This week we were treated to our new president purposely and deliberately running down our economy with rhetoric that would make President Carter blush. Obama’s ‘disaster’ rhetoric has reminded me of our 39th President’s gift of instilling exactly zero confidence in the public about our economy. However, Obama’s constant ‘disaster’ talk is different in many ways to Carter’s ‘malaise’. Primarily, Carter was trying to be honest about our circumstances, in the hopes that the reality check might spark the economy, but this was naive and weak like most of Carter’s policies, and paled in comparison to President Reagan’s glowing optimism in even the toughest of times. Obama’s rhetoric is being used for a very different purpose: the creating of the permanent welfare state. This ’stimulus’ is nothing but a giveaway to liberal special interests, and is designed to back door the welfare reform of the 1990’s. This plan gives more money to people without jobs, while refusing to cut taxes on the business owners who would actually create jobs. The majority of ‘tax cuts’ in the bill are rebates for people who don’t pay income taxes, known to the rest of us as welfare. The purpose, of course, is to create a population so dependent on government for survival that they would never stray from the Democratic Party, creating a permanent one-party system in our country.
I am rather proud of this piece that I wrote, a column for my university newspaper, about the modern state of poetry. It doesn’t really relate to the election, but it is related to American society, and I think that it deserves an audience — certainly moreso than some of the pieces I produce here — so I’ll ask you to entertain me here.
I’ve left the thesis up; you can click ‘More’ to read the entire thing.
—
Poetry is dead.
It’s hardly a contested point anymore: the most casual of observers can discern that poetry is that odd, rare art practiced by more people than observe it. It is not dead, of course, because there is nothing more to be contributed to the art form. It’s dead, rather, due to a cultural decline into a society that worships self-expression and instant gratification above excellence and merit.
Governor Charlie Crist of Florida has indicated that he is in favor of President Obama’s stimulus plan, while leaving himself some wiggle room by saying it has to “be done right.” While this may not be an explicit endorsement of the plan, it surely isn’t an expression of opposition. This is probably the first issue that will divide the potential 2012 candidates, although most will be against it, and it’s possible that the remaining will find some way to say they didn’t really support it.
Republicans need to be careful not to become the party of “no.” Every criticism of the plan must be followed by an endorsement of an alternative plan. The truth is that the American people, while a majority do not favor the stimulus bill, have faith in President Obama and in my opinion, are simply looking for credible leadership and decisive action, even if they are not entirely satisfied with such action.
They want to know something is being done, and something big enough to prove that our elected officials understand the pain being felt and the gravity of the situation. They want to identify with their leaders, and that’s part of the reason President Obama was and is successful. They also want to know the government is constantly thinking and constantly working. Time will tell if the Republicans are viewed as the “party of no,” simply being the alternative in the liberal vs. conservative divide, or if the American people will be able to look at them as offering decisive, fast-moving, problem-solving leadership.
Well, as I’m prone to do, I was digging through some YouTube clips of Michael Steele’s 2006 campaign. And all I can say is: love this guy! It’s easy to forget why he was thrust into the national spotlight after the endless campaign of 2008, but these ads serve as a great reminder. I may not agree with him on everything, but his ads are unquestionably innovative, and they pack a punch for being only thirty seconds. The man has the know-how to put together a media-savvy team. Check out some of these choice selections:
To start, here is a mid-campaign “positive” ad:
I’m sorry, but I wrote this for some reason and had to share it.
Last night, the GOP came to DC
to choose a brand-new chairman: who’d it be?
Hope, change, and progress — feels good when those words aren’t empty, doesn’t it?
In our years in the wilderness, the Republican Party will face a series of proxy wars that will emerge as events will determine. The race for the Republican National Committee chairmanship was the first in those series of tests. As I’d been predicting for a while now, the surprisingly intense race came down to former Lt. Gov Michael Steele — whose work as a state party chairman and head of a political action committee is overlooked by his bigoted detractors, who call him an “affirmative action pick” — and South Carolina state party chairman Katon Dawson.
Dawson had come under heavy fire for his membership in a country club with a “whites only” law on the books, which should have disqualified him from the post immediately. Now, let’s be clear: Dawson is clearly not a racist, had the backing of several blacks who testified to that fact, and had little reason to believe that the law was being enforced. To which I say: so what? If you’re spending your time explaining away such questions first thing after the election takes place, you’ve already lost. This position isn’t about Katon Dawson. I don’t care how competent he is — it’s not about him. It’s about our image, our strategy, and our party. Worst of all, the symbolism would have been horrifying, given that his competitor was black and that the first black president was sworn in a week ago. That seventy-seven members of the committee voted for the man should give us pause. But whether by one vote or by one hundred, a win is a win, and Steele is our party’s new chairman.
