November 11-13, 2011
Nov 11 11:35 CBS Poll shows shifting GOP presidential race
Nov 11 13:17 Obama's prayers won't be answered
Nov 11 16:24 Will Obama get better or is this it?
Nov 12 11:35 The high price of crony capitalism
Nov 12 23:20 CBS Commander-in-Chief debate notes
Nov 13 00:15 A liberal's take on tonight's debate
Nov 13 08:31 Spin Room Shocker
Nov 13 12:16 Will Cain's gaffe get him the hook?
Nov 13 18:59 The new Democratic Party
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
CBS Poll shows shifting GOP presidential race
This CBS poll isn't good news for the weeks-long frontrunners:
The field of Republican candidates now has three candidates within striking distance of each other at the top of the list: with 18 percent, Herman Cain is in the top spot, followed by Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich with 15% each. Support for both Cain and Romney has declined since late last month, and Gingrich is the only one of the top three whose support is steadily, if slowly, on the upswing.
This is just one poll so I don't want to overemphasize it. Still, if this is the start of a trend, this doesn't bode well for Mssrs. Cain and Romney. In fact, this hurts Mr. Cain more than it hurts Mitt. If GOP caucus-goers and primary voters start thinking that the scandals hurt his electability factor, then Cain's lack of organization will cripple him.
If this polling is accurate, this isn't good news for Mitt, either. What it's saying is that Newt has now caught him, thereby demolishing Mitt's inevitability and Mitt's electability arguments.
Conservative bloggers and DC pundits have predicted Cain's tumble. This information isn't good news for Mr. Cain, either:
Cain has lost support among women since late October. Then, he led among women, garnering 28 percent of their support. Now, his support among women is just 15 percent. He has also lost ground with conservatives, from 30 percent to 23 percent now. And there has been some movement among Tea Party supporters as well; their support for Cain has declined from 32 percent to 19 percent . Romney has lost support among men, while Gingrich's support among that group has increased eight points.
Of those statistics, the one that should worry Cain's campaign the most is the 40% drop in TEA Party support. The minute Mr. Cain loses TEA Party support, his campaign can fold up the tent because it's over at that point.
Other polling shows Mitt's difficulties. Polling in South Carolina shows Mitt dropping into third place behind Cain and Gingrich:
Cain 26%
Gingrich 19%
Romney 16%
That's bad news for Mitt. It highlights the perception that Mitt isn't able to win southern states.
The only person that thinks this is good news is Newt. He keeps inching up in the polls. He keeps dazzling during the debates. His credentials keep getting more attention. Newt's momentum continues.
Posted Friday, November 11, 2011 11:35 AM
No comments.
Obama's prayers won't be answered
President Obama announced that he won't make a decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline until after the election. DC pundits speculate that he's doing that to take the issue off the table for the 2012 election. These DC pundits don't get it.
President Obama's 'voting present' on this issue guarantees that this issue will be a weapon used mercilessly against President Obama.
The 2012 presidential election could be close, with President Obama needing support from every segment of his political base to win re-election.
So the president's move (made through the State Department) to delay his controversial decision on the Keystone XL pipeline until beyond Election Day 2012 isn't really a shocker. The White House, for the record, denies that politics played a role in the decision.
Environmentalists opposed to the project which would construct a 1,700-mile pipeline to transport oil from Canada's Alberta tar sands region to refineries in the U.S. and ports on the Gulf of Mexico, recently protested en masse at the White House.
The protests involving thousands were meant as a last-minute reminder to the White House of the political risks the president ran if he approved the pipeline despite such concerns.
Given so much environmental opposition to the pipeline, the president would have certainly outraged an important part of his political base, environmental activists, less than a year before Election Day.
This undoubtedly will excite President Obama's base just as surely as it'll turn independents against him. Independents will see the high gas prices and the jobs that could've been created and they'll take it out on the guy who's won't put country ahead of political considerations.
During his jobs tour, President Obama kept repeating the line "Pass my bill now." Now that Republicans are pushing a project that would create 20,000 jobs, President Obama didn't take positive action. Instead, he 'voted present'.
The Keystone XL Pipeline project will be used, politically speaking, to beat President Obama bloody on multiple fronts. The GOP presidential candidate will use it to bring up the Solyndra/Green Jobs scandal. The GOP presidential candidate will use it to highlight President Obama's putting his re-election ahead of doing what's right for the nation. The GOP presidential candidate will use it to prove President Obama puts a higher priority on satisfying his political allies than he puts on creating jobs.
