Andrea Saul (@andreamsaul) May 10, 2012
#ObamaForgot He wasn’t going to allow lobbyists to work in his WhiteHouse
— Nick Rizzuto (@Nick_Rizzuto) May 11, 2012
#ObamaForgot US presidents don’t bow.
— Phineas Fahrquar (@irishspy) May 11, 2012
#ObamaForgot that the US Constitution limits HIS power, not ours.
— Gregory Smith (@LibertyJustice) May 11, 2012
#ObamaForgot twenty years of Rev. Wright’s sermons <cough>
— Dr. Jason B. Whitman (@JasonBWhitman) May 11, 2012
First, #ObamaForgot Michelle on the airplane. Now, he forgets how much Americans are hurting? Nice.
— Teri Christoph (@TeriChristoph) May 10, 2012
Add your own in the comments, and then go throw them on Twitter.
CNN has the breaking story:
President Barack Obama said in an interview with ABC that “it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”
With his Wednesday announcement, the president reversed his longstanding position on the issue. It came on the heels of his own vice president and education secretary saying they were in favor of gay marriage
Full story here.
Momentary brain lapse:
She doesn’t look too happy.
I wonder who slept in the Lincoln bedroom that night. 
Remember Obama how officially launched his reelection campaign last week to a half-filled arena? Well, it turns out that the half-a-crowd was only half-interested in what he had to say:
“Houston, we have a problem.”
As most everyone who is closely following the Race 4 2012 knows, Virginia could very well be decisive. Virginia has become a very purple state that currently experiences small perturbations between reddish purple and blueish purple. While this only became apparent to some as a result of the 2006 and 2008 elections, it has been in the making for ten years and has accelerated over the last five. It is now fair to say, I believe, that Virginia has become a reasonable microcosm of the nation when you consider its rural Southern demographics combined with its bastions of younger, upscale educated professionals in its northern D.C. suburbs, it’s six-figure income families in the exurbs and outer-suburbs, the large middle class region of the Tidewater area, and a healthy portion of ethnic and racial minorities. The demographic trends are, and have been for some time, in favor of all but the rural Southern component. This has turned the state very purple and threatens to turn it blueish purple to light blue unless the GOP conducts itself in a manner acceptable to the growing demographic sectors and thus focuses on core issues of upward mobility, fiscal responsibility, and competent, prudent management of the government.
All of this is currently reflected in the standings of the presidential contest and the US Senate race. Most all polling to date shows Allen and Kaine essentially tied in the Senate contest, with Obama maintain a slight to modest lead in the Presidential race (current RCP average for Virginia has Obama +3.2). I’ve been told by some national party folks that the gender gap in Virginia continues to run higher than average as a result of the theatrics in the General Assembly earlier this year that many women, including Republican-leaning women, found highly offensive. Political pundit Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post is out with what I believe to be a pretty solid and accurate assessment of the race in Virginia at present.
President Obama’s current lead over Mitt Romney in a new Washington Post poll in Virginia is due in large part to a belief that the incumbent’s ideology is a better fit for the state than that of the former Massachusetts governor.
A majority of Virginians — 52 percent — say that “Barack Obama’s views on most issues are just about right” as compared to 37 percent who say the same of Romney’s views. Among electorally critical independents, 52 percent say Obama’s views were about right as opposed to just 34 percent who say the same of Romney. Just look at this chart.
(Worth noting: Among all Virginia registered voters, the gap is slightly more narrow; 49 percent of registered voters in Virginia say that Obama’s views on issues are “just about right” while 39 percent of registered voters say the same of Romney.)
Why does this data point matter? Because lots (and lots) of people make up their minds about who they will vote for based on which candidate they think best understands them.
And, at the moment, a majority of Virginians believe that Obama is closer to how they think about issues than is Romney. That matters — big time.
There are two reasons why that’s the case — and why it’s worth taking the Post poll results with a grain of salt.
First, Romney has been hurt across the board by the protracted Republican presidential primary which, in the final few months of the campaign, wound up focusing on contraception and other social issues that played into a preconceived notion among many independents that the GOP was beholden to their social conservative wing. (Nearly four in ten women think Romney’s views are “too conservative” for them.)
Second, the Virginia presidential primary was a non-event as only Romney and Texas Rep. Ron Paul spent any time in the state. (Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum did not qualify for the ballot.) That means that Romney has not been properly introduced — and by that we mean through a slew of positive television ads — to many voters in the Commonwealth.
Now here is the good news, according to Cillizza, with which I agree:
Luckily for Romney, both of those problems can be solved. He has spent the last two days in the state and on Thursday campaigned with Bob McDonnell, the popular governor of the Commonwealth. (Sidebar: Almost seven in ten Virginia registered voters said putting McDonnell on the ticket wouldn’t make much difference in their vote for president this fall.)
The more time Romney spends in the state and the more money he and his campaign (and various super PACs) spend on TV ads promoting him as a centrist problem solver and the President as a liberal partisan, the more likely it will be that he can close this “thinks like you” gap.
But the gap is real. And to win — in Virginia and elsewhere — Romney has narrow it.
Romney does indeed have a very good shot at Virginia, I believe, but it is going to require a lot more focus with a disciplined message than has been the case with previous GOP presidential campaigns, as this State is no longer “Old Virginie.” Hopefully, some in the State Party and State Legislature will be able to control themselves. Read the Cillizza column here.
Obama’s shameless polarization of the Osama bin Laden raid is beginning to draw loud criticisms from military veterans, Navy SEALs in particular. Here is the latest ad from a group called Veterans for a Strong America that has gone viral.
A new poll out from Rasmussen shows Mitt Romney is viewed as far less extreme than Obama:
Romney Obama Very Conservative 18 2 Somewhat Conservative 42 5 Moderate 24 23 Somewhat Liberal 7 25 Very Liberal 5 43 This national survey of 1,000 U.S. Likely Voters was conducted on April 26-27, 2012 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.
About the same number see Obama as leaning liberal (68%) as see Romney leaning conservative (60%). However, more than twice as many likely voters see Obama as “Very Liberal” as see Romney as “Very Conservative”.
If we examine the center (the somewhat conservative and liberal numbers plus the moderate ones) we see Romney is well positioned to appeal to centralists everywhere:
Somewhat Conservative + Somewhat Liberal + Moderate
- Romney 73%
- Obama 53%
It has been said that America is a “Center-Right” country. If that be the case then Mitt is well positioned to appeal to that crowd as well.
Somewhat Conservative + Moderate
- Romney 66%
- Obama 28%
More than twice as many people see Romney as being “Center-Right” as they do Obama.
The hard left and the hard right will surely disagree, but all in all Romney is in great shape going into this election.
Romney, when asked by a reporter if he would have ordered the death of Osama bin Laden:
Asked by a reporter during an appearance here whether he would have gone after the al-Qaida leader, Romney responded: “Of course.” He was then asked if he would have given the specific order to kill bin Laden.
“Of course,” he said. “Even Jimmy Carter would have given that order.”
I like it. No huffing and puffing getting indignant about it. No making it big deal which would play right into Obama’s hand. Just the right amount of amused dismissal, and just a dollop of comparing Obama to Jimmy Carter thrown in to sweeten it up.
Nice. Very nice.
Right back atcha, Barry!
Team Obama appears to be changing strategy and will begin to attack Romney from the left:
So long, flip-flopper. Hello, right-wing extremist.
Mitt Romney may be inclined to start moving to the political center now that he’s practically got the Republican nomination won and done, but the Obama campaign would much rather keep him right where he’s been for the past few months: in the conservative territory he staked out while battling for Republican primary voters.
After months of depicting Mr. Romney as the ultimate squishy, double-talking, no-core soul, Team Obama is shifting gears. Senior administration officials, along with Democratic and campaign officials, all say their strategy now will be to tell the world that Mr. Romney has a core after all — and it’s deep red.
~snip~
David Plouffe, a senior White House adviser, said in a telephone interview, “Whether it’s tax policy, whether it’s his approach to abortion, gay rights, immigration, he’s the most conservative nominee that they’ve had going back to Goldwater.” He added that “one of the key issues in the campaign is to make sure people know that.”
Read the full Op-Ed here.
President Cristina Kirchner is the first woman elected and re-elected, president of Argentina, and the second woman to serve in that post. The second wife of Juan Peron also served as president from 1974-76, but was not elected. Mr. Peron’s first wife Eva (widely known as “Evita”) did not serve as president, but exerted enormous influence over her husband and Argentina politics before her premature death. All of the Perons, husband and wives, employed demogogic populism for years to win and keep power in this southernmost nation of South America as it endured crisis after crisis.
Mrs. Kirchner’s husband had previously been elected president of Argentina, and Mrs. Kirchner succeeded him . She, too, has adopted the peculiar brand of Argentine populism which utilizes both far left and far right ideologies that stir up resentment between the economic classes in the country.
The tragedy of Argentina is that it was, circa 1900, one of the largest and most prosperous economies in the world. Argentina has substantial land mass, and was settled in the 19th century by a number of Europeans in addition to the original Spanish settlers (who arrived in the 16th century). Argentina had considerable natural resources, and a major farm economy. It was, and is, justifiably famous for its home grown beef. In addition, a substantial culture arose in Argentina, and this culture has contributed to world literature, music and dance. Argentine Jorge Luis Borges was one of the greatest writers in any language in the 20th century. The tango, the national dance, is considered a global art form. Argentine music, fiction and poetry, painting and sculpture are highly regarded throughout the globe.
In spite of its resources and assets, Argentine politics has allowed its early prominence to decline into seemingly perpetual waste, demogogery and crisis. Its government was technically neutral in World War II, but sent aid to the fascist Spanish government of its then dictator Francisco Franco, and was a hotbed of Nazi activity in South America. More recently, Argentine leaders have tried to claim The Falkland Islands (also called Islas Malvinas), long-held territories of Great Britain, as their own. An earlier Argentine government, run by a military junta, precipitated a war on this matter when Margaret Thatcher was the British prime minister, a war Argentina promptly lost. Now, trying to distract the Argentina public from domestic problems, Mrs. Kirchner has tried to revive her government’s claims to The Falkland Islands, something which has almost no support outside Argentina. Her latest controversy, claiming to nationalize the oil industry in her country which is owned primarily by private Spanish investors, has now provoked hostility in Spain (which about 200 years ago was the colonial power ruling Argentina). Again, there is almost no international support for the Kirchner government’s claims.
Curiously, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seemed sympathetic to the Argentine claims in The Falklands when she visited Buenos Aires a few years ago (at about the same time she and the Obama administration took sides with an illegal coup attempt in Honduras that was also supported by leftist South American leaders Chavez, the Castro brothers and leaders in Bolivia and Nicaragua). During his recent trip to Colombia (overshadowed by a Secret Service scandal), President Obama made no substantive comment either about the Argentine revival of its Falkland Islands claims or its attempt to seize internationally-owned oil interests in that country.
One of the constant themes of President Obama’s term in office has been his call for “taxing the rich” and redistributing wealth in the U.S. through increased regulations and major new entitlement programs (most notably Obamacare). Perhaps his reluctance to criticize the government of Mrs Kirchner reflects a sympathy with her “populism” and an admiration for her techniques of shifting public attention from real problems in her country to emotional issues that serve as a political distraction.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
-Please visit Mr. Casselman’s personal site. Copyright (c) 2012 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
No, not Hilary Rosen. She spells her name with one ‘l’. Hillary Clinton spells hers with two.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday slugged back a beer and kicked up her heels at a Cuban-themed nightclub in Cartagena, as the brewing Secret Service prostitution scandal stunned the Summit of the Americas in Colombia.
America’s top diplomat was all smiles as she arrived after midnight with a dozen pals and her State Department security detail at Cafe Havana in the Colombian seaside town.
Clinton — in Cartagena with President Obama for the weekend-long Summit of the Americas — looked relaxed in a casual black dress as she and her pals took a large table at the popular club, where a large sign bearing the official seal of Cuba and the words “Republica de Cuba” hangs prominently over the bar.
…
Photos snapped by surprised onlookers show the former first lady swilling a Colombian-brewed Aguila (“Eagle’’) cerveza straight from the bottle and hitting the dance floor.
Witnesses said Clinton played maracas and danced the rumba to three songs played by the club’s Cuba-centric house band.
…
First of all let me get one thing straight. I’ve got no problem with our Secretary of State letting her hair down a little and having a good time — none whatsoever. All work and no play makes Hillary a dull girl. Yet when viewed in the light of some other facts, I am not quite so copacetic about it.
Consider:
A pattern seems to be emerging. What it is exactly, I cannot say, but it does seem to suggest troubles ahead for Team Obama.
Just two days after President Barack Obama gave a sharply edged response to news anchor Larry Conners of KMOV in St. Louis after Conners had asked the president about Americans who “get frustrated and even angered when they see the first family jetting around [to] different vacations and so forth,” Obama told a panel at the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia that part of his job there was to scout out locations for a future vacation with First Lady Michelle Obama.
Obama was speaking on a panel with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos and Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff when he made the remarks. The panel was moderated by Chris Matthews of MSNBC.
“I want to thank President Santos and the people of Colombia for the extraordinary hospitality in the beautiful city of Cartagena,” said Obama. “We’re having a wonderful time. And usually when I take these summit trips, part of my job is to scout out where I may want to bring Michelle back later for vacation. So we’ll make sure to come back sometime in the near future.”
…
On the taxpayers’ dime, no doubt.
This cartoon caught my eye. It seems strangely appropriate.
Team Obama has built a reputation of invincibility, but the events of the past week don’t seem to reflect that.
First you had the Hillary Rosen attack on Ann Romney’s motherhood. That caused their carefully crafted “Republican war on women” to blow up in their face. Then Biden tried to float a “Romney Rule” which Romney’s team quickly countered with an “Obama Rule”. Finally you have David Axelrod declaring that this election is choice between having an economy that works, and the one we have now.
In each and every case, Team Romney quickly pounced, sometimes within minutes of the opening. The logistics are truly impressive. They have to have people paying attention to everything that Obama’s team is saying looking for openings. But an opening won’t do you much good without a rapid response team capable of quickly exploiting it, and exploit it they did. This week has been all Romney.
This has to be a unusual experience for Mr. Obama. Always before, he either got his serious competition thrown off the ballot, or he drew opponents that were afraid to go on the attack. Even the vaunted Clinton Machine(TM) pussyfooted around with him for the most part. And John McCain put in little more than a token effort against him four years ago.
Not this year. This year we have a Republican team which has obviously shown up to play. They are disciplined, organized, well-trained, lean, mean, and eager to fight. In the process they are exposing weaknesses in Team Obama that they are exploiting to the hilt.
I’ve said it once before. “[U]nless the Obama Campaign gets their act together, sharpens their discipline, and tightens their ship, we will be electing a new president next fall, and it is going to be Willard Mitt Romney.