He is pro-life, but not a culture warrior. He is against gay marriage, but feels no need to denigrate gays. He is a Christian, but would never dream of labeling himself a “Christian leader.” He is a conservative, but never comes across as old-fashioned or inaccessible. He knows that reaching out doesn’t mean waging a heated war on other people’s sensibilities, but rather persuading them of ours. Helping them understand that, while we have our differences — even intense ones — what can unite us rises above that. That is what pragmatism is about: emphasizing what unites. Doing what works. Both conservatives and centrists can feel comfortable in a party with that sort of vision. Steele shares that vision.
It was a battle between pragmatism and hardened principle, between being savvy about the media and waging a war against it, between reaching out and bunkering down, between making history and being doomed to repeat it. Steele won out. On the path to rebuilding, I say: so far, so good.
—
Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com
Racism and white guys from the South
Just heard the local talk radio conservative here in Charlotte, on podcast from earlier today, praise the election of Michael Steele and express relief that Katon Dawson, from across the border, did not win.
The reason for Tera Servatious’s relief?
That we didn’t elect another “white guy from the South. We’ve tried that.” (see below an example of a Southern white guy.)
This is racism.
I hate to have to point out this obvious fact, especially against a person that I otherwise admire and agree with on most issues, but how could I look myself in the mirror if I didn’t?
My political career has been defined by aversion to racism. My family opposed it against blacks in the 60s and 70s, as did I in the 70s and 80s. One of the main reasons I became a Republican in 2000 is that I saw the Democratic Party become racist in their advocacy of race based policies and laws.
One of the first columns of mine on Redstate to get picked up by other sites was my chastisement of Hugh Hewitt and other Republicans last year for their publicly announced aversion to another Southerner for a GOP Presidential nominee.
My Southern people voted for JFK, Reagan and Bush 41, non-Southerners all.
It would never occur to me to consider the domicile of a candidate as a factor in my support.
What they stand for; the laws they would enact; and their character determines my vote.
MLK and content of character comes to mind. Jesus comes to mind.
A question: Are non-Southerners so shallow and pathetic that region could turn them against a candidate?
If so,
Eff them.
And for the record, my first two choices for RNC chair were Blackwell and Steele.
Anyone that that can provide a list of these people are invited to post their names and states here.
And if any are from North Carolina, I will personally launch a campaign to replace them.
Here is Gov. Romney’s statement on today’s events:
“Michael Steele is a good friend and an effective communicator. He has fought in the trenches for Republican principles over a long career of service. He will be an outstanding spokesman for this great party of ours. I look forward to working with him to promote the policies that we know are right and which will strengthen our nation at this critical time.”
You can read Mitt’s address to the House Republican Caucus Retreat in Homstead, Virginia today below the fold.
Watch on C-SPAN or c-span.org. Updated as I’m able…
My first thoughts: whoever becomes chairman, can we please have a co-chairwoman who is younger than John McCain?
10:47 – Blackwell is officially nominated by the Oklahoma state party chairman.
10:53 – Steele is officially nominated by a committewoman from Maryland.
10:56 – Duncan is officially nominated by the Iowa state party chairman.
11:01 – Dawson is officially nominated by a committeeman from South Carolina.
11:07 – Anuzis is officially nominated by a committeeman from Michigan.
11:15 – Nominations are closed. Fifteen minutes between ballots.
11:32 – Finally, first ballots are handed out.
11:53 – The ballots are being counted. Watching these proceedings is rather painful.
FIRST BALLOT TOTALS
The rules say nobody is ever obligated to drop or be dropped from the ballot, so technically speaking the vote totals could be the same on future ballots. That will probably not be the case, however. Duncan’s support came in much lower than expected (to audible gasps from the audience, according to NRO), so most of his supporters will probably move to other candidates now.
12:33 – The second round of balloting is being collected.
SECOND BALLOT TOTALS
The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder notes:
(the crowd seems to be pro-Steele; he had more seconding speeches than anyone else.)
THIRD BALLOT TOTALS
2:14 – RNC Chairman Mike Duncan officially withdraws his name from contention, ending his bid for re-election.
FOURTH BALLOT TOTALS
3:05 – Former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell withdraws, putting his full support behind Michael Steele. CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN!
FIFTH BALLOT TOTALS
3:30 – Michigan Chairman Saul Anuzis steps aside; does not endorse either of the two finalists.
SIXTH BALLOT TOTALS
Congratulations to our Man of Steele!
