About Me

Name: Ron
Email: proudexdem@yahoo.com
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

The fall campaign is underway


Make no mistake, the general election campaign has begun.  In this age of 24 hour news cycles and a hyper-connected electorate, the old model of beginning the final phase of the race for President of the United States on around Labor Day is gone forever. 

About three weeks ago we started hearing that Mitt Romney would no longer focus any comments on his Republican competitors for the nomination, instead concentrating all his fire on the President.  Mr. Obama, for his part, had already started doing this toward Governor Romney.
 
So, how is all this going to play out?  I want to emphasize at the outset that this election, like nearly all elections involving an incumbent, will be a referendum on that incumbent.  Sean Trende, writing at Real Clear Politics, breaks this down for us.  One key passage: 

"....the conventional wisdom: That in an incumbent election, the electorate engages in a two-step process. First, it decides whether it likes the incumbent. If it does, the incumbent is re-elected. If it doesn't, it then asks whether the challenger is acceptable. If the challenger is acceptable, the unpopular incumbent is defeated; if not, the incumbent is re-elected.  In other words, analysts who accept this model implicitly  assume that the election is largely a referendum on the incumbent; how strong a referendum it is depends on how high you believe the bar to be cleared in Step 2 is.....But what evidence we have does suggest that in this particular instance, the CW is solid."

Trende goes on to show how the data suggests that the conventional wisdom will hold in this election, and also that the President is ripe for a huge butt kicking.  This is a point I've been asked about a lot over the last few months.  People want to know if I think the Republicans have anyone, "who can beat President Obama."  I say yes, they do, but your question misses the point. 

Incumbents have known this little political truth for years.  That's why those who have bad poll numbers are always trying to change the subject away from their record and make the other guy look too extreme or too weird or too dangerous.  They're working the, "...if the challenger is acceptable," part of the conventional wisdom.  President Obama is clearly going to deploy this strategy.  He's already doing so.  He's trying to attach Mitt Romney to George W. Bush's unpopularity by saying the Republicans want to go back to, "eight years of policies that got us into this mess in the first place."  Really?  That charge ignores the fact that the US economy was doing pretty good until the Democrats won control of the House, but I digress. 

One of the most vociferous broadsides the President has leveled against the Republicans so far was his extraordinarily hyperbolic and mendacious attack on the latest proposals from the House Budget Committee and it's Chair, Congressman Paul Ryan.  During this speech, hosted by the Associated Press earlier this month, the President called the Ryan budget, among other things, an attempt to impose a 'radical vision,' and 'thinly veiled Social Darwinism' (that one's my favorite.)

Mr. Obama was his usual fact-challenged self in launching this attack, as we see in this point by point, comprehensive rebuttal written by our own Guy BensonNational Review editor Rich Lowry blasted the President's speech as, "...another verbal temper tantrum substituting petulance for reason."  He then goes on to obliterate the speech in this analysis

These are the sorts of things those of us who want to see Mr. Romney elected are going to be up against for the next 190 days.  The President knows that if this election is about him and his record, he's going to get wiped out.  He will do or say anything to keep the focus elsewhere.  Be ready for deeply dishonest attacks on Governor Romney's LDS faith.  They're coming for sure. 

The stage is set.  If we keep our eye on the ball, tell the truth about the President, and express a positive vision for our country, we've got this.  As I mentioned in an earlier post, William Kristol wrote superbly on this point in this piece from The Weekly Standard

Finally, a word on tactics.  The electoral map is very close, so for those of you who like to watch polls, watch these:  Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, Indiana, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada.  This contest will be decided in those key swing states.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Romney goes five for five


In baseball, five for five is considered an excellent night for a hitter. It's a pretty good night in politics as well.

Mitt Romney won all five Republican primaries held last Tuesday, and won them in convincing fashion.  His march to the GOP nomination is proceeding steadily ahead, as is demonstrated by the way his campaign has begun to smartly shift toward it's general election posture.

One piece of old business I want to mention before we move on is that since the last time I wrote about politics here, former Senator Rick Santorum has departed the race.  His fine announcement speech is here.  As we often see with these exit speeches, it was one of his best.  I think knowing they're getting out takes the pressure off of these men and women, and that allows them to speak a little more from the heart.  We wish the Senator and particularly his little daughter Bella, our best.  She's spent her whole short life struggling with a major illness.  Bella's daddy accomplished some impressive things with his campaign, and the smart money says he'll be a force in his party for a long time to come. 