If I were managing the GOP presidential campaign's messaging, I'd have the candidate and his running mate highlight this decision for all of the above reasons at every stop they make.
The American people want, in overwhelming numbers, an all-of-the-above energy policy. This administration has pursued a green-jobs-first energy policy. This administration's energy policies have been rejected. The American people don't like this administration's environmental policies either.
I'd highlight the Solyndra/loan guarantees/Obama bundlers scandal, the high gas prices and President Obama's dismal jobs record daily. Keystone XL would be the centerpiece of the campaign's messaging.
This was terrible energy policy. It's stupid political strategy. This won't be a base election. This will be about the American people voting for a leader who's putting nation ahead of political cronies. Mostly, this will be a repudiation of President Obama's administration.
If Newt is the GOP nominee, and I think he will be, President Obama and the Democrats will certainly face a wave election because that's Newt's specialty. Democrats laughed at his Contract with America, often calling it the Contract On America.
Vic Fazio, now a retired Democratic congressman, said the night before the 1994 slaughter that Republicans would be fortunate to gain 25 seats in the House. He said that they'd misplayed their hand. That Tusday night, House Republicans gained a net 52 seats.
The point to all this is that a) President Obama's decisions go against the will of the American people and b) Newt's gifted in creating national governing majorities. That's because he listens to people, a talent President Obama doesn't have.
Posted Friday, November 11, 2011 1:17 PM
No comments.
Will Obama get better or is this it?
Steve Benen's article says that the economy has improved during President Obama's time in office. Considering the state it was in in late September, 2008, it's almost impossible for it not to be.
Benen's chief argument appears to be the job growth during President Obama's administration. Benen's chief sub-argument apparently is that private sector job growth should be the only measurement of job growth. That's an incredibly silly argument since robust economic growth is needed to sustain the public sector.
The reason why there's been so many jobs lost in the public sector is because we've had anemic economic growth. The euphemism for anemic economic growth is "the new normal", which is a remnant philosophy that I first heard during the Carter administration.
At the time, interest rates were sky high. (When a friend of mine bought his first house, he paid 16% interest.) Experts talked about the likelihood that we'd never see interest rates lower than 9%. The economy was so bad that Sen. Hubert Humphrey teamed with Rep. Augustus Hawkins to push through the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment And Balanced Growth Act to artificially spur job growth.
Another storyline amongst liberals was that the presidency was just too big for 1 man. Conservatives like George Will argued to the contrary, saying that the presidency was too big for the current president, Jimmy Carter.
Will was vindicated when President Reagan took command in 1981.
As an amateur baseball historian since the mid-1960's, I well remember Baltimore's fiery manager Earl Weaver. George Will, a huge baseball fan, once wrote this about Mr. Weaver :
Time was, the Baltimore Orioles' manager was Earl Weaver, a short, irascible, Napoleonic figure who, when cranky, as he frequently was, would shout at an umpire, "Are you going to get any better or is this it?"
The point of the baseball analogy is to give a political answer to Earl Weaver's question. With President Obama, this is it. Things won't get better. The economy won't see any dynamic growth spurts. There won't be any dramatic job growth numbers as long as President Obama is president.
Certainly, we won't see job growth like September, 1983, when 1,100,000 jobs were created. Yes, that's 1.1 million jobs created in a single month. We won't see 11,000,000 jobs created in 4 years while Bill Clinton was president and Newt Gingrich was Speaker. That's creating an average of 275,000 jobs per month for 4 years.
By contrast, President Obama hasn't strung 3 straight months of 275,000 jobs growth together.
Americans don't yet know that things will improve decisively with a conservative in the White House and the GOP controlling the House and Senate. They'll soon know that, though. That's what campaigns are about.
History is repeating itself. Once again, we elected a man who isn't qualified for the job. Once again, our president is arguing that the economy is stagnating and it'll never get better.
Americans know better than that. They know that this administration is what's holding this nation back. We haven't gotten lethargic, which this president has suggested. We're just treading water until we get a real president again, one who isn't prone to making stupid decisions about gas pipelines , a president who isn't prone to letting regulatory agencies kill important jobs .
Posted Friday, November 11, 2011 4:24 PM
No comments.
The high price of crony capitalism
ABC News is reporting in this article that this administration knew Solyndra was in trouble. A chief advisor also recommended that Energy Secretary Steven Chu be fired:
New internal White House emails reveal that a scathing critique of Energy Secretary Steven Chu by a former Obama political advisor was widely circulated at the highest levels of the administration.