GOP Senator Judd Gregg is being considered by an Obama administration for the Secretary of Commerce post — recently vacated by scandal-ridden NM Governor Bill Richardson who is being investigated by a grand jury for awarding state contracts to political donors. (Just one in a line of scandal-prone appointments by Obama, but don’t worry. Nothing to see here.)
I’ve got to say, this is actually a stroke of political genius if Obama extends the final offer and Gregg accepts. It accomplishes so many things in one fell swoop, it’s almost as if the stars had aligned for this very selection for Barack:
I hope Gregg decides to put party before personal ambition, but I doubt he will – he’s facing a very tough re-election fight that he is in no way guaranteed to win. If I were him, I might accept the sure thing over the very risky gamble as well. Here’s hoping it doesn’t happen, though… for America’s sake.
Who’s on second?
No, Hu’s on first.
I don’t know.
Third base!
One of the more silly debates over the 2012 process is who actually finished second. Why is this important? Because the GOP nomination traditonally goes to the next person in line and therefore the person who finished second will be the GOP Nominee in 2012.
Now, there are cases to be made for Palin, Huckabee, and Romney as the next in line:
Now, one can argue the merits of each person’s case. But perhaps, the best answer is that it doesn’t matter. Let’s take a look at the “Tradition” of the next person in line getting be the nominee. Unlike the 13 keys, this tradition doesn’t go back very far at all. The practice could be said to have originated in 1980 when Ronald Reagan became the nominee of the party. Though, anyone who thinks Reagan only got nominated because it was “His turn” in 1980 had better study their history a little better. Reagan had to fight to fundamentally change the GOP in order to get the nomination.
However, there’s some precedent to the belief:
On the other hand, there’s a big exception to the precedent:
So, we can’t say the runner-up wins every time. That leaves us with this: in 4 of the last 5 open Republican nomination contests, the second place finisher in the previous open contest became the Republican nominee. However, I think you can whittle this down even more. Did George H. W. Bush win the Republican nomination in 1988 based on the fact that he ran a Primary Contest in 1980 or did he win because he’d been the VP of a two-term President?
The three Vice-Presidents of two-term Presidents prior to Dick Cheney (Nixon, Bush I, and Gore) have all been the nominees of their party at the conclusion of their’s boss’ term. Bush’s bid for the Presidency eight years prior had nothing to do with his 1988 bid. Indeed, in 1980 Bush won Iowa but lost New Hampshire. In 1988, he finished third in Iowa, but won New Hampshire. While, Bush was next in line, he would have been next in line even had he not run for the Presidency in 1980, and just been Reagan’s choice at the Convention.
If we exclude Reagan and Bush, we’re left with this: two of the last three Republican nominees in open contests won the nomination because they were the runner-ups in the last contest. Do you really want to hang your hat on that?
What the trend points to is not a concern with numerical secondness, but rather with familiarity and a desire to follow the leader. Let’s take a look at both 1988 and 2000:
1988: Bob Dole finished second, he won 5 contests and 19.19% of the vote. His closest competitor was Pat Robertson who got 5%. No other candidate from 1988 ran in 1996.
2000: John McCain finished second, and won 31.23% of the Republican Primary vote and won 7 contests. His closest competitor in third was Alan Keyes who got 5% of the vote. Other than Keyes (who ran briefly in the GOP primaries but started way too late) no one else from 2000 ran.
Thus, both Dole and McCain not only finished second, they established themselves as clear known national leaders, far above their peers of also-rans in the GOP field.
I would suggest that Democratic and Republican nominating contests differ in one great respect. Democrats gravitate towards novelty unless you’ve got the sitting Vice-President or former Vice-President running. The Democrats’ history since 1972 has been one of nominating candidates with a degree of novelty to them: The Prarieland Anti-War liberal (McGovern), the unknown Governor of Georgia (Carter), the first Greek-American and a proud liberal (Dukakis), the first baby boomer (Clinton), a Vietnam War Vet who came back and protested the war (Kerry), the first Black President (Obama).
Republicans on the other hand go for established national leaders. Most of the time, it’s pretty clear who those national leaders are. You have Former Governors of the Country’s largest state with a wide national following (Reagan), you have the Vice-President of the United States (Bush I), you have the Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate who also was the runner-up (Dole), the son of a Former President (Bush II), and a man who won nearly 1/3 of the Republican vote eight years prior (McCain.)
The choice Republicans will face is between two, maybe three people who by virtue of their participation in the last election have clearly established themselves as well-known national figures. Now, one may have the edge, but it’s certainly not going to be due to being “next in line” because they are all known quantities at this point.
The bad news is ultimately for the Tim Pawlentys and Mark Sanfords of the world. This is going to be a very hard group to break into.
The first vote is in less than 13 hours, so here’s some final notes on the race:
For what it’s worth, here are the front page posters’ predictions regarding this race from back on New Year’s:
The fun starts in the morning, boys and girls.
The vote? 59-rip:
The Illinois Senate on Thursday voted unanimously to remove impeached Gov. Rod Blagojevich from office.
The Senate vote was 59-0.
Moments after removing him from office, the Illinois Senate also voted unanimously to prevent Blagojevich from ever holding political office in the state again.
Earlier Thursday, Illinois state senators made final deliberations in Blagojevich’s impeachment trial.
“Honest and competent governors don’t act like Rod Blagojevich,” Republican Sen. Kirk Dillard said. “Rod Blagojevich needs to be removed from office.”
Sen. Kwame Raul, a Democrat, said the governor had not presented any evidence in his defense and had not called any witnesses.
“He had the opportunity, and it’s a lie for him to say that he did not have an opportunity,” he said. “The governor presented absolutely no evidence in this case. All of the House prosecutor’s evidence went unrebutted.”
Blagojevich appeared before the senators at the trial, saying he had done “absolutely nothing wrong.”
“I’m asking you to acquit me and give me a chance to show my innocence,” he said. “And if you’re not comfortable with an acquittal, then extend this process and get more evidence, if you can get it, to show that I did something wrong or give me a chance to bring my evidence in.”
“If I felt I did something wrong, I would have resigned in December,” he said. “If I felt I violated a law, I would meet my responsibility, I would have resigned in December.
“But I didn’t resign then, and I’m not resigning now, because I have done nothing wrong.”
After the governor’s address, the Senate recessed for an hour before House prosecutor David Ellis gave a rebuttal to the governor’s remarks.
“He could have put himself under oath and faced my questions,” Ellis said. “More importantly, much more importantly, faced your questions. But he didn’t do that, did he?”
“He talked more about the evidence with Barbara Walters on ‘The View’ than he did in this chamber today, where he’s facing impeachment and removal from office,” he said.
Gov. Romney discusses the stimulus package as well as the formation of SarahPAC on FOX:
Hizzoner starts off in excellent shape in a potential match-up with Kirsten Gillibrand:
Siena Research Institute New York Senate Poll, conducted 1/25-27/09
2010 Senate General Election:
- Kirsten Gillibrand (D) 44%
- Rudy Giuliani (R) 42%
- Kirsten Gillibrand (D) 46%
- Peter King (R) 23%
Favorable / Unfavorable:
- Sen. Gillibrand (D): 30 / 13 (+17)
- Rudy Giuliani (R): 60 / 35 (+25)
2010 Senate Republican Primary:
- Rudy Giuliani 69%
- Peter King 16%
Politico has the details:
In what could be a preview of the 2012 presidential race, Sarah Palin and Barack Obama will share a stage together this Saturday night in Washington, Politico has learned.
The Alaska governor and former GOP vice presidential nominee, making her first trip to the nation’s capital since the election, will join the president at the Alfalfa Dinner, a venerable gathering of the city’s political elite.
The president is scheduled to address the black tie crowd at the Capital Hilton. Palin spokesman Bill McAllister said in an email that Palin would be speaking at the dinner.
An Alfalfa Club member, however, said that no speech by the Alaska governor was planned.
The duo would not, though, be heard by the general public. By tradition, the old world gathering, now in its 96th year, bars reporters. Quotes from the rostrum do, however, tend to find their way out to reporters in the lobby.
Up in New York’s 20th House District, Republicans have named their candidate to replace Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) in the House:
ALBANY, N.Y. – County Republican chairmen in the 20th Congressional District have chosen Assembly Minority Leader James Tedisco of Schenectady to run for the congressional seat vacated when Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand was named to the Senate.
Tedisco said Tuesday he will continue as leader of the state Assembly’s Republicans while he seeks the House seat, after Gov. David Paterson calls a special election. He says he wasn’t the unanimous choice of the 10 chairmen but he and his staff declined to say which didn’t back him.
Other candidates for the seat included state Sen. Betty Little; John Faso, Republican candidate in the 2006 race for governor; and Sandy Treadwell, former state Republican chairman who lost to Gillibrand, Tedisco said.
The economy and creating jobs are the biggest issues, Tedisco said. He planned to make “a listening tour” of the counties.
This is a huge pick-up opportunity for Republicans. This is one of those House Districts with a natural Republican tilt that elected a Democrat in 2006. For 20 years, it elected Gerald Solomon (R-NY) to congress. Unfortunately, Solomon’s replacement in the House had issues including domestic violence. This is a seat Republicans need to pick up and having the State Senate Minority Leader as the nominee helps immensely.
“A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon we’re talking about real money.”
Should that be revised?
Can we even wrap our minds around how much freaking money two trillion dollars is?
Where will it come from?
Where do we draw the line?
New Bank Bailout Could Cost $2 Trillion:
Government officials seeking to revamp the U.S. financial bailout have discussed spending another $1 trillion to $2 trillion to help restore banks to health, according to people familiar with the matter.
President Barack Obama’s new administration is wrestling with how to stem the continuing loss of confidence in the financial system, as it divides up the remaining $350 billion from the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program launched last fall. The potential size of rescue efforts being discussed suggests the administration may need to ask Congress for more funds. Some of the remaining $350 billion of TARP funds has already been earmarked for other efforts, including aid to auto makers and to homeowners facing foreclosure.
…
The aim is to encourage banks to begin lending again and investors to put private capital back into financial institutions. The administration is expected to take a series of steps, including relieving banks of bad loans and distressed securities. The so-called “bad bank” that would buy these assets could be seeded with $100 billion to $200 billion from the TARP funds, with the rest of the money — as much as $1 trillion to $2 trillion — raised by selling government-backed debt or borrowing from the Federal Reserve.
Just print money out of thin air.
If you don’t have enough, just print some more.
What’s another two trillion dollars?
Oh, and this is just wonderful:
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Wednesday that he wants to avoid nationalizing banks if possible. “We’d like to do our best to preserve that system,” Mr. Geithner said. But given the weakened state of the banking industry, with bank share prices low and their capital needs high, economists say the government probably can’t avoid owning at least some banks for a temporary period.
If we go that route, it’s socialism. No way around it.
What do we say? We’re out of power. Stand back and cross your fingers.
—
[H/T HEATH - I 
YOU HEATH; I KNOW HOW BADLY YOU WANTED A H/T 
]
More proof that we lost in 2008 because we didn’t fire up the base enough:
But sure: let’s keep on telling ourselves that Michael Steele shouldn’t be allowed to head the RNC because he dared to affiliate himself with Christine Todd Whitman and John Danforth. Let’s chastise the guy who said that the GOP needs to elect more moderates. Let’s just fire up the base (no matter how small it is), kick out anyone who happens to disagree with it on any minute point of orthodoxy, and hope that everything turns out alright.
But everything is not turning out alright. Take the events of yesterday, for example: from RedState to this site, most on the right were celebrating the fact that the House GOP unanimously voted against the stimulus bill, adhering to rock-ribbed principle.
That’s nice. It still passed overwhelmingly.
We can jump up and down, happy that our side finally is adhering to wonderful, beautiful principle, but in the meantime, the other side is looking at us with an eyebrow raised and eyes rolling. Why? Because they’re able to do whatever they want, regardless of how much principle we exert. Lots and lots of principle and fifty cents will buy Minority Leader Boehner a pack of gum at CVS.
I know that to the relentlessly principled, it might feel fantastic to sit around, chattering to ourselves about how wonderfully right we are on all of the issues. But in the meantime, we have no influence on actual policymaking.
There is an obvious solution to this dilemma: simple re-branding. Speaking to issues that Americans really care about right now. Discarding identity politics. Stop applying rigid litmus tests to Republican Party membership. Dropping the identity politic of the culture war. Re-embracing pragmatism with a solid center-right agenda — without being afraid of the ‘center’ part.
Meanwhile, we can be as principled as we’d like, but President Obama and the Democratic Congress can still sit around and pass whatever they want.
But hey — at least Gordon Smith and Chris Shays are no longer messing up our party’s image. Nothin’ but RINOs, both of ‘em.
—
Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com
The Politico reports:
…one of the candidates for chairman of the Republican National Committee, Saul Anuzis, had circulated news of gay support for one of his rivals, Michael Steele, to a prominent social conservative.
But soon after Anuzis used a gay Republican group’s praise to tar Steele, an Anuzis aide pitched Anuzis to the group as a tolerant moderate, according to an email exchange I obtained this afternoon.
Last November Anuzis forwarded an email praising Steele from the Log Cabin Republicans, the gay GOP group, to James Bopp, Jr., a prominent social conservative and RNC member, under the heading, “You probably saw this…” Bopp then included the email in a packet of documents apparently intended to cast Steele as too “moderate” for the chairmanship.
A month later, on December 19, an Anuzis backer, Katie Packer, exchanged email with the president of the Log Cabin Republicans, Patrick Sammon.
Sammon sought a meeting with Anuzis, and Packer apologized that he was on vacation.
“I will pass your thoughts on to Saul,” she wrote. “I think you will find him to be a very reasonable individual who does not seek to grow the party by dividing it.”
Which is the sort of inclusive language that social conservatives have been using against Steele.
So not only does he utterly fail as head of the Michigan GOP, but he talks out of both sides of his mouth. And he’s only doing it to be self-serving, anyway: he’ll bash one segment of the party to get himself elected, and then try to make nice as soon as it’s in his best interests. I ask again: why is this guy in contention?
If you’re a junky like me, you’ll appreciate this – MSNBC’s First Read did a private survey of all 168 RNC members and asked them who they were voting for on Friday. The results, because they include both private and public endorsements, give us the clearest look at this race we’ve gotten yet – and one number immediately jumps out as being significant:
That’s 127 decided, leaving just 41 undeclared.
Obviously, the Steele number is huge. He’s got his 18 public, as tracked by YourRNC.com, but also 12 private endorsements to go along with them. On the other hand, it’s difficult to know the veracity of this survey because Dawson already has 20 public endorsements and First Read shows the total of public and private endorsements to be two less than that – so I’ve used 20 in the list above.
(In other news, those Guam delegates did indeed abandon Anuzis and Duncan, so the lower number of 16 is used for Anuzis’ total in the list above.)
Duncan is right where he was expected to be – about halfway to the magic 85, but far enough back to probably not make it to victory. Tonight, however, the Mike Duncan re-election team is already “declaring victory” – once again, according to First Read. Either they know something about the 41 undeclared members that we don’t (which is possible after spending the day with them today), or they’re about to get egg on their face on Friday. Only time will tell.
UPDATE: According to Ben Smith over at Politico, Steele has shared that list of 30 names with them as well, and told Politico that in addition to those 30, he’s already rounded up another 9 for a total of at least 39 votes on the first ballot. If that is the case, Steele appears to have all the momentum in this race heading into the final day before the voting begins.
A commenter on a recent post writes in making his case for Mitt Romney:
Listen, the only way Obama is vulnerable in 2012 is if the economy is still sputtering along without any clear signs that the worst is over. And if that’s the case, only a candidate with real economic gravitas will be in a potisiont(sic) to beat him. When I think economic acumen, Palin and Huckabee don’t exactly spring to mind.
This is a common thought among many Romney folks. It represents a misunderstanding of how Presidential politics works.
One point that was raised in the same thread was that FDR was re-elected in 1936 despite the ongoing Great Depression, that perhaps had even deepened. So, can just a bad economy be counted on to defeat Obama and why did FDR win re-election in 1936?
I’ve referenced the 13 keys before and they explain the re-election of FDR.
…and rallying your comrades to do the same.
And so it begins- Obama and the House Democrats own the Intergeneration Theft Act, as not one Republican voted for it.
I doubt much of what Obama will do in foreign relations will satisfy me. Obama seems more intent on meddling in the Palestinian conflict than Bush. I’d rather we avoided that conflict and pulled all our foreign aid from Egypt, Palestine and Israel.
I suspect that Obama actually intends to limit interrogation of terrorists, not simply make a show of it and secretly hand over the dirty stuff to the CIA.
It appears Obama will increase our foreign aid to governments of non-democratic nations in Africa and elsewhere.
So I certainly don’t see Obama as much if any of an improvement on Bush in substance on foreign policy.
However in style I have to sharply disagree with many other conservatives.
As much as it pains me to say it, Obama giving his first interview to al-Arabiya was a smart move. The substance of his interview was conciliatory and accepted generically that America has made mistakes in the past. Of course we’ve made mistakes. Hawks will argue we’ve made mistakes so will doves. By generically admitting to mistakes we allow Muslims to fill in the blanks and shift their opinion of us without admitting fault on any specific issue.
This is the sort of reaching out that doesn’t requires us to change our policy at all. However it allows us to change the dialogue between the Arab world and the US. It allows us to put out a message that we’re not on a crusade to enforce American values on unwilling Muslim nations.
We may disagree on whether Bush’s message to the Muslim world was understood correctly. It’s not debatable that his message and tone to the Muslim world was interpreted as aggressive and arrogant by most Muslims. America was seen as an enemy even by Muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism and oppose violence.
Teddy Roosevelt’s dictum was that we “should speak softly and carry a big stick”. So far Obama is speaking very softly to Muslim ears.
I don’t know how Obama will actually perform on the world stage. I’m expecting disappointment given Obama’s lack of foreign policy experience and his political philosophy. However I have to praise the shift in tone. There was no need to antagonize the Muslims of the world even if we kept all of Bush’s policies.
It didn’t take long for President Barack Hussein Obama’s aggression inviting weakness messages to bear fruit.
Iran’s Jew genocide-seeking MembersOnlyJacket-ijad “reaches out” to our America-Criticizer-in-Chief (A-CINK), but I can’t tell if A-CINK will interpret this as an open hand or a clenched fist:
“Those who say they want to make change, this is the change they should make: they should apologize to the Iranian nation and try to make up for their dark background and the crimes they have committed against the Iranian nation,” [President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad (pictured) said.
Not hard to tell for whom Iran’s Commander-in-Chief speaks, is it? Unlike yesterday’s olive branch from our A-CINK, President Obama:
“What I told him [Middle East envoy George Mitchell] is start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating,” Obama told the interviewer.
The first Iranian fruits from our President’s increased diplomatic emphasis break from the Bush Administration comes on the heels of earlier moves last week announcing the closing of Gitmo withing 12 months and that capture terrorists will have not one hair on their heads bothered before their “OJ trials.” The target audiences of these moves and messages have been Obama’s left-wing base and liberal media around the world in an effort to make people like us more. But the message sent to our enemies, and especially the world’s number one sponsor of terror for four decades, is one of weakness or, as Osama bin Laden concluded before 911, that the U.S. as a “weak horse” and a “paper tiger.”
More of Iran’s demands:
“When they say policy would change, it means they would end America’s military presence around the world,” he said, referring to U.S. troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world.
The Iranian president listed a range of “crimes” such as trying to block what Tehran says is a peaceful nuclear power generation program, hindering Iran’s development since the 1979 revolution and other actions by several administrations for more than 60 years.
End America’s military presence around the world? The last time our world military presence was reduced, Saddam Hussein invaded Iran twice and conquered Kuwait as our country suffered multiple attacks from al Qaeda and Iranian-backed terrorists throughout the 1990s culminating with those on September 11, 2001.
Since that date, during the era of America’s clenched Bush fist, we have suffered ZERO attacks.
Still want to loved by Al-Arabiya and the BBC, Obama?
___________________________________________________________________________________
Originally published by Mike DeVine, Legal Editor for The Minority Report
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Now this is the Republican Party of ideas that I love. Instead of simply working to oppose Obama’s ridiculous Non-Stimulating Stimulus Plan, the House GOP is releasing it’s own economic stimulus plan today. And it looks much, much better than the mess that is the Democratic plan. It includes four key proposals, as noted by Marc Ambinder:
In four easy steps, the House GOP plan works to stabilize small businesses and the housing market as well as putting extra cash in the hands of the poorest who need it. It seems like a no-brainer to me. The GOP needs to trumpet ideas like these from the mountaintops so the American public sees we can be the party of ideas once again and not just blind opposition to Obama and the Congressional Democrats.
Obama’s plan goes up for a vote today and will likely pass with little to no GOP support. Also, don’t forget that after this $825 billion plan (which has in reality grown to nearly $900 billion), the Obama administration is “crafting a new plan to save the banking system” that could be announced early next week… and House Democrats have admitted that in their view, “the economy will need additional infusions for years to come.”
This is massively out of control spending, and it’s only the first two weeks of Obama’s presidency…
Can this race get any closer? Apparently so: the three members from Guam just endorsed Ken Blackwell. Not exactly a powerful or symbolic endorsement, but hey, their votes count just like everyone else’s. This leaves the standings this morning at:
The big question, of course, is where second-choice votes fall on the later ballots. Any other endorsements heading into the meeting – which begins today – will be added as an update to this post.
UPDATE: There is some confusion here, as NRO is reporting the three members of the Guam delegation have endorsed Blackwell – however, two of those members had originally supported Anuzis and one had backed Duncan. I’m trying to get some clarification to see if this report was in error or if Anuzis’ and Duncan’s totals should be updated accordingly…
UPDATE #2: Still no word on those Guam delegates, but if you want another reason to love to hate Saul Anuzis, here’s the latest example of his dirty political tricks (from Marc Ambinder):
[O]ne of the candidates for chairman of the Republican National Committee, Saul Anuzis, had circulated news of gay support for one of his rivals, Michael Steele, to a prominent social conservative.
But soon after Anuzis used a gay Republican group’s praise to tar Steele, an Anuzis aide pitched Anuzis to the group as a tolerant moderate, according to an email exchange I obtained this afternoon.
UPDATE #3: I really could see this coming down to a Dawson-Steele matchup on the final ballot… here’s how it could play out:
Patrick Ruffini chronicles the themes for each winning and losing Presidential campaign going back to 1960:
1960: Kennedy (D) Youth, optimism; Nixon (R) Continuity
1964: Johnson (D) Continuity, risk; Goldwater (R) Opposition, integrity
1968: Nixon (R) Stability, experience; Humphrey (D) Continuity
1972: Nixon (R) Continuity; McGovern (D) Opposition
1976: Carter (D) Integrity; Ford (R) Americana
1980: Reagan (R) Optimism, change; Carter (D) Risk
1984: Reagan (R) Optimism, continuity; Mondale (D) Competence, Opposition
1988: Bush (R) Continuity; Dukakis (D) Opposition
1992: Clinton (D) Change, party reform; Bush (R) Service, risk
1996: Clinton (D) Continuity, optimism Dole (R) Service, integrity
2000: Bush (R) Integrity, party reform; Gore (D) Intelligence, continuity
2004: Bush (R) Safety, continuity; Kerry (D) Service, opposition
2008: Obama (D) Change, youth; McCain (R) Service, party reform
Ruffini breaks down the success of these themes as follows:
Theme Won Lost Win % Optimism 4 0 1.000 Change 3 0 1.000 Youth 2 0 1.000 Safety 1 0 1.000 Continuity 6 3 .667 Party reform 2 1 .667 Integrity 2 2 .500 Risk 1 2 .333 Americana 0 1 .000 Intelligence 0 1 .000 Opposition 0 4 .000 Service 0 4 .000
Ruffini points out that whether Republicans are actually able to win in 2012 will largely depend on how well Obama does. The “Continuity” theme has been used by multiple administrations from Eisenhower to Clinton and is hard to overcome if things are going well. If things are not going well, that’s another story. Ruffini makes this point:
If we really are in Great Depression II, there is an opportunity for a Reagan-like mandate to emerge from 2012 because at some point the “hope” has to actually kick in. Whenever that opportunity emerges, however, what is clear from these historic patterns is that the Republican nominee be in a position to seek a broad change-driven mandate for conservative principles. If we want not just two-term Presidents, but popular two-term Presidents, you need someone who can lay claim to defining an era from its outset, aggressively re-assert that agenda for re-election, and ride it straight through eight years. Minimalist agendas of experience or personal integrity or pragmatism might work in individual elections, but they cost you in the long run once the immediate problems they were designed to fix are solved.
I can see Huckabee doing this. Palin has the potential, though she has to define herself apart from an incredibly minimalist McCain agenda, but I just don’t see it with Mitt Romney. In fact the arguments raised for Romney seem to be a combination of two losing themes from Mondale ‘84 (Competence) and Gore 2000 (Intelligence.)
Among other potential candidates, Mark Sanford seems the most likely to provide a clear conservative agenda. Gary Johnson would provide a clear libertarian agenda. Bobby Jindal would do, but Bobby Jindal ain’t running in 2012.
Of course, remembering the 13 keys theory, if the national situation is good, winning the GOP nomination in 2012 will be the equivalent of being a sacrificial lamb. If the national situation is bad, any ticket, no matter its deficiencies could win the presidency.
The question is not so much regaining power, but what do Republicans want to do with power once they obtain it. If they want to muddle through, they can make an uninspiried choice who will tinker with our country and when they leave will leave things pretty much like the Bush administration left them. If they want to shake things up and make a sea change in our country’s direction, then it’s going to require some faith and imagination.
Colorado state party chair Dick Wadhams has endorsed Saul Anuzis for RNC Chair this afternoon, making a tight race even tighter. Wadhams was a well-respected political consultant for the GOP prior to 2008, when he took the reins in Colorado and oversaw widespread defeat across the state.
According to YourRNC.com, the current standings (which match the candidate’s websites as far as I can tell) are:
That’s a total of 103 public commitments, leaving 65 to declare.
In other news, it appears that Duncan and Blackwell are wheeling and dealing to try and get more votes. As The Hill is reporting:
In interviews with The Hill, several committee members said former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell and current RNC Chairman Robert “Mike” Duncan have put together deals in some form or other.
Duncan has been the most aggressive in doling out favors, according to several sources. He has already pledged to put staffers in each state, and surrogates have been handing out money at fortuitous times, the sources said…
Offering money to states would be seen as highly unusual, according to those who have been involved in RNC races before…
Blackwell has offered positions to at least two voting committee members, including the chairmanship of one of the body’s top committees, according to sources.
So Duncan’s offering money for votes and Blackwell’s offering positions for votes. This thing is getting ugly.
The vote takes place in 60 hours…