Moving forward, word around the campground is that our favorite, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, will announce he's dropping out shortly as well.  Ah, what might have been!  But we live in the moment here, so on to what's next. 

What's next is that Governor Romney is in surprisingly good shape.  Several national polls show him tied or ahead.  Not a position one would expect him to be in, at least not yet.  Considering the hyper-competitive primary process he's just emerging from, and that his opponent is an incumbent who is running unopposed for his nomination, the Romney campaign is well ahead of where they hoped to be at this point.  Clearly the Republican Party is moving rapidly to consolidate behind it's presumptive nominee. 

Mr. Romney brings some considerable strengths to this process, several of which are outlined in this article Hugh Hewitt posted right here on Townhall.  Just one example is this quote from John McCain's 2008 campaign manger, Steve Schmidt: "I thought he was a very scary opponent looking from the other side of the table in that he was almost like a learning organism at the end," Schmidt said about the former Massachusetts governor. "He just kept getting better week by week by week, and kept becoming stronger."  Impressive compliment from a former opponent.

Another plus for Team Romney is the strange campaign strategy the President is rolling out.  Pete Wehner writes about this over at Commentary.  Jay Cost gives us his takes on the same subject with this piece from The Weekly Standard.  Essentially what both men are pointing out is the President is not choosing a broad, centrist approach, but rather a narrow, hyper-partisan one.  Many Americans, especially the independents that both sides need to win, dislike hyper-partisanship, so this strategy is risky.

More and more I get the feeling that many on our side of this contest believe that the cake is almost baked and that Barack Obama is a goner.  Not that I sense any complacency.  Far from it.  Everyone I know who's involved plans on sprinting right through the tape on November 6.  It's just that we all think the stage is set for a substantial blowout if Mitt Romney has the right plan and executes it well.  This view, and this plan, is summarized well by William Kristol, also writing at The Weekly Standard.   He believes Mitt Romney can win, and win big. 

I agree.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

President Obama attacks the Supreme Court


This post is a long time in coming.  I almost wrote it two weeks ago when President Obama, in answering a press conference question, astoundingly asserted that the Supreme Court could not overturn a law like Obamacare.  Especially not, he said, if such a law passed with a "strong majority."  His comments were so erroneous, so dishonest and so blatantly political as to defy description.  But I will try.  In the days that followed this story breaking my other job and income tax hell intervened, and this post got delayed.  As it worked out, I'm glad it did.    

First a couple facts.  As many high school students know, ever since Marbury vs. Madison in 1803, the doctrine of "judicial review," which includes the power to strike down a law by declaring it unconstitutional, has been precisely the prerogative of the SCOTUS.  We should probably remember that President Obama was never a tenured professor of law at the University of Chicago, as is often reported.   He was only a guest lecturer.  And one who doesn't really know very much about the Constitution, it turns out.

The reason I'm glad I waited to post this is that when public figures make mistakes of this magnitude, it often results in brilliant and insightful commentary coming from our best and brightest political opinion writers.  This epic gaff by the President was no exception.  

The normally quite reserved Pete Wehner wrote this piece for Commentary, which concluded with this observation:  "....intellectually, this is the week where Barack Obama jumped the shark. In a deep, fundamental way, he is no longer a serious man. Nor an honest one. His public words are now purposefully bleached of truth. And that is a painful thing to have to say about an American president." 

The always brilliant Charles Krauthammer did not disappoint with this column from the Washington Post.  In it, The Hammer points out that the unusual thing would not be for SCOTUS to strike down Obamacare.  The oddity was that Congress passed the abomination on such a narrow, partisan vote in the first place.  He goes on to detonate the President's "Strong majority" comment with this strong rejoinder:  "'Strong majority'? The House has 435 members. In March 2010, Democrats held a 75-seat majority. Obamacare passed by seven votes."  Ouch.

Guy Benson, writing right here on Townhall, points out the real reason The President launched into this bout of fact-free political riffing.  He is preparing to run against the Court this fall if the Obamacare ruling goes against him.  Can you blame him?  I mean if you had Barack Obama's record, and you we running for public office, wouldn't you want to talk about anything but that record?

Over at Politifact, usually friendly ground for Democrats, they broke down the President's comments.  Their conclusion: False.  

Even the left had to admit The President had stepped in it.  Noted liberal law professor Laurence Tribe, who was one of Mr. Obama's teachers at Harvard, said The President,  "obviously misspoke." 