The Feb. 25, 2011 email that sparked the deliberations landed on West Wing desks just as the solar energy firm Solyndra was starting to show outward signs of financial trouble. It was sent by Dan Carol, a former Obama campaign staffer and clean energy advocate who was described by Obama's then-Chief of Staff Pete Rouse as someone whose views "reflect the President's general philosophy on energy policy."
Carol's four-page proposal to restructure the Energy Department included the blunt recommendation that Chu be fired, and that his leadership team also be replaced, calling it time for "serious changes, even if they are uncomfortable to make."
That this administration knew Solyndra was in trouble isn't surprising. That someone inside the administration recommended that Chu be fired is.
Carol also predicted the political fallout that would result from what he saw as inevitable failures of the Energy Department's now-embattled loan guarantee program. He made the dire predictions when advising that Obama replace Chu with someone who was not "too associated : with [the] Silicon Valley business elite."
"Not because they aren't talented," Carol writes, "but because that appointment will be caught up in the wave of GOP attacks that are surely coming over Solyndra and other inside DOE deals that have gone to Obama donors and have underperformed. No reason to fuel that coming storm, and believe me it will come."
Unfortunately, that isn't the only crony capitalism this administration is involved in. This deal is disgusting:
Over the last year, the Obama administration has aggressively pushed a $433-million plan to buy an experimental smallpox drug, despite uncertainty over whether it is needed or will work.
Senior officials have taken unusual steps to secure the contract for New York-based Siga Technologies Inc., whose controlling shareholder is billionaire Ronald O. Perelman, one of the world's richest men and a longtime Democratic Party donor.
When Siga complained that contracting specialists at the Department of Health and Human Services were resisting the company's financial demands, senior officials replaced the government's lead negotiator for the deal, interviews and documents show.
When Siga was in danger of losing its grip on the contract a year ago, the officials blocked other firms from competing.
Siga was awarded the final contract in May through a "sole-source" procurement in which it was the only company asked to submit a proposal. The contract calls for Siga to deliver 1.7 million doses of the drug for the nation's biodefense stockpile. The price of approximately $255 per dose is well above what the government's specialists had earlier said was reasonable, according to internal documents and interviews.
It's bad enough that HHS didn't know if the drug was needed. It's worse that this administration put in its own negotiating team. It's disgusting that the final arrangement was a no-bid contract that guaranteed the contract to a major Obama supporter. That's the definition of corruption.
"We've got a vaccine that I hope we never have to use; how much more do we need?" said Dr. Donald A. "D.A." Henderson, the epidemiologist who led the global eradication of smallpox for the World Health Organization and later helped organize U.S. biodefense efforts under President George W. Bush. "The bottom line is, we've got a limited amount of money."
Dr. Thomas M. Mack, an epidemiologist at USC's Keck School of Medicine, battled smallpox outbreaks in Pakistan and has advised the Food and Drug Administration on the virus. He called the plan to stockpile Siga's drug "a waste of time and a waste of money."
This administration won't hesitate to do anything to help their allies. They're spending money they don't need to spend on something that we don't need with money we don't have. How stupid is that?
There's a reason why this administration has run up the 3 biggest deficits in U.S. history. They've spent money foolishly on things that won't strengthen the U.S. economy.
I can't put a pricetag on how much money this administration, aided by congressional Democrats, has spent on their political allies, though I'm certain it's in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Think state and UAW bailouts in the stimulus.
That's before factoring in the money spent on guaranteed loans to companies like Solyndra.
We can't afford 4 more years of this administration's spending habits. Next November, they must be defeated. To do that, prosperity-loving Americans must do everything possible to get out the pro-prosperity vote.
If prosperity-loving 'activists' spread the word that this administration's economic plan is based on crony capitalism, as opposed to real capitalism, and spending money foolishly, we'll see another wave election next year. We'll sweep out this administration and many of their allies in Congress.
That can't happen fast enough.
Posted Saturday, November 12, 2011 11:35 AM
No comments.
CBS Commander-in-Chief debate notes
First, tonight's biggest losers by far were CBS corporately and Scott Pelley individually. Pelley thought he was the enforcer of the clock. He thought the debate was about him. He should never be allowed to moderate another debate the rest of his life.
Likewise, the first 10 minutes of CBS's livestream was utterly worthless. I was one of thousands of Twitter users who criticized them mercilessly. Ari Fleischer had it exactly right. If the debate is 90 minutes, air it on the network.
It's sad to say but Pelley isn't even qualified to be timekeeper. He insisted on cutting people off in mid-sentence. His liberalism shined through once. Fortunately, Newt gave him his comeuppance in this clip:
NEWT: Well, he isn't a terrorist suspect. He was a person found guilty under review of actively seeking the death of Americans.
PELLEY: Not found guilt in a court, sir.
NEWT: He was found guilty by a panel who reported it to the president.
PELLEY: It's not...
NEWT: Let me tell you a story...
PELLEY: the rule of law...
NEWT: It is the rule of law. That is explicitly false. It is the rule of law.
PELLEY: NO.
NEWT: If you engage in war against the United States, you are an enemy combatant. You have none of the civil liberties of the United States. You cannnot go to court. (LOUD APPLAUSE) Let me be very clear about this. There's a huge gape here, frankly, that far too many people get confused over. Civil defense...criminal defense is a function of being within the American law. Waging war on the United States is outside the criminal law. It is an act of war and it should be dealt with as an act of war. And the correct thing in an act of war is to kill people who are actively trying to kill you. (LOUDER APPLAUSE)
The depth of Gingrich's knowledge was on full display here. He utterly schooled Pelley on the difference between criminal law and acts of war. The two issues are galaxies apart.
While Newt probably won the debate, Gov. Perry had his strongest performance yet. He showed a thorough understanding of the situation on the ground in Afghanistan. He was strong in talking about what he'd do with regards to Iran. Gov. Perry's answers were thorough enough to picture him as commander-in-chief.
Mitt Romney had a solid performance until his answer to Jim DeMint's question on the national debt as a national security issue. That's when he talked about cutting the budgets to a bunch of tiny agencies. Cutting tiny budgets won't balance the budget.
Newt gave a strong, detailed answer to how his administration would deal with Iran. Newt said that he'd employ the most aggressive covert operations possible to support the Iranian people in their attempt to topple the mullahs.
Newt talked about the roles Reagan, Thatcher and Pope John Paul II played in toppling the Soviet empire without firing a shot. Newt then said that their model would translate well with Iran.
At the end of the night, it's easy picturing Newt, Mitt and Rick Perry as commander-in-chief. That said, if I had to pick from that bunch, I'd pick Newt because his answers on Iran just made total sense.
Posted Saturday, November 12, 2011 11:20 PM
No comments.
A liberal's take on tonight's debate
Michael Hirsch's article for the National Journal is so steeped in liberal ideology that I couldn't resist ripping it to shreds.
Here's one part of Hirsch's off-the-mark analysis:
Rick Perry, badly needing to put his brain-freeze moment behind, came out strong, winning audience applause for his 'zero-budget' approach to foreign aid (though he stumbled a bit when he suggested that Israel, along with Pakistan, might have to make the case anew why it should receive U.S. assistance, a comment that will arouse the wrath of many GOP voters. But ultimately Perry delivered a somewhat mystifying answer when he was asked whether the U.S. was engaged in 'financial warfare' with China. He awkwardly invoked Ronald Reagan's famous prediction that the Soviets would end up on the 'ash heap,' saying the Chinese regime would end up in the same place 'if they do not change their virtues.' For a candidate who does not need another reason to remind people of George W. Bush, it was a moment that did just that.
Gov. Perry had a strong performance, talking much more fluently about Pakistan and Afghanistan than most people expected, then talking about how to stop China from stealing our intellectual property. (What Hirsch is talking about is anyone's guess.)
Cain, Michele Bachmann and Newt Gingrich also seemed willing to turn the clock back to an uglier, earlier period when waterboarding was permitted and the rest of the world's views didn't matter, which it seems most have moved past.
What Mr. Hirsch is talking about is the fact that Cain, Bachmann and Gingrich won't hesitate to use proven intelligence-gathering methods to protect the United States. Apparently, Mr. Hirsch thinks we're better off being appeasers rather than doing what's necessary to prevent terrorist attacks.
Mr. Hirsch apparently doesn't believe CIA operators who've written that waterboarding KSM helped the CIA break him, leading to the breaking up multiple major terrorist plots, including a planned attack on Los Angeles.
If my choices are being liked or preventing terrorist attacks by waterboarding KSM, I'll opt for waterboarding KSM every time.
Mr. Hirsch needs to get a job with CODEPINK. He doesn't belong writing about national security.
Posted Sunday, November 13, 2011 12:15 AM
No comments.
Spin Room Shocker
After the debate, journalists, candidates and their spokespeople piled into the spin room. This is the CBS video of the spin room:
