Obama has decided to declare war on religion, decreeing first that Churches did not have the right to hire or fire any employee — including their ministers — as they saw fit. The Supreme Court slapped that down 9 – 0.
Not missing a beat, they decided to declare that all church based institutions serving the public must carry insurance that pays for contraception, abortion pills, and other such things. This is a direct shot over the bow of Catholic charities, hospitals, and other social services. They refuse to grant any exception for conscience, but they have given the Catholic institutions a full year to comply. This puts the deadline conveniently after this fall’s election. But comply they must. So says the Obama Administration — no exceptions.
This gave Mitt Romney an opening, and he promptly took it. The AP is reporting that Mitt is making it a big part of his stump speech in Colorad0:
CENTENNIAL, Colo.—With a few exceptions in South Carolina, Mitt Romney has generally avoided talking about social issues on the campaign trail. But that changed as the candidate appeared before one of his biggest crowds yet at a local high school here, and accused President Obama of infringing on Americans’ religious freedoms.
Speaking on the eve of the Colorado caucuses in a swing district packed with social conservatives, Romney trashed Obama over a federal directive that requires religious institutions like hospitals and universities to provide contraception and the morning after pill—which Romney referred to as an “abortive pill”—to employees insured under their health care plans.
“Think what that does to people in faiths without sharing those views. This is a violation of conscience,” Romney told a crowd of more than 2,500 people packed into the gymnasium at Arapahoe High School on Monday night. “We must have a president who is willing to protect America’s first right, a right to worship God, according to the dictates of our own conscience… We’ll either have a government that protects religious diversity and freedom, or we’ll have a government that tells us what kind of conscience they think we ought to have.”
…
“I’m just distressed as I watch our president try and infringe upon our rights. The first amendment of the Constitution provides the right to worship in the way of our own choice,” Romney said. “Did you understand that this administration argued before the Supreme Court that a church should not be able to determine who their ministers are but that government should decide who qualifies as a minister?”
As the crowd erupted in boos, Romney added, “And by the way, you know that some of the members of the court are pretty liberal. You know what they decided? They decided 9-0 President Obama was wrong.”
…
Obama is supposedly a political genius, but I think he has really put his foot in this. He must have reasoned that the Catholic Church’s anti-contraceptive policy was unpopular even among a great deal of Catholics, so he could get away with it. He over-looked the fact that people of faith in the United States can see plainly exactly what this is. It is not a dispute over contraceptives. It is a dispute over religious freedom, religious liberty, and freedom of conscience. Many, many people who have no problems with contraceptives are rising up to fight this policy.
It also has the added benefit of highlighting the high-handedness of ObamaCare. The Federal Government can now decree exactly what constitutes acceptable insurance policies in the 50 states. It can force employers of all stripes to comply under penalty of law. And if you don’t like it, tough! The Obama administration knows best.
Their chutzpah is truly breathtaking.
The AP attempts to paint this as a new tactic of the Romney campaign attempting to neutralize Santorum now that Rick is starting to challenge Gingrich as the default not-Romney, but it is more than that. Mitt has been on top of this from the beginning. He first pounced on it two weeks ago when the news first hit. Last week he wrote an op-ed decrying the ham-fisted power grab. And now he is adding it to his stump speech.
Mitt is no dummy. He can see clearly how he can use this as a club with which to beat Obama over the head. It is interference of Government in the religious sphere pure and simple. Mitt being a member of an often disliked even persecuted minority religion gives his rhetoric all the more weight and force.
Obama is now trapped. He cannot rescind the order without upsetting his liberal base. And if he retreats, it will be seen as a Romney victory — exactly what he cannot afford to happen. Meanwhile all the time that Mitt can hammer him on him attacking religion is time that Obama’s allies can’t use Romney’s faith against him — a tactic that they were planning on using to great affect. Now it is useless while this storm rages. The only thing Barack can do now is lower his head against the tempest, hoping it will all blow over before the election.
Almost all Catholic churches in the United States last Sunday heard letters read from the pulpit, condemning the Obama administration’s attempt to force Catholic institutions, such as hospitals and schools, to violate the church’s teachings on abortion and birth control.
I am not a particularly strong supporter of social conservatism, nor am I a Catholic (though I was raised in that church and received an outstanding education at Catholic elementary and high schools). But one need not be personally involved to see this as an outrageous assault on religious liberty.
It gets worse, however: The US Army forbade the reading of the letter by Catholic chaplains.
Yes, you read that right — the Obama administration is now employing censorship over the content of religious services on military bases.
Hat-tip: The Corner.
There is a curious phenomenon happening in the Republican contest for the party’s nomination in 2012. No sooner has someone won an early caucus or primary than something bad happens, and someone else wins the next one.
Rick Santorum surprisingly tied Mitt Romney in the Iowa caucus, the opening voting event in this four year cycle, and in fact, several days later, following a recount of the ballots, was declared the winner. He did receive a great deal of media attention as a result of this, and an increase in campaign cash contributions, but came in a distant third or fourth in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida the next three weeks. He has has no current prospects of winning another primary or caucus, including his home state of Pennsylvania in April.
The winner of the first primary, the next week, was long-time frontrunner Mitt Romney who had almost tied Mr. Santorum in Iowa, and won by a large margin in the Granite State. Leading in the polls in the next primary, in South Carolina, many pundits began talking of his quickly sewing up the nomination in Florida. But before he got there, Newt Gingrich, who had not done well in Iowa or New Hampshire, made a sudden surge and won South Carolina by 13 points.
This was now reversed in Florida when Gingrich, who initially had been leading there by a large margin, faded under a media ad blitz by Romney and his fellow rivals (as he had in Iowa), and lost the Sunshine State to Romney by 15 points.
Once again, many pundits declared that frontrunner Romney was now back on track to sew up the nomination early despite statements by Gingrich, Santorum and Ron Paul that they would remain in the race. Too late, these pundits declared, Romney was back on top and heading for more victories.
But then Mr. Romney gave an interview stating he “did not worry about the very poor because they had a safety net.” This was both taken out of context and carelessly stated, but regarded as further proof of Romney’s political insensitivity and the positive aftermath of his victory in Florida was quickly supplanted by this controversy.
This may not be quite as sensational as the “Curse of Tutankhamen” (the series of misfortunes which befell those who discovered and opened the legendary pharaoh’s pyramid tomb in the 1920’s), but it is a curious pattern. Will it continue? Can Newt Gingrich make still another comeback? Can Rick Santorum finally win a significant primary or caucus and supplant Gingrich as Romney’s main challenger
Mr. Romney is now expected to win Nevada easily. The votes in Missouri and Minnesota are non-binding to delegates. Michigan is considered virtually Romney’s home state, so the next real test will be Super Tuesday in early March where a number of states, including southern ones (where Gingrich, as he did in South Carolina, may win). Mr. Romney clearly now has the advantage, but it is not clear if the “curse of winning a primary in 2012” will continue.
Speaking of the curious, which may also be a form of political outrage, the latest unemployment figures claim that the number of unemployment in the workforce is down a bit to 8.3%. At the same time, 1.2 million persons who were out of work were declared non-existent because they were so disheartened that they were no longer “seeking” employment. This unilateral gambit is so transparent that it borders on the absurd. Yet most in the media, all of the Democrats, and even many Republicans made no effort at objection at this statistical fraud. That includes most of the Republican aspirants for president. If it weren’t for the Congressional Budget Office, Robert Samuelson and Rush Limbaugh, most would not even know this outrage was taking place.
If the Obama administration can get away with making the public believe real unemployment (somewhere between 10% and 12%) is only 8.3%, they will soon be declaring there is no deficit.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
-Please visit Mr. Casselman’s personal site.
President Obama Versus Religious Liberty
February 3, 2012
The Obama administration is at it again. They are now using Obamacare to impose a secular vision on Americans who believe that they should not have their religious freedom taken away.
On January 20, 2012, the Obama administration affirmed a rule that would force Roman Catholic hospitals, charities, and universities to purchase health insurance for their employees that includes coverage for contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization, in violation of their religious principles. This is wrong.
My own view is clear. I stand with the Catholic Bishops and all religious organizations in their strenuous objection to this liberty- and conscience-stifling regulation. I am committed to overturning Obamacare root and branch. If I am elected President, on day one of my administration I will issue an executive order directing my Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue a waiver from its requirements to all 50 states. And on day one I will eliminate the Obama administration rule that compels religious institutions to violate the tenets of their own faith. Such rules don’t belong in the America that I believe in.
The America I believe in is governed by the U.S. Constitution and I will not hesitate to use the powers of the presidency to protect religious liberty.
Religious liberty is at the heart of the American experiment. As a nation founded in part by religious dissenters, we enshrined it as the first freedom in our Bill of Rights. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” is how the First Amendment begins. James Madison put the moral principle behind the amendment succinctly: “Conscience is the most sacred of all property.” And accompanying the moral principle came the social principle that only religious liberty could ensure tranquility in a new land composed of men and women of differing faiths.
But, now, more than two centuries after the drafting of the Bill of Rights, religious liberty is facing the most serious assault in generations. And the assault is coming from liberalism itself. In the process of implementing Obamacare, the Obama administration is pressing forward with a rule that tramples on religious freedom, taking particular aim at Roman Catholics. The Obama administration is forcing religious institutions to choose between violating their conscience or dropping health care coverage for their employees, effectively destroying their ability to carry on their work.
Those of us who object have an irrefutable case. American courts have long held as a foundational principle the right of religious institutions to control their own affairs. It was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court as recently as January 11 in a case involving ministerial hiring. It is notable that in that case, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church v. EEOC, the Obama administration was also challenging the basic time-honored principle of ecclesiastical autonomy. But a unanimous Court rejected the Obama administration’s position, declaring it to be “extreme” and explaining that the suit was “hard to square with the text of the First Amendment itself, which gives special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations.”
Seemingly in line with this “special solicitude,” the Obama administration has put forward a “religious employer” exemption regarding contraception and sterilization insurance coverage. Unfortunately, the Obama administration lawyers narrowed its actual force almost to the vanishing point. It only applies to religious organizations engaged primarily in serving people of the same religion. But that is not what many religious institutions do; serving the broad public is the essence of their divine mission. Accordingly, they will be compelled to provide health coverage to which they object as a matter of conscience.
In an effort to mollify the Bishops, Health and Human Services has now given religious institutions an additional twelve months to comply. That twelve-month extension is a clumsy attempt to push this matter past this year’s presidential election. As long as the rule hovers in front of us, we must keep up the battle. In a polity that provides all manners of exemption on the basis of religious freedom, it is an appalling trespass on the First Amendment.
Liberals and conservatives have made common cause to defend the rights of religious minorities in the past. But somehow, today, when it comes to the agenda of the left-wing of the Democratic Party—those who brought us abortion on demand and who fight against the teaching of abstinence education in our children’s schools—their devotion to religious freedom goes out the window. They would force Catholics and others who have beliefs rooted in their faith to sacrifice the teachings of their faith to the mandate of federal bureaucrats.
It is a prerequisite to the preservation of our liberty that our government not dictate to religious institutions the principles by which they are to carry out their charitable and divine mission. Religious liberty and freedom of conscience flow from the common conviction that it is freedom not coercion that exalts the individual, just as it raises up the nation.
What the Obama administration has done is indefensible. But this is about even more than President Obama denying America’s Catholics their constitutionally protected rights. This is about the preservation of our freedom. We must come together to make sure that these egregious violations of our Constitution do not stand.
From the Huffington Post:
Obama Wall Street Fundraising Evaporates As Donors Flee To Romney
President Barack Obama has been abandoned by the world of finance.
Over the course of the 2012 election, his presidential campaign has received about one dollar in donations from the financial sector for every five dollars given to his top competitor, Mitt Romney, according to figures provided by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). During the final three months of 2011, however, the margin has widened dramatically.
…
In the fourth quarter of 2011, Romney raised $1.49 million from employees of those 68 companies while the president’s reelection campaign raised just $127,000 — an 11.7-to-1 ratio. It was the most lucrative quarter for Romney yet.
“Clearly it was a great quarter for Romney, in terms of fundraising from Wall Street and from securities and banking firms, in particular the biggest one,” said Sheila Krumholz, CRP’s executive director. “It is not surprising that he was able to do that. It is just surprising how rapid the shift has been towards him and away from Obama.”
The abandonment of the president by the financial sector has, indeed, been remarkable in scope and speed. Some of the very companies whose employees cut checks for Obama in 2008 now seem fully devoted to funding his competitor in 2012.
…
Four years ago all these Wall Street types flocked to Obama in spite of his anti-business, pro-redistribution rhetoric. “He’s so reasonable, so cerebral, so inspiring, so … cool! Why, just look at that crease in his pant leg. He can’t possibly mean all that crazy stuff.”
Surprise! He really DID mean it. After four years of being the political punching bag for this administration, after repeatedly passing open-ended regulations like ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank, after four years of being made the scapegoat for the economy, the financial sector has had enough. It’s finally sunk into their heads that maybe, just maybe in spite of that great crease in his pants, Obama might be a bad investment.
Gee, ya think?
On the night of the Florida Primary, Mitt called for Obama to serve only one term. He launched a donation site called “One Term Fund” to serve as a base for a one million dollar money bomb.
Within 24 hours Obama’s campaign had launched their own money bomb site entitled “Two Term Fund” asking for two million dollars. On the site, they reference Mitt’s action:
Mitt Romney’s campaign just launched his One-Term Fund with a million-dollar goal.
Here’s why, in Mitt Romney’s words: “We must not forget what this election is really about: defeating Barack Obama.”
Don’t let that happen. Make a donation today.
So already at this early stage of the game, we see where Mitt is acting, and Obama is reacting. Mitt makes a move. Obama makes a move to counter Mitt’s move.
Mitt is obviously inside of Obama’s head. Obama and his people might claim that they aren’t worried, but actions speak louder than words.
One of the most impressive things to witness in the 2012 Republican Primary for me has been to see the organization and collaboration of Mitt Romney’s campaign team. Where other candidates did their best to criss-cross the early states, attend fundraisers, cut advertisements, do TV appearances and radio interviews, hold conference calls, and do all the other things that are part of running for President largely on their own, Mitt Romney’s team was a political hydra. While Tim Pawlenty and Jason Chaffetz held a teleconference for reporters, Chris Christie was doing townhalls for supporters, Mitt was out giving speeches on the stump, and the Florida Congressional delegation was cutting ads for the campaign. It was a lesson not only in multi-tasking, but in the full utilization of all available resources – and Mitt schooled everyone at it.
This is one of the reasons I am confident that Mitt Romney, now our presumptive nominee, is by far the greatest candidate available to take on Barack Obama. For the general election, it is not going to be just Mitt Romney by himself out there taking on the Obama machine. Chris Christie, Tim Pawlenty, Bob McDonnell, Nikki Haley, Kelly Ayotte, John Sununu, and dozens more will be out campaigning for him as well. Defending him on morning news shows. Attacking Obama for him. Talking to their constituents on his behalf. Leading multi-pronged attacks.
Who does Obama have? Nancy Pelosi? Harry Reid? David Axelrod? Seriously? You think those folks are going to sway American opinion?
If you are looking for a reason why endorsements matter, just take a glance at how Romney has utilized his endorsers as surrogates this primary season. And then imagine him using them again as surrogates in the general election against Barack Obama. The Romney campaign’s ability to drive a very focused message across several fronts at the same time has been impressive to watch, and we will get more displays of Romney’s organizational prowess and competence come general election time. I can hardly wait.
Update: I’m not the only one taking note of Romney’s use of his supporters as surrogates: CNN Political Ticker has a story out about how Romney won the Florida primary, noting that “Romney’s campaign unleashed an army of surrogates” to campaign for him and take down Newt Gingrich. This is really fun to watch – unless, of course, you are on the receiving end of that army’s offensive.
For those who haven’t heard, Mitt Romney, fresh off his blowout Florida victory, stepped in it today, with yet another gaffe that looks even worse when you consider who said it:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT8PkyMLR30[/youtube]
It doesn’t matter if he answered Soledad O’Brien’s follow-up question with righteous indignation (whether authentic or not), statements like this continue to provide general election campaign fodder for President Obama and other Democrats. In case you need a refresher, here you go:
At two points in the campaign, Romney has described his desire to fire people — first a health insurance provider and then a hypothetical adviser who told him a moon colony was a good idea. That context aside, both could be very unhelpful sound bites for someone whose biggest liability may lie with people laid off by Bain Capital.
In the same vein is Romney’s “corporations are people” argument at the Iowa State Fair. And then there’s the time he defended banks.
And let’s not forget the time when Romney offered Texas Gov. Rick Perry a $10,000 bet at a debate, or the time he only had $100 bills in his wallet and needed an aide to hand him a single, or the time he gave an unemployed woman a $50 bill (who carries around $50 bills?).
…Romney’s liability, though, seems to be in how often he reinforces his wealth and appears out of touch with average Americans. And the more concise he makes those moments, the better it is for Obama’s team.
I’m sure all this will infuriate our numerous die-hard Romney supporters, but we discount and dismiss these blunders at our own peril, as they only lend credence to the perception Americans already hold:
Now, I don’t write this to argue in favor of Newt Gingrich (or any other candidate, for that matter), as that WaPo poll shows he only fares worse in the image department. I just hope the Romney campaign realizes just how much work their candidate has to do.
As pundits’ attention shifts now from the Republican primary race, where Romney is our presumptive nominee, to the general election where Romney is the presumptive challenger, we are going to be inundated with data. Polling on a national level. On a state level. On a demographic level. Polling about potential Vice Presidential candidates. Electoral vote totals. Swing state data. County-by-county matchups. Historical trends. Power rankings. Exit polls.
There will be no shortage of numbers to crunch and statistics to drool over in the coming months. But for all the amusement and information they will provide, there are really only two numbers that matter now: Barack Obama’s approval rating as measured by Gallup, and the national unemployment rate.
Those two intertwined numbers will tell you all you need to know about who will win come November. Why? Because history shows that to be the case. Allow me to repost a couple of graphics from an old post of mine entitled, “The Two Most Important Charts I’ve Seen“:
The first chart tracks, over time, an incumbent President’s chance of winning re-election based solely on his job approval numbers. The second chart provides the historical context for such predictive ability. (Both charts are taken from a piece Nate Silver wrote last January.)
When we take this data into consideration, it would appear that we are treading into unknown territory with Barack Obama. At the moment, his Gallup approval rating rests at 44%. We are about nine months out from the election. Plotting that on the first graph above nets us a 50/50 chance of Obama’s re-election.
Of course, what happens during the next nine months to that 44% number is ultimately the key. If it stays at 44%, Obama will lose to Romney. If it rises a few points, then the picture gets very murky. If it rises to 48% or above, then he will defeat Romney.
Amidst all the campaigning, debating, gaffes, speeches, advertisements and other campaign trappings, it really is that simple.
And the number one thing that will move that 44% up or down is the unemployment rate. There are ten more updates of the national unemployment rate due between now and Election Day (including one a day and a half from now). Ten more times to move the needle as Americans digest an improving or weakening economy. Although the American economy is richly complex with a million moving parts, for an overwhelming percentage of the American electorate the economy is comprised of this single, simple number.
If it continues going down, Obama’s job approval will go up, and he will win – and vice versa.
So over the coming nine months, have fun with all the polls and data points you will be presented with. But remember, ultimately this race will come down to these two numbers. Keep your eye on the Gallup job approval and the unemployment rate, and you will be ahead of the rest of the pundits out there.
Today, Politico had two interesting articles about Mitt Romney’s electoral prospects and the current state of the race in Florida. The first details the recent success Mitt has had in the Sunshine State:
Like they have throughout the primary, the two Florida debates this week played a major role in Romney’s resurgence.
Romney took advantage of both debate audiences. The quiet, smaller crowd in Tampa allowed him to accentuate his sober demeanor. In Jacksonville, the hall was packed with vocal Romney supporters, much to Gingrich’s frustration.
Romney used both occasions to charge after Gingrich who, without the crowd on his side, was visibly off his game and didn’t go on the offensive.
The change was palpable, showcasing a different Romney than the unsteady South Carolina debater, in part thanks to new debate coach Brett O’Donnell, McCain’s and Michele Bachmann’s former coach.
…It shouldn’t be underestimated how much the Romney operation has managed to get into Gingrich’s head. From its first day in Florida, the campaign held daily anti-Newt conference calls featuring campaign surrogates. The calls didn’t break news, but left Gingrich to defend ever more allegations about his time as speaker and post-House career.
And there were the real-time Romney surrogates, tasked with trailing Gingrich from event to event and offering rebuttals to reporters in real time.
This so aggravated and distracted the Gingrich campaign that spokesman R.C. Hammond wound up in a yelling match Friday with Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz at a Delray Beach event. Chaffetz, using the Romney campaign’s buzzword for Gingrich, said Hammond became “unhinged” in responding to him.
…There was no way Romney was going to match the thousands of people Gingrich drew to campaign rallies Tuesday in Sarasota and Naples.
So he didn’t try.
Instead, the Romney advance operation built a series of small, made-for-TV events at the beginning of the week to spotlight the campaign’s message.
One, a Monday roundtable with eight people hit by the mortgage crisis, had as witnesses only the traveling press. The next day, Romney spoke to an invite-only crowd in an empty Tampa warehouse and stood in front of a foreclosed-by-Freddie Mac house to spotlight the mortgage broker for which Gingrich consulted.
As recently as Tuesday, Romney senior aide Eric Fehrnstrom told reporters the campaign would stick to “message-driven” events rather than big rallies.
I came away with two chief conclusions after reading this piece: 1. Romney has surrounded himself with a highly capable staff that knows how to adapt to changing circumstances and handle the cards dealt to them; and 2. It bodes poorly for Newt’s general election prospects if he and his team cannot handle the challenges imposed by a primary race. If they can’t cope with Romney surrogates pressuring them, how on earth can they possibly expect to combat the full weight of the Obama organization and the Democratic machine?
Unfortunately, with the positives, come some negatives, as highlighted by the next Politico article:
Obama’s biggest challenge, the CW goes, is winning back a percentage, however modest, of independents that have deserted him wholesale since 2009. So, it’s with no small degree of satisfaction that they are closely watching Mitt Romney’s recent swan dive with swing voters.
A poll-of-polls analysis of Romney’s recent unfavorable rating with indies, provided to POLITICO by a Democratic strategist, shows that the race has driven him way underwater, with more than 50 percent of unaffiliated voters given him failing grade; Only about a quarter of independents give him a favorable approval rating.
Romney’s staff says that this is simply a product of a ferocious GOP primary, and his numbers will rebound once the tidal wave of negative super PAC advertising recedes; Dems say voters are turned off by Romney’s Eddie Haskell, say-anything-to-get-elected style.
The latest bad news for Romney a Washington Poll poll last week showing him with a 23 percent approval/49 percent disapproval split with independents. Red siren, that: His unfavorables had been in the 30s, not bad, in recent months.
…But Obama, whose health care reform remains as popular with centrist voters as dry rot, will accept misery-loves-company parity. Romney’s unfavorables are also spiking with the larger electorate, up from 42 percent last year to 45 percent this month, according to the Pew poll.
“This is not normal,” the Democratic memo reads. “Republicans may claim that this is typical of a primary process — it is not.”
We Republicans cannot simply brush off this information. With the expanding numbers of Independents in recent years, if the GOP hopes to maintain long-term viability, Republican candidates need to enhance their appeal to these voters. Romney must launch an all-out assault to address this reality as soon as he (presumably) wraps up the nomination.
It’s often revealing to turn conventional wisdom on its head and see what’s really hidden underneath. You’ve all heard it, I’m sure, that RomneyCare is Mitt’s doom, an albatross around his neck, his biggest weakness as a potential candidate. In Part 1 of this series I detailed not only how grave some people feel this issue is for Romney’s chances, but also pointed out that Obama and his team of key operatives (Axelrod, Gibbs, and Daley) are all praising RomneyCare as ObamaCare’s predecessor in an effort to hurt Mitt with the GOP’s conservative and libertarian bases. However, below I present what a great asset and strength Romney’s history and experience with health care will be to him as a general election candidate against Obama.
Yes . . . for the purposes of this post I am skipping the GOP primary altogether and how health care will effect that outcome. Don’t worry, I will address those issues thoroughly in later installments of this series. But sometimes it’s important to see the light at the end of the tunnel, the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, the carrot at the end of the stick, to give a proper and more accurate assessment of the situation one is currently in. Winning the GOP nomination and imagining how well Mitt could tackle Obama on health care is that light/pot/carrot. Some Mitt fans or fence-sitters may be guilty of hand wringing and fretting over how RomneyCare might really be the big problem that so many are saying it will be. This post is for you folks in particular.
First off, it’s always wise to take a step back and look at the big picture. Health Care promises to be a big topic in the upcoming 2012 presidential election no doubt . . . but I can guarantee that it will not be the biggest. It never has been the number one issue on people’s minds and I see no reason for that to change (“It’s the Economy Stupid!“). The Exit polls from our most recent election cycle show “The Economy” dominating voter’s hearts and minds:
The economy isn’t just the most important issue to voters this year . . . it’s roughly twice as important to them as the other top issues of concern combined . . . Sixty-two percent of voters name the economy as their most important issue this year. Health care ranks a distant second, at 19 percent. Illegal immigration and Afghanistan follow at 8 and 7 percent.
The 2008 Presidential exit polls also showed that “The Economy” was far and away the biggest issue on people’s minds:
The economy dominated voters’ concerns at historical levels in the presidential election . . . Fully 62 percent of voters said the economy was the most important issue, six times more than cited the war in Iraq (10 percent), health care (9 percent) or terrorism (9 percent)
If the SOTU speech last night sounded familiar, it’s probably because you’ve heard it all before.
From the RNC – Familiar Rhetoric, Failed Record:
$3 million in taxes on almost $22 million in income. The Wall Street Journal has the details:
GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney paid a 14% effective income tax rate in 2010 after making $3 million in tax-deductible charitable donations and drawing most of his income from investments, according to a summary of Mr. Romney’s 2010 tax form provided by his campaign.
Mr. Romney reported $21.7 million in income. He paid $3 million in federal taxes, slightly more than the $2.98 million he made in charitable donations. At least $1.5 million of his charitable donations went to the Mormon Church.
Of Mr. Romney’s 2010 income, he noted a capital gain of $12.6 million, taxable interest of $3.3 million, ordinary dividends of $4.9 million and smaller sums of gains and losses on business income, refunds and other income.
His 2010 return also showed that he had a financial account in Switzerland that was closed in 2010 and that he generated income from overseas investments. He also reported financial accounts in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands.
Mr. Romney’s campaign plans to release his full tax filings for 2010 and an estimate for his 2011 taxes Tuesday.
WaPo’s PostPolitics put together a nifty chart which compares the income, effective tax rates, and charitable contributions of Barack Obama, Newt Gingrich, and Mitt Romney. Of the three contenders, Gingrich had the highest effective tax rate at 31.6%.
Stay tuned for more as the Romney campaign releases more information later today. Of special interest will be their statements concerning Mitt and Anne Romney’s offshore holdings.
Washington Post/ABC News
Overall, do you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of (INSERT)? Do you feel that way strongly, or somewhat?Barack Obama (53%/43% net)
------- Favorable ------- ------ Unfavorable ------ No NET Strongly Somewhat NET Somewhat Strongly opinion 1/22/12 53 27 25 43 14 29 4 12/11/11 48 23 25 49 16 33 3
Mitt Romney (31%/ 49% net)
------- Favorable ------- ------ Unfavorable ------ No NET Strongly Somewhat NET Somewhat Strongly opinion 1/22/12 31 6 25 49 25 23 21 1/8/12 39 10 28 34 18 16 28 11/27/11 38 9 29 38 20 17 25 10/16/11 33 8 26 36 20 15 31
Newt Gingrich (29%/51% net)
------- Favorable ------- ------ Unfavorable ------ No NET Strongly Somewhat NET Somewhat Strongly opinion 1/22/12 29 8 20 51 20 31 20 12/11/11 35 12 23 48 21 27 18 11/27/11 35 11 24 42 18 24 23 11/13/11 32 10 21 43 21 21 26 11/1/98 34 NA NA 58 NA NA 9This Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone January 18-22 2011, among a random national sample of 1,009 adults, including users of both conventional and cellular phones. The results from the full survey have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by SSRS of Media, Pa.
Here is a very fun video to watch. It is Larry O’Donnell from MSNBC being totally candid and open about what he really thinks about the 2012 GOP nomination race.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9U8TMEFyY0&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
He touches upon Gingrich’s kamikaze attack on Mitt Romney, which candidate he thinks Obama is the most afraid of, thoughts on VP choice, and a few other points.
There is no trace of dissembling or spinning in his answers. This is purely two political pundits from opposite sides of the fence talking shop in a New Hampshire bar. It is a fascinating thing to watch.
Nancy French writing in Patheos (emphasis added):
With all the hoopla surrounding the Virginia ballot, I wondered how the candidates fared in my home state. Tennessee works a little differently than other states. In fact, it seems that every state has a little tweak, a little nuance that makes it a little different from the others. That’s why the process is a great peek into how a candidate can handle complicated issues that require organization and hard work.
Tennessee will have fifty-eight delegates to the Tampa Republican National Convention. Each of our nine congressional districts will have three delegates. That means that Presidential candidates must find delegates who are leaders in their community willing to walk around with a clipboard asking friends and strangers to sign their names and their addresses on behalf of their candidacy for their preferred Presidential candidate. Each delegate had to get one hundred valid signatures of registered voters.
…
In addition to the congressional delegates, fourteen “at large” delegates will be elected. These delegates had a slightly easier job, because they weren’t restricted to a certain district and could signatures from any registered voter in our state.
A full slate of delegate candidates would be forty-one.
So which candidates were able to supply a full slate for Tennessee? Only one:
Michelle Bachmann: 0
Gary Johnson: 0
Rick Santorum: 0
Ron Paul: 35
Newt Gingrich: 34
Rick Perry: 27
Mitt Romney: 48
…
[I]t’s worth noting that the Yankee governor received forty-eight delegates in our southern state, pulling off what no other candidate could. What does this say about the conventional wisdom that southerners won’t warm to him?
You will note that Mrs. French states that a full slate of delegates is 41. Yet where none of the other candidates qualified that many, Mitt qualified 48. (I checked. He really does have 48 delegates qualified. You can check here yourself if you wish.) So not only did Romney fulfill all the requirements for Tennessee, he went the extra mile besides.
That is a hallmark of his organization. In Virginia when told the party would automatically qualify him if he reached 15,000 signatures, he wasn’t satisfied until his campaign had collected more than 16,000. Even then he still had his people do an audit on over a third of them to verify they had enough valid signatures to get on the ballot. The last step was totally unnecessary, but he did it anyway.
I am grateful I don’t have to compete with the guy.
Alex Roarty asks an interesting question over on the National Journal site:
Why Is No One Attacking Romney?
Mitt Romney’s confidence is brimming. The former governor, now widely seen as the favorite to win Iowa, announced Wednesday he’ll stay in the Hawkeye State the night of the caucus, a clear indication he anticipates a good result. If he does capture Iowa, he’ll head into New Hampshire, long his political stronghold, with a chance to become the first non-incumbent GOP presidential candidate ever to win the first two primary contests – a back-to-back triumph that would all but secure the nomination.
So, naturally, his Republican rivals have spent the last week castigating him on the trail and eviscerating him on TV, all in a desperate attempt to slow down his momentum and keep their own campaigns viable. Right? No – they’ve nearly done the opposite.
…
As they [the others] form a circular firing squad, Romney stepped back. Rather than engage his GOP opponents, as he’s done most of his campaign, he’s focused almost entirely on his No. 1 target, President Obama.
…
It’s really not that hard to understand what is happening. Mitt Romney primarily occupies the “Competent Executive” niche. His supporters have been loyal to him for years. Unless another candidate can convince Mitt’s supporters that he is the more competent executive, they are not going to defect easily.
One that could conceivably compete with Mitt in that niche is Rick Perry. Or maybe I should have said was Rick Perry. While it is true that he’s had a fairly successful run of 12 years as Texas Governor, the history so far of this campaign hasn’t exactly shown off his superior executive skills. Quite the opposite, in fact. First he leaped into this campaign with much fanfare, but it quickly became obvious that he has done little to no preparation. Competent executives do not initiate major undertakings without first thoroughly preparing for it. Rick seemed genuinely surprised when he discovered the party wasn’t going to just hand the nomination to him because he asked for it. He was going to have to earn it.
And then there was that Virginia ballot fiasco… .
Is there any wonder why Perry seems to be de-emphasizing the “Competent Executive” angle as of late and instead has been shooting for the “God’s Candidate” crowd?
And if not Perry, who? Newt Gingrich perhaps? Newt’s last real executive job as Speaker of the House saw him getting kicked out on his ear. He has done little since then to prove that his executive skills have improved much. It’s been quite the opposite, actually. He took that Greek vacation right in the middle of last summer’s fundraising and organizing season. His whole campaign staff then quit in disgust.
And then there was that Virginia ballot fiasco… .
Huntsman, maybe? Perhaps, but as I’ve stated many times before, Jon is a solution looking for a problem. He has yet to articulate any real compelling reason to vote for him other than the fact that he’s not Romney.
And he didn’t even try to get on that Virginia ballot… .
No, Mitt’s core niche is quite safe from poachers. This forces the other candidates to look elsewhere for supporters to win over.They must attack each other and pretty much leave Mitt out of it. Unfortunately for them, squabbling amongst themselves and calling each other names allows Mitt to rise above it all and act Presidential. It makes him appear as the only adult in the room. Concerned voters wanting to defeat Obama next fall see this and then gravitate towards Mitt’s banner.
So Mr. Roarty, THAT is why no one is attacking Romney. There are no other “Competent Executive” types to compete with him. Pawlenty dropped out, and Huckabee, Daniels, Christie, Jindal and Barbour declined to run. That leaves just Mitt Romney to claim that niche.
Gallup recently completed a poll where they measured the “positive intensity” of the various candidates. The details can be found here. How this differs from the usual “favorables”, I’m not sure, but here are the results:
First, Positive Intensity Ratings among Republican and Democrats:
Rep Dem Gingrich 14 -37 Romney 12 -12 Santorum 11 -24 Paul 6 -8 Bachmann 2 -34 Perry 1 -32 Huntsman 0 -4 Obama -50 27
Gingrich, Romney, and Santorum all three elicit very close to the same level of positive intensity among Republicans. Bachmann, Perry and Huntsman elicit very little. Paul is right in the middle. The big number is Obama’s. The President has a negative intensity rating of -50. That is more than all the Republican candidates’ positive ratings combined!
An article over at MRC caught my eye. It was entitled: Leaders of Congress Follow Mitt Romney
… [T]he most missed story of last week was Gov. Romney’s health care victories.First, Romney’s proposal to reform Medicare got a big boost when it was adopted and sponsored by two very prominent members of congress, Rep. Paul Ryan (R) and Senator Ron Wyden (D) of Oregon. Paul Ryan is the popular conservative chairman of the House Budget Committee and is ranked as one of conservatives most influential voices on economic policy. Wyden serves on the Senate Budget and Finance Committees and is a health care expert in his own right. Wyden was widely considered as a top candidate to become HHR secretary under Obama. The fact that both of these leaders adopted Romney’s proposal speaks volumes about the quality of Romney’s plan and Romney’s ability to lead and develop bold yet realistic goals that will get things done for the American people.Even Newt Gingrich, Romney’s chief rival for the nomination, praised the Ryan-Wyden health care bill as a “major breakthrough” in the last GOP debate in Iowa saying:
++
Now, Gov. Romney, frankly, came up with a very good plan which allowed for the maintenance of the current (Medicare) system. Paul Ryan has adopted that, and I think in a very brave act by Senator Wyden, you now have a Democrat willing to co-sponsor the bill. I’ve endorsed the concept today. I think it is a big step forward and I think Gov. Romney deserves some of the credit for having helped figure out a way to make this thing workable.
++
That was just Mitt’s first victory. The second came when Obama finally gave in and allowed individual states to better tailor their healthcare to their own individual needs:
…
The New York Times said this:
++
“In a major surprise on the politically charged new health care law, the Obama administration said Friday that it would not define a single uniform set of ‘essential health benefits’ that must be provided by insurers for tens of millions of Americans. Instead, it will allow each state to specify the benefits within broad categories.”
++…
From the beginning, Romney has been pushing the Obama administration to allow greater flexibility to states, and in fact, what Romney ultimately wants is for each state to have the same degree of freedom that he had in Massachusetts to design and implement their own plans. One of the primary reasons Romney opposed ObamaCare is because it violated state sovereignty by taking away each state’s ability to create a unique plan, and then test that new plan in the ‘laboratories of democracy.’ Even though Obama’s move does not allow the full freedom that Romney would like, it represents a huge concession to Romney and the Republicans.
So Mitt Romney hasn’t even been nominated yet, yet he is already having a big impact on the discussions in Washington. Even Newt Gingrich acknowledges that.
Suppose for a moment that you are a self-styled leader of the Iowan evangelical-SoCons. You see your niche fractured between three candidates, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum. You want to defeat Romney, Gingrich, and Paul. The way to do that is obviously to coalesce your forces around one of the three candidates.
Do you:
Well, if you are Bob Vander Plaats, you go with #3. Not being content with doing that, you also call Michele Bachmann on the phone and try to convince her to drop out in favor of the man she has always lead in the polls.
DES MOINES – Iowa evangelical leader Bob Vander Plaats called Michele Bachmann and urged her to drop out of the race and endorse Rick Santorum, a source with knowledge of the conversation told POLITICO Tuesday.
The phone call took place Saturday, three days before Vander Plaats announced he – but not his organization, the Family Leader – was backing Santorum.
Bachmann declined, the source said, noting to Vander Plaats that she has consistently polled ahead of Santorum in the race and still does.
…
Didn’t Sarah Palin refuse to endorse Vander Plaats last year for governor and supported Terry Branstad instead? (So did Mitt as I recall.) I’m beginning to see why.
Here is the link to Mitt’s interview with Chris Wallace today:
And here is the link to the full transcript.
It is a wide-ranging interview touching upon foreign policy, domestic policy, how Obama and the Democrats will attack him if he’s the nominee, the differences between Mitt and his chief rivals for the nomination and more.
It’s a good interview. Chris Wallace doesn’t pull any punches.
The Oklahoman was the second major Newspaper to endorse Mitt Romney in less than 24 hours. The first was the Des Moines Register.
From the Oklahoman’s endorsement:
In 2008, we were among the voices of the Heartland that warned of the perils of a Barack Obama presidency. These were voices crying in the wilderness. County by county, until all 77 were included, Oklahomans rejected the rhetoric of hope and change peddled by Obama.
Voices of common sense, not anger and entitlement, spring from the Heartland. We must raise our voice again because America is in trouble. We stand and watch as our country plummets deeper into polarization. We are divided by a divisive president — Republicans and Democrats, wealthy and poor, employed and unemployed.
We in the Heartland wait and watch as the Republican debates rage on — as if we will all text in our votes and pick a winner to stay on the island. This must stop! It is maddening to those of us with strong conservative convictions in the middle of the country. It is enabling Obama to fatten what is already the plumpest campaign war chest in history while the Republicans drain their resources battling each other.
We believe in the primary system, but even a good system can be detrimental when carried too far. To unseat the incumbent, we need total focus on November, not sideshow politics that will dilute the Republican efforts.
Stop inane bashing
Today we call on those in the Heartland to stand united. Let’s put a stop to the inane bashing going on in the Republican presidential race. Let’s unite behind a man who can beat Obama and let’s do it sooner rather than later.
That man is Mitt Romney.
… (more…)
The latest round in a long simmering family feud:
Newt Gingrich’s openly lesbian half-sister, Candace Gingrich-Jones, says her brother is stuck in a ’90s time warp. And she’s not sure if he even believes all the anti-gay rhetoric or not.
“I really don’t see someone who, on a lot of issues, is very much different than the person who was Speaker of the House in the ’90s,”
Gingrich-Jones, an activist with the Human Rights Campaign Foundation who has clashed with her brother since the ’90s and is backing President Obama for re-election, slammed the caustic remarks Gingrich has made about gays, including his comments earlier in the year that gay marriage is a “temporary aberration.”
She’s also not sure if Gingrich is faking it all, pandering to the evangelical base in the Republican Party, or if he really believes the claims he makes on homosexuality and LGBT rights.
“He does not treat [my wife] Rebecca and myself any differently from my sister and her husband [at family gatherings],” Gingrich-Jones explained, also noting that, though Gingrich didn’t attend her wedding in Boston in 2009 — he was out of the country — he did send a gift.
“We got a shower gift as well,” she said. “For someone who has publicly and financially opposed marriage equality, he has not so far treated us any differently than a married couple…That’s the question that I ask myself, and many have asked me, ‘Does he believe the things he says or is he saying them as part of his political stands?’ Really, the bottom line is: I don’t like either of the possibilities there, and I don’t know what the actual answer is.”
Read the rest here.
One of the arguments used frequently by supporters of Speaker Gingrich in trying to convince Republican voters to support him is “just think of what a debate between Obama and Gingrich will be like”. This argument has proven quite persuasive to many Republicans and it’s not hard to see why. Gingrich has had many solid debate performances and he has proven very effective at tapping into Republican emotions and sentiments. Surely, the logic goes, he will prove equally adept at doing this in a general election against an opponent he can easily contrast with? Right? Well, the answer might not make Gingrichites very happy.
It is important to remember that there is a huge difference between debating in Republican primaries and debating in the general election. In primaries, you have only to convince enough people who already agree with your position. Candidates debating in front of Republican audiences don’t need to explain why we should repeal Obamacare since all Republicans think it is a disastrously bad piece of legislation. Candidates don’t have to explain why they support the Ryan Plan since it is universally accepted by Republicans. A general election debate is very different. Not only will partisan Republicans be watching, but so will Democrats and more importantly, independents. Throwing out conservative red meat might earn you applause at a GOP forum in New Hampshire, but that is not the case in October 2012. Our nominee is going to have to be a persuader as well as a great pontificator. Also, there is no applause at a general election debate; which has been one way to Gingrich has gathered steam during debates.
Another critical factor of Newt’s debate performances has been insulting the moderators. Again, this works well in Republican audiences; after all, most Republicans hate the media and think of them as Obama toadies. But, like the above, things are different in a general election debate. That isn’t the time to tell Reporter A, B, or C that they are an idiot. The people watching the general election debates don’t just want a partisan who can bash the moderator; they want a President. Whining about how stupid the media are or their questions are is not presidential. It makes the nominee look small and small candidates don’t win elections.
That last point is perhaps the most important. Our nominee will be going on stage with the sitting President of the United States. Regardless of Republican feelings about Barack Obama, he is still the President. It is nothing really to debate an ex-Senator or an ex-Governor. It is something to debate the President of the United States. I’m not saying treat him with kid gloves; every disastrous policy of the Obama Administration should be brought up, but the nominee needs to remember who they are debating. In other words, have a sense of the moment. When Gingrich sparred with Bill Clinton in the past, particularly during the 1995 shutdown, he forgot who he was dealing with.
There are certainly other issues. The fact that Gingrich’s rise has been almost universally attributed to his many debate performances will be undercut in a general election where the maximum number of debates will be three. Gingrich’s desire for 7 “Lincoln-Douglas Debates” won’t happen, no matter how often he brings the idea up. And, what should be another concern, Gingrich has shown in the past that his very muscular ego and hyperbolic use of history can easily overtake him on the spot. Is it hard to believe that Gingrich will say something totally out of left field that may gel with Republicans, but shock the wider electorate?
Republicans who support Speaker Gingrich may get their wish and see him square off with President Obama. And they may find out that they have been cursed with getting exactly what they want.
Over at the Hedgehog Report (a great site dedicated to posting nothing but political polls), David Wissing has compiled his first look at what a general election matchup would look like between Romney and Obama, and then between Gingrich and Obama.
Using the most recent poll from each state, the electoral college math currently looks like this:
- Romney – 256
- Obama – 256
- Tie – 26
- Obama – 451
- Gingrich – 76
- Tie – 11
Of course, the usual caveats apply: most of these polls are from PPP, since they are the only outfit polling a lot of these states, and so the results should be taken with a grain of salt. Also, some of the polls are older (Obama v Gingrich in Colorado hasn’t been polled since February, for instance).
However, this gives us a glimpse into what a general election might look like with our two current frontrunners.
Yesterday, Thomas Edsall of the New York Times penned an absolutely vital report on the Democratic Party’s future political strategy. I strongly encourage everyone to read it in its entirety, but I present the highlights:
For decades, Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters. But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class.
All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.
…The 2012 approach treats white voters without college degrees as an unattainable cohort. The Democratic goal with these voters is to keep Republican winning margins to manageable levels, in the 12 to 15 percent range, as opposed to the 30-point margin of 2010 — a level at which even solid wins among minorities and other constituencies are not enough to produce Democratic victories.
…For his part, [Stanley] Greenberg, a Democratic pollster and strategist and a key adviser to Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign, wrote a memorandum earlier this month, together with James Carville, that makes no mention of the white working class. “Seizing the New Progressive Common Ground” describes instead a “new progressive coalition” made up of “young people, Hispanics, unmarried women, and affluent suburbanites.”
…The outline of this strategy for 2012 was captured by Times reporters Jackie Calmes and Mark Landler a few months ago in an article tellingly titled, “Obama Charts a New Route to Re-election.” Calmes and Landler describe how Obama’s re-election campaign plans to deal with the decline in white working class support in Rust Belt states by concentrating on states with high percentages of college educated voters, including Colorado, Virginia and New Hampshire.
There are plenty of critics of the tactical idea of dispensing with low-income whites, both among elected officials and party strategists. But Cliff Zukin, a professor of political science at Rutgers, puts the situation plainly. “My sense is that if the Democrats stopped fishing there, it is because there are no fish.”
…A top priority of the less affluent wing of today’s left alliance is the strengthening of the safety net, including health care, food stamps, infant nutrition and unemployment compensation. These voters generally take the brunt of recessions and are most in need of government assistance to survive. According to recent data from the Department of Agriculture, 45.8 million people, nearly 15 percent of the population, depend on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to meet their needs for food.
The better-off wing, in contrast, puts at the top of its political agenda a cluster of rights related to self-expression, the environment, demilitarization, and, importantly, freedom from repressive norms — governing both sexual behavior and women’s role in society — that are promoted by the conservative movement.
…The political repercussions of gathering minority strength remain unknown. Calculations based on exit poll and Census data suggest that the Democratic Party will become “majority minority” shortly after 2020.
One outcome could be a stronger party of the left in national and local elections. An alternate outcome could be exacerbated intra-party conflict between whites, blacks and Hispanics — populations frequently marked by diverging material interests. Black versus brown struggles are already emerging in contests over the distribution of political power, especially during a current redistricting of city council, state legislative and congressional seats in cities like Los Angeles and Chicago.
I had a few immediate reactions after reading this:
1. This could potentially spell big trouble for the Republican Party. It comes as no secret that the Democrats intend to strengthen their hold over many of the fastest-growing demographics in America. This renders it all the more important that the GOP re-focus its efforts to woo back young voters. If we do nothing, and the Democrats refine their pitch to these Americans, we risk losing an entire generation.
2. Thinking geographically, this would result in a Democratic Party even more concentrated on the coasts and in urban areas, with the GOP likely swooping in to the vast interior states. Carried out to the extreme, these dynamics could re-draw the electoral map so that we see states like Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and/or Wisconsin going red and Virginia, North Carolina, New Mexico, Nevada, and/or Colorado going more solidly blue.
3. This does not appear to bode well for Mitt Romney, although this strategy may not have enough immediate impact to fundamentally change the 2012 race. Romney’s poll numbers typically increase with the respondents’ income levels, so a party base centered more on the lower end of the scale may not provide as much enthusiasm and fundraising dollars as he would like. Furthermore, Mitt’s potential to reel in suburbanites and more secular affluent types may get countered by the Dems’ full-court press for them.
4. This would play almost perfectly into Mike Huckabee’s hands if he had decided to run. It would have also come as good news to Sarah Palin, had she thrown in her hat.
So, now I ask our esteemed community, what thoughts do you have on this? Does anyone with political knowledge more encyclopedic than mine have any historical comparisons or examples to cite? And how can the GOP ensure long-term viability if the Democrats’ revamped strategy comes to fruition?
The Hill reports (emphasis added):
Mitt Romney on Sunday called for President Obama to halt the $600 billion in automatic cuts aimed at the Defense department as a consequence of the failed debt supercommittee.
“I’m calling on the president to say no way for those cuts, restore the $600 billion into the military and take that amount and eliminate it from other programs,” Romney told New Hampshire’s WMUR on Sunday’s “CloseUP” segment.
“And I’d like to see the president put out a series of programs he would actually eliminate or cut,” he continued. “So far all we’ve seen from this president is a willingness to cut national defense and there have to be some recognitions across Washington that suggest no, no, there are other places that we can reduce federal spending.”
…
“You can’t expect a bunch of cats to herd themselves, you have to have a leader. And the president did not involve himself in this process, which I find to be extraordinary,” he said. “He’s been out campaigning and blaming and going around the world. He apparently had no involvement whatsoever with the effort of this committee which I find to be absolutely extraordinary.”
That last paragraph is important; which is why I highlighted it. It touches upon perhaps the Obama administration’s biggest failure — the lack of leadership.
The Constitution sets up the President to be the leader of the country — not the autocratic dictator — the leader. If the President does not lead, a vacuum develops which must be filled. Congress will try, but it is not really designed to do that. It is not their job. If it were, we would have a Prime Minister. But we don’t. The results will invariably be either monstrosities like the stimulus bill and ObamaCare, or failures like the collapse of the “Super-committee” and other such gimmicks designed to get around the lack of Presidential leadership.
Romney has accused Obama more than once of being too European in his governing. Mitt was referring primarily to Obama’s love for Big Government, but the accusation could well apply to Obama’s penchant of letting the Legislative Branch take the lead so much of the time. That is how European parliaments do it. The problem is our government is not set up that way. It won’t work here. Yet we have a President who doesn’t seem to understand that and/or doesn’t want to. He steadfastly declines to take up his Constitutional leadership role preferring to take a backseat to the Congress instead.
So Mitt is right. Obama is way too European for America. And America is worse off because of it.
I’m surprised that no one, at least that I have read or heard, has noted the most prominent (and outrageous?) “Occupy” protest in the nation, that is, the “Occupy The White House” being led by none other than its current occupant, President Barack Obama.
It should come as no surprise that Mr. Obama has now twice warmly endorsed the “Occupy” movement currently taking place (but waning) across the nation. Of course, no one would deny Mr. Obama’s right of free speech (in fact, ex officio he has more of it than perhaps any other American), but one might be amazed that the Lincoln bedroom and the West Wing have become the headquarters of the movement. I hope at least that the president will forgo pitching any tents in these historic rooms, and I trust that he and his family, and Vice President Biden and his family, continue to take daily showers in the White House and Admiralty House deluxe bathrooms.
It can be no coincidence that the stated critique of the “Occupy” protesters is almost identical to the critique of the U.S. by Mr. Obama and those who run his administration. This critique includes “taxing the rich,” punishing “Big Business” (except, of course, those big corporations who contribute big bucks to the president’s re-election campaign), requiring universal health care paid for by taxpayers, and the mandated redistribution of wealth in America.
I have visited two different “Occupy” sites now in two cities, and have noted the enthusiasm and sincerity of most of the protesters, although I have been unable to determine just what it is they are protesting, other than abstract entities such as “Wall Street” and “big business.” Since most of the protesters seem to be young, college students, and from affluent home neighborhoods, I am not sure they even realize the consequences of being so negative to these abstractions. I do acknowledge that the hard core leftist leaders of this movement do know what they think they are doing, that is, trying to foment an economic revolution in the country along radical and neo-Marxist lines.
Unlike Mayor Bloomberg, and mayors of many urban areas where protests have taken place, and continue to do so (albeit with fewer and fewer protesters), Mr. Obama’s patience with the unsanitary, sometimes violent, often pretentious conditions of the Occupy movement cannot be overruled. His occupation of the White House cannot be cleared by any police forces, or any other authorities, unless the ultimate authority in our Republic, the voters, choose to so next November.
__________________________________________________________________________________
-Please visit Mr. Casselman’s personal site.
I’m sure most of the people here on this blog are already familiar with what Chris “I get a thrill up my leg” Matthews said last Saturday about Obama wanting a second term. Here is a piece of the video for those who may have missed it, or might wish to relive it:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB4b11_LREA[/youtube]
His, “There’s nothing to root for. What are we trying to do in this administration? Why does he want a second term? Would he tell us? What’s he going to do in his second term, more of this? Is this it? Is this as good as it gets? Where are we going?”, really struck a chord with me. It was déjà vu all over again.
More than twenty years ago in 1990, President George H. W. Bush led the nation and the world in driving out Iraq out of Kuwait. When it was all over, his approval ratings were sky-high. A number of polls placed him north of 90 percent — a truly astounding number. The man was on top of the world. He could have done anything. But what did he do with those high numbers? Nothing.
Republican after Republican came to his office. Senators, Governors, and other bigwigs begged him to do something, anything with all that political capital. He would listen to them politely, thank them for their input, and then with a smile show them out. He then would turn to his advisers who urged caution. “Don’t rock the boat”, they told him. “Your reelection is in the bag”, they said. “Don’t do anything that might jeopardize it.”
That is what he wanted to hear. It fit exactly with his style.
George H. W. Bush was really not that good of an executive leader. He was more of an executive manager. He was not Ulysses S. Grant. He was more George Meade. Meade won the defensive Battle of Gettysburg, but did little else with the Army of the Potomac after that. He showed little initiative. But when Grant took command of the Union armies, he found Meade to be an effective subordinate commander. Give Meade an order and he was superb at carrying it out. Just don’t ask him to come up with any of his own ideas, much less act upon them. Such was George H. W. Bush.
Even with Bush’s greatest triumph, the first gulf war, he had to be goaded into doing it. While he was dithering, wondering what to do about the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Margaret Thatcher flew over for a visit. She gave him a swift kick to the seat of the pants. “This is NOT the time to go wobbly, George”, the Iron Lady told him. If Lady Thatcher had not paid that visit to the White House, it is doubtful that the first gulf war would have been fought.
For nearly two years after, Bush basked in the glow of his high poll numbers. He sat on his hands and did little. By the time the election of 1992 came around, people were asking, “What is the point of reelecting Bush? If he didn’t do a blamed thing when his polls were sky-high, what exactly is he going to accomplish in the next four years when his polls are at earthly levels? In the campaign, the only reason Bush could give the nation to vote for him was to keep the Democrat out of office.
He lost.
Flash forward twenty years. Once again we have a president that really doesn’t know how to lead. Once again we have a president whose own party is having difficulty finding a reason to vote him back in. The last time that happened was twenty years ago with Bush 41.
That also happens to be the last time we had a one-term president.
Two interesting opinions emanating from the leftists this morning…
First, Patrick Caddell and Doug Schoen, Democratic Party consultants / pollsters, pen an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal calling for Barack Obama to not run for re-election. They want to see Hillary Clinton be the Democratic nominee:
When Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson accepted the reality that they could not effectively govern the nation if they sought re-election to the White House, both men took the moral high ground and decided against running for a new term as president. President Obama is facing a similar reality—and he must reach the same conclusion.
He should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more important, of governing effectively and in a way that preserves the most important of the president’s accomplishments. He should step aside for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Never before has there been such an obvious potential successor—one who has been a loyal and effective member of the president’s administration, who has the stature to take on the office, and who is the only leader capable of uniting the country around a bipartisan economic and foreign policy.
Stoke that Democratic angst, gentlemen. Nice work…
Meanwhile, former (Bill) Clinton advisor and Carville partner Paul Begala writes an op-ed explaining why he’s praying for Newt Gingrich will be the GOP nominee:
And so, like MacArthur, Newt has returned. I, for one, could not be happier—but then again, I’m a Democrat, so I have to take my political pleasures where I can find them. I seriously doubt Newt will be the GOP nominee. But a guy can dream, can’t he? …
But Newt was a godsend: within weeks of the 1994 GOP landslide—before he’d even taken the speaker’s gavel—Newsweek’s cover dubbed him “The Gingrich Who Stole Christmas.” When he whined about his seat on Air Force One coming home from the funeral of the assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, the New York Daily News’s cover featured Newt in a diaper with the headline “Cry Baby!”
While Dole was looking for ways to avoid a government shutdown, Newt was looking for ways to cause one. He overplayed his hand so terribly that Clinton was able to draw a line in the sand like Col. William Barret Travis. Newt’s intransigence allowed Clinton to show resolve, and the Comeback Kid was reelected by relentlessly attacking what his ads called “Dole-Gingrich.”
I fear the dream won’t last, alas.
Begala, of course, doesn’t have many nice things to say about Romney, but I agree agree with his final analysis: “at some point Republicans will wise up” and nominate Romney as our strongest candidate. If Begala could get a few more of his Democrat friends to publicly pine for Gingrich, that would sure speed up the process…