No matter what the court does, we find that when polled even half of Democrats want all or part of Obamacare to be struck down (along with 73% of independents.)  And I'll bet most of those polled have actually heard of Marbury vs. Madison.  Looks like most of the folks crying if the law goes down will be working at the White House.

The controversy even ended up involving a member of The President's own cabinet.  Apparently Judge Jerry Smith of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals was miffed at Mr. Obama's thinly veiled threat against the court.  He ordered government lawyer Dana Lydia Kaersvang to bring in a letter explaining the DOJ's position on the doctrine of judicial review.  Intelligence challenged Attorney General Eric Holder, much to my shock, actually complied with the judge's request.  It would've been typical of him to just ignore it.  Of course the letter Mr. Holder wrote didn't address the judge's main point, as the Heritage Foundation points out here, but I guess we should give him partial credit for at least writing it. 

I've got an idea!  Maybe the AG and the President might want to checkout Hillsdale College's excellent 10 part online seminar, Constitution 101.  It's a free course on the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the relationship between the two.  Anyone can sign up right here.  Seems like it might be time for both Mr. Obama and Mr. Holder to take a little refresher on that venerable old document they swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend.  I'm signed up and it's outstanding.

The Constitution.  Isn't that what this is all about anyway?  For nearly 100 years now, the overarching argument in our country is do we follow it?  Or do we just use it, like the Pirate Code, as guidelines?   Conservatives have argued that we should follow the Constitution as written, while Progressives have been working, step by step, to weaken it's ability to limit government.  Limited government was the Founder's goal.  They wanted to provide just enough  government to protect us from each other, while not having so much that we had to protect ourselves from it.  Libertarians like me, and other conservatives, think we should follow the Constitution as written.  If we find it lacking, the Founders also provided a mechanism to amend it.  In this fine article from NRO, Michael Barone points out that many Americans are now quite awake to this conflict, and are participating in it.  That's what the Tea Party movement is all about.  We have drawn out into the light what Progressives have been trying to do out of sight.  A lot of what the upcoming election is about revolves around this question. 

A free, secure and successful future for the country we all love depends on us getting the answer right.



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Romney gets the Trifecta - edges closer to nomination


Mitt Romney won all the contests that there were to win on Tuesday night. His victories in Wisconsin, Maryland and the District of Columbia moved him closer still to the magic number of 1144 delegates that will clinch the Republican nomination. The former Massachusetts Governor was helped greatly in Wisconsin by the endorsement, and the active campaigning, of popular Congressman Paul Ryan.  The three primaries on Tuesday were winner take all, as are several in the upcoming weeks.  This should work very much in Romney's favor, and allow him to lock up the nomination by June.   

Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich could accelerate this process by dropping out, and they both should.  It's time for the party to come together and start preparing for the general election battle against the President.  Both Santorum and Gingrich were far behind Tuesday.  Former Speaker Gingrich is now essentially a non-factor, only drawing support in the single or low-double digits.  It seems that Newt is aware of the reality and is refocusing his campaign into an effort to influence the party platform at the convention in September. 

The most recent delegate count: 

Romney: 652 
Santorum:  259
Gingrich:  140
Paul: 67

We now have a three week break until the next round of voting.  That will be April 24 and will include Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island.  That night could be Santorum's last stand, as he's from Pennsylvania and a loss there would likely be lights out. 

We'll see.

UPDATE: The architect, Karl Rove, writing here in the The Wall Street Journal, explains why last Tuesday's three primaries were the "inflection point" in this Republican nominating process.  What he means is that is where Romney essentially put Santorum away.  Since Santorum was his last real challenger, Karl says it's game over. We agree.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The whisper heard 'round the world


The comments caught on an open mic last week between President Obama and Russian President Medvedev should give all Americans pause.  As Charles Krauthammer points out with his typical insight in this column from the Washington Post, it isn't often we see an American President cutting a deal with the leader of a hostile country, telling him essentially: I'll be able to play ball with you guys just as soon as I get past this annoying American custom we call an election

In the aftermath of this public misstep, The President and his staff have been doing their best to downplay it's importance, while their willing accomplices in the mainstream news media ignore the story to the degree they can. 

This administration has already been a foreign policy disaster.  From it's weak support of friends, to it's shameless coddling of foes, to it's apologies, to it's outright and aggressive hostility toward Israel, one can only imagine, with a genuine shudder, what an unaccountable Obama will try and pull off in a second term.  If our economy was humming along in perfect health, which it is far from doing, these dangerous and naive blunders would be enough reason to replace him in 2012.

 
UPDATE: Karl Rove's American Crossroads is a Super Pac working to elect Republicans in 2012.  They have  come out with a very effective ad on this incident.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Two big endorsements for Mitt Romney


Last week two of the brightest young stars in the Republican/conservative universe endorsed Mitt Romney for President. I was unsure if either of these men would wade in on this, but they have.
 
Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, probably the most rapidly rising star in the party, and the one name on everyone's shortlist for Vice President, gave the former Governor his nod on Wednesday night.

Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee and the best policy mind outside of Newt Gingrich, endorsed Mr. Romney on Friday morning.  The timing here is important, as Rep. Ryan is very popular in his home state, which holds it's primary on Tuesday.

Normally endorsements from fellow politicians are of limited effect.  These two are different.  The impeccable conservative credentials of both men, along with Rubio's standing as a leader of the Tea Party movement, can really work to calm the fears of Republicans who doubt Romney's commitment to those principles.

Clearly a big boost for Mitt heading into Tuesday's primaries, which besides Wisconsin include Maryland and DC.

 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obamacare on trial


This week the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in several key cases that have the same point at their heart: that the so-called Affordable Care Act, aka. Obamacare, is unconstitutional. 
 
In this brilliant summary, Charles Krauthammer lays out the case, and the stakes for the country if the effort in the court fails.  As he says, if upheld, Obamacare will essentially open the door to a government that can tell us to do anything, without restriction.
 
 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Huge Jump in Those Blaming Bad Economy on Obama


So says this report from Rasmussen, as reported on Townhall.com. 

It's gratifying that more and more, people are seeing what I've been seeing for the last three plus years.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I think it's time....


....for all of us to accept that Mitt Romney is going to be the Republican nominee for President in 2012.  If it wasn't certain before, last week's Illinois primary pretty much locked it up.  It might not be done mathematically, but as a practical matter I think he's in.

I will always believe that Newt Gingrich, with his broad vision for the future of the country, would've made the better President.  But last time around I thought Rudy Giuliani would've been better and a lot of good that did!

Word around the campground is Newt is out of money and his staff isn't getting paid, so it's probably time for him to shut it down.   I hope he gets a great speaking slot at the convention and some serious VP consideration (more on that later.)  But barring something truly weird happening, it's time to start talking about the fall campaign.  Who will be Gov. Romney's running mate be?  Marco Rubio?  Mitch Daniels?  Paul Ryan?  What states are critical to a Republican victory?  Most of all, it's time to start accentuating the many good reasons why Mitt will make a terrific President.  Of course, the most prominent of these is that he's not Barack Obama.

To these ends, I bring you these two videos. 

First we have this speech Gov. Romney gave at the University of Chicago a couple days before the primary.  It's about the economy and it is excellent.  This issue is clearly the Governor's' wheelhouse and he hits all the key themes precisely: 



 
 
The second one is his victory speech from that primary last Tueday night.  Also excellent:
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

This just in: ObamaCare is going to cost a lot of money


I know, Duh

Philip Klein at the Washington Examiner penned this article about the new CBO projections for the cost of President Obama's central legislative achievement: the destruction of the American healthcare system. 

Two years ago, as the debate over health care reform raged on Capitol hill, it was that same pesky CBO that released it's first rough projections of the cost of the proposed law.  They estimated that it would set us back nearly a trillion dollars over it's first 10 years.  As we recall, the President had actually sold this turkey as saving money (I know, it's astounding that anyone believed him.)  The CBO report back then changed everything.  It was at that point that public opinion turned against the President and his party.  In the first poll conducted after the CBO report, Rasmussen found that those who responded that they were either 'strongly opposed' or 'somewhat opposed' to Obamacare totalled 55%.   That number has not gone up or down by more than 3% in polls Rasmussen has conducted nearly every week since
 
I believe that immovable 55% is the most important number in American national politics today.
 
That number gave us Senator Scott Brown in Massachusetts. 
 
That number gave us the Tea Party movement. 
 
That number gave us the sweeping repudiation of the Democrats in the 2010 mid-term elections.
 
And if it has any juice left, and I think it does, it can deliver a bigger majority in the House, a new majority in the Senate, and the defeat of President Obama later this year. 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Robert Costa on the current state of the Gingrich campaign


Robert Costa is one of the very best young political writers on the scene today.  Robert has done a lot of very good reporting on Newt Gingrich's campaign over at the National Review.  In this piece, he talks about how things are going out on the stump for the former Speaker (the short version is he's having a ball.)  He also breaks down Newt's grand strategy for trying to gain enough delegates so that he, along with Rick Santorum and Ron Paul, deny Mitt Romney the 1144 he'll need to gain a first ballot nomination at the convention in August.  If that happens, Newt's hope would be that he can convince a deadlocked convention to turn to him. 

As I've written here before, it's the longest of long shots.  But fun stuff to contemplate for Gingrich fans like me.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bretibart.com editor Joel Pollak shreds Soledad O'Brien on CNN


You know, I don't think Soledad O'Brien ever saw the great 1980's movie, The Untouchables.  If she had, she'd know it's a mistake to only bring a knife to a gunfight.
 
That's what Soledad did last week on her CNN talk show. 
 
Soledad had Breitbart.com editor Joel Pollak on for what was billed as an interview.  Soledad and her crew tried to turn it into an ambush.  Fail. 

In this video, you see everything Andrew Breitbart worked so hard to expose on our behalf.   A story that makes a leading light of the left (in this case the President of the United States) look bad.   Actually, it just makes him look like what we've known him to be all along: a radical, academic leftist with a bunch of radical, academic leftist friends and associates.  We learn we can add Derrick Bell to the list of names that already includes Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Louis Farrakhan and others.
 
We also see a mainstream media trying to bury the story.  When they fail to bury it, they try mocking it (an old lefty favorite) and when that doesn't work, they attack the messenger. 
 
Now, Joel Pollak was a research assistant for Alan Dershowitz when he was a student at Harvard Law School.  Prof. Dershowitz liked him so well that when Pollak ran for Congress in 2010, he endorsed him.  He did so even though Dershowitz is a famously liberal Democrat and Pollak a conservative Republican.  Needless to say, Joel Pollak was not one who could get attacked, mocked or called a racist without a fight.  He cleans O'Brien's clock. 
 
Enjoy:
 

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Breitbart is here


You may have noticed posters like this one popping up around your town:
 
Breitbart Is Here
 
I have. 

Now, in this very insightful piece (published where else: breitbart.com) Sarah Palin talks about the legacy of her friend Andrew, and how we all need to carry on his work.

Breitbart is indeed here.  And will continue to be.
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Wow, President Obama's approval down to 41%


This piece from the American Thinker
discusses the latest CBS/New York Times poll, which has the President at 41% approval.  I personally think this poll is a outlier, and that the real number is higher, especially since it shows a 9 point drop in one week.

But I'll enjoy this news while I can.



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Strong medicine for our broken judiciary


For those of us who constantly find ourselves frustrated by various court rulings that seem to follow neither the law nor the Constitution, we have this suggestion from Presidential candidate and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.  As we know, the Speaker was once a professor of history, so it's appropriate that this solution was inspired by the actions of President Thomas Jefferson in 1801.

In this paper, Newt discusses how, when President Jefferson took office, he was left a little White House warming present by departing President John Adams and his Federalist Party.  He writes:

"The Federalists had used the federal judiciary to enforce the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 to imprison Jeffersonian activists. After the Federalists lost the election of 1800, they had from November until March 1801 (back then inauguration did not occur until March) to try to slow down the emerging Jeffersonian  majority. The Federalists more than doubled the number of federal circuit judges, picked the judges, and had  their departing Senate majority approve the new Federalist judges. Thus the Federalists prepared to give up power confident they had boxed in the new majority.
 
The Jeffersonians reacted to this post-election court packing with fury. They called the new appropriators Midnight Judges. Jefferson and the new Congress abolished over half the federal judgeships...."
 
So here we see there actually is a Constitutional remedy, acting within the system of checks and balances,  that allows the President and the Congress to deal with judges who wander too far outside the mainstream.  There are several remedies outlined, but in the most extreme cases they can fire those judges by abolishing their courts.  Clearly this would not be a solution one would want to employ capriciously, but it is an option.

It is clear that the founders intend the judicial branch to be the weakest of the three branches.  It is also clear that that branch has imposed an enormous power grab on the country in the last fifty or so years. The article linked here goes into that history as well.  I realize it's kind of long, but the problem is large as well.   

Leave it to Newt Gingrich, our leading big thinker, to come up with a fix that fits the size of the problem.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive