Posts Tagged ‘President Obama’
Wow. This blogger is surprised.
I thought Rob Portman, U.S. Senator from OH-IO was the frontrunner in the so-called veep sweepstakes. Of course some homerism was in play along with Senator Portman’s solid credentials. But we would have lost him in the senate even though Governor Kasich would have picked a solid replacement.
On the competency scale, Rep. Paul Ryan is another solid addition to Mitt Romney’s sheer business acumen and over-all competence.
Just on competence alone does Romney-Ryan beat Obama-Biden. Can you seriously look at that other side and think “they really know what they are doing”?
When it comes to competency, Romney-Ryan is the USA Basketball team and Obama-Biden are the Nigerian basketball team at the London Olympics.
Of course, the actual election will be a lot closer than that final score.
How about a little taste of what Ryan brings to Team Romney:
Watch Obama’s face as he knows he is being taken to task by Ryan and is losing on the merits.
If this is what Ryan will bring to this campaign the polls will tighten.
Who knew that Chief Justice Roberts secretly wanted to be a congressman? Because at the heart of his majority opinion is where he changed out of his jurist robes into his legislator’s costume. How else can you explain what happened Thursday as the court ruled to uphold the constitutionality of the misnamed Affordable Care Act by finding the mandate is only a mandate if it is a mandated tax?
Roberts did a ctrl h to the law replacing the repeated word ‘penalty’ with the constitutionally approved word ‘tax’. And like magic the judicial branch has grown its own legislative branch.
But wait…there’s more! Obama himself argued that his mandate was not a tax:
And during the first opening oral arguments the Supremes were trying to ascertain if the mandate indeed was a mere penalty or really a tax.
This little bit of debate was key to the entire case before the Supremes because the Anti-Injunction Act prevents lawsuits before a tax is paid. Taxpayers must pay the imposed tax to have standing to sue against the tax. Obama-care’s penalties taxes are not due until 2014. If the mandate is a tax there is no case and the suit is tossed out.
So, team Obama argued it is not a tax and the court accepted it to be not a tax so the case could move forward to have Roberts decide that, yes, indeed, it is a tax.
If your head is spinning it means you are following along nicely. It you feel the ground moving, that is because the Founding Fathers are following along and spinning in their respective graves.
Yes, it was that kind of week Thursday was.
Some of you (okay, the one of you who does read this) may have seen some esteemed fellow conservative commentators commentate that this ruling was indeed the work of genius as it puts Obama-care into realm of the largest tax increase in history and ties the Democrats to this tax increase while preserving limits to the Commerce Clause.
First off who in their right, center-right, center, left of center minds do not know that Democrats love increasing taxes? Any tax increase is never taxed enough or high enough for them.
And limiting the Commerce Clause by removing the limits as long as the expansion is a tax levy–even if such wording and debating states the exact opposite of a tax levy. That is one limit to be honored.
Now, this blogger has in the past over-used cleaning the litter box as a metaphor for political studies. As I sift out the pee clumps and cat shit I know there is not going to be any gold or diamonds found in the box after I am done. Somehow our esteemed brighter lights of commentary think they have found gold and diamonds amid the piss and shit in this litter box filled by Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion.
There ain’t any.
This ruling is a loss, a defeat, a crushing blow to our side who believes in limited government under a strict constitution where each branch is separate and plays in their own litter box for the good of the republic and its citizens. There is no other way this litter sifter sees it.
So, what happens next?
I don’t know. But if past is prologue we are stuck with this badly decided ruling for maybe 100 years or so. I am not being overly pessimistic just resolutely realistic.
Dred Scott took a civil war to overturn it.
Plessy which made segregation the law of the land took 6o years before Brown overturned it.
Roe is still enforcing a faux right to abortion since 1972 despite it being a cornerstone of conservative campaigning against.
So how long do you really think it will take before the Affordable Care Act ruling is overturned by a future court or legislative act?
And if it is by legislative act that this is overturned and a new suit is brought before the Supremes, will some future Chief Justice effect the rules of Roberts and ctrl h it to mean whatever the court wants it to mean to fit into their opinion?
By then maybe our liberty and freedoms too will have come under the SCOTUS editor and be easily replaced with a keystroke.
That is why this is even a bigger fucking deal than that master of vice Vice President Joe Biden made it out to be.
Last week your humble maker of typos was invited by Team Romney to be in a campaign commercial specially for Ohioans.
I was–no snickering–talent.
I was happy to do it but surprised by the invite as during the primary this blogger posted his endorsement of Rick Santorum. But Team Romney are making great strides in uniting the clans–I mean bringing in the various Republican factions. Kentucky Senator Rand Paul son of libertarian leaning presidential candidate Ron is on board with Team Romney. Mr. Gray-Glo, too, is on board to recover America from the changeless hopelessness brought on by the Obama era.
Because the content of the ad was embargoed, I could not post about it. Embargoed is a great word to use for many different circumstances: I would have paid my bills but the economy was embargoed by Obama. See?
Tim O’Toole, the producer/videographer/line giver, asked me to hold off posting (as if anyone really reads you–The Voice) until the commercial is released. They wanted the content to hit Obama by surprise.
This is one huge difference this video star (there will be no living with him now–The Voice) notices between Team Romney’s campaign and the failed McCain campaign way back in ’08; Romney is Fast and Furious in getting his message out and rebutting Obama. Any time Obama’s teleprompter makes a gaffe, Team Romney is on it and has a commercial released.
Two years ago the president was in Ohio touting his amazing Summer of Stimulus, he just forgot the recovery part.
And that is the message of the Recover Our Country video I and other Romney Team supporters made last week.
Quite a few of the men and women in the montage are from the conservative grassroots organization Cuyahoga Valley Republicans. We were founded in July 2009 as we saw where Obama was leading our nation.
The video is here:
Our winter’s freeze and thaw cycles takes its toll on our roads creating potholes or chuck holes making driving an adventure.
Some are just small bumps that jump and thump your ride while others will break an axle or swallow a car whole.
One rough patch of potholed chucked up roadway reminded me about this year’s presidential election.
Its early in this cycle even though most political fanatics feel it’s long in the tooth and graying around the temples and beard regions.
20 primary debates that had the feel of an American Idol cattle call will do that. At least we are down to a final four. Is your president bracket busted?
Back to stretching this metaphor…
I was reading posts tracking partisan enthusiasm. It is too soon to see if an actual gap is emerging or is this just a small pot hole on the road to the White House that can easily be patched.
Or is it a chasm?
Anyway early polls show that Dems are not as excited about this race as Republicans are.
Gallup posts: GOP Slightly Ahead in Voting Enthusiasm Both parties far less enthusiastic today than Democrats were in 2008 writes Lydia Saad.
By 53% to 45%, Republicans, including independents who lean Republican, are slightly more likely than Democrats and Democratic leaners to say they are “more enthusiastic than usual about voting” this year. Republicans have consistently led Democrats in voting enthusiasm since last fall, but to varying degrees.
And it isn’t just because the primaries are still competitive.
The 53% of Republicans who feel more enthusiastic about voting today — as Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are engaged in a pitched nomination battle — is greater than the 44% found in February 2008 when John McCain and Mike Huckabee were still dueling in the primaries.
Before the elephant starts doing his happy jig, Gallup notes that in 2008 Dems were more excited than Republicans are now.
At that time, 79% of Democrats said they were more enthusiastic than usual about voting, higher than the 53% of Republicans today and the 44% of Republicans in 2008.
Maybe this elongated primary season is helping to slowly build the enthusiasm needed to defeat an incumbent president. We need to peak at the right time if we want to win.
The enthusiasm question is important because, in the last several presidential and midterm elections, the party whose rank-and-file members showed the most enthusiasm about voting toward the end of the campaign either gained congressional seats or won the presidency. That includes, for instance, Barack Obama in 2008, the Republicans in the 2010 midterm congressional elections, and the Democrats in the 2006 midterm elections. Thus, Republicans’ ability to maintain their 2012 enthusiasm advantage through the fall could be an important factor in the election outcome.
And the donkey cart needs to watch for additional pot holes growing. Warned you about stretching it.
Enthusiasm is down among the Hope and Change me crowd:
At this time four years ago, 62% of Americans, overall, were more enthusiastic about voting and 30% were less enthusiastic. That eagerness was mainly the result of heightened enthusiasm among Democrats, with 79% “more enthusiastic,” as noted above.
However, corresponding with their Democratic leanings, nonwhites and 18- to 29-year-olds also showed exceptionally high enthusiasm about voting in 2008, with more than 70% of each group saying they were “more enthusiastic.” Today, by contrast, these groups’ mood is on par with that of whites and older adults.
There is still time for Dems to build their enthusiasm. But…
Gallup trends show that enthusiasm generally tends to build as Election Day nears. However, in 2004 and 2008, Gallup found that the February patterns of enthusiasm by party generally held through October.
On College Campuses, Obama’s Not Cool Anymore reports the Atlantic Wire dot com.
His approval rating is at 56 percent approval rating among people ages 18 to 29. That’s higher than the 51 percent national average, but that’s a decline of 10 points compared to the 2008 exit polls.
But Obama need not worry too much about this lack of youth support. The mythical youth vote was not any greater than in ’04:
Despite all the buzz young voters got in 2008, they weren’t critical to Obama’s victory.
Voters aged 18 to 24 turned out at a rate of 49 percent in 2008, compared to 47 percent four years earlier–a statistically significant, but still small increase, according to the Census Bureau.
The difference? Obama turned on and turned out more old folks who actually vote.
Obama’s huge get out the vote operation reached out to way more young voters than McCain’s campaign–25 percent compared to 13 percent–but Obama didn’t neglect the old folks. His campaign reached 55 percent of seniors in Virginia, for example compared to McCain’s 45 percent.
Another factor this guy on keyboards thinks may be hurting Obama with his old youth group is that they may have all ready graduated college into the Obama jobless recovery.
Just 54 percent of Americans ages 18 to 24 currently have jobs, according to a study released Thursday by the Pew Research Center. That’s the lowest employment rate for this age group since the government began keeping track in 1948. And it’s a sharp drop from the 62 percent who had jobs in 2007 — suggesting the recession is crippling career prospects for a broad swath of young people who were still in high school or college when the downturn began.
Rasmussen Reports confirms this as well: Partisan Trends: GOP Holds Steady, Democrats Fall To New Low
The number of Republicans in the country was virtually unchanged in February, while the number of Democrats fell to a new low for the third month in a row.
During February, 36.0% of Americans considered themselves Republicans. That’s up from 35.9% in January and the highest number of Republicans measured since December 2010.
At the same time, only 32.4% of adults said they were Democrats, down from 32.5 in January and 32.7% in December. This marks the third straight month that the number of Democrats nationally has fallen to the lowest level ever measured by Rasmussen Reports.
The number of voters not affiliated with either major political party remained the same at 31.6% in both January and February.
The GOP now holds a partisan identification advantage of 3.6 percentage points. That’s the widest gap between the two parties since July 2010, when Democrats held a 3.6 percentage point lead.
Rasmussen says, “In each of the recent election cycles, the victorious party has gained in net partisan identification over the course of the election year. It is worth noting, however, that the gains were generally short-lived.” Well they only have to stay alive until Wednesday November 7th.
Keep in mind that figures reported in this article are for all Adults, not Likely Voters. Republicans are a bit more likely to participate in elections than Democrats.
That is worth remembering, Republicans are a bit more likely to vote than the Democrats.
Is that just a pot hole in the road ahead or a donkey swallowing chasm?
There’s been a lot of speculation lately on whether Mitt Romney can accumulate the 1,144 delegates he’ll need by late August to clinch the Republican presidential nomination at the convention in Tampa.
And there’s also been speculation of just why he’s been so tight with Ron Paul.
Knowing what I know about Ron Paul, I suspect a lot of that is personal in nature. Ron doesn’t seem to particularly like either Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich, perhaps for the obvious reason that neither is very likable.
But Mitt seems an affable enough sort.
That might explain why Ron’s been doing a tag team with Mitt against the other two.
Another explanation is that Ron wants some bargaining power at that convention.[...]
And as we get closer to the convention, there’s even more reason not to drop out. If it really looks like Romney can’t get to 1,144, then both Gingrich and Santorum will want to stay in the running for Tampa, as will Paul, of course.
Rove goes into some detail about the difference between a “contested” convention and a “brokered” covention.
I think tha may be a distinction without much of a difference. If no one shows up with the magic 1,144 delegates, anything’s possible. The horse-trading begins right then and it’s hard to imagine either Gingrich or Santorum handing his delegates to Romney.
It is indeed possible to see Paul doing so, however, in return for some reward or another.
Paul Mulshine (what a great name for a political pundit) cites two posts in his piece:
Ron Paul’s campaign has long centered on a “complex plan to force a long battle with Mitt Romney for delegates to the Republican National Convention in August.”5 Paul’s ability to organize in the caucuses and supporters enthusiasm cannot be understated – as he continues to siphon delegates away from Romney, who is also depending on the caucuses to secure the nomination, – and is played out in Maine where the Texas Congressman lost to the Massachusetts Governor in the New England caucus by only 156 votes.
He has lost the electability argument as well. A February 16th Democracy Corps Poll finds that Romney “may be on the edge of political death. The shift against him is one of the biggest in the polls and he now competes with Republicans in Congress for unpopularity. In the summer of 1996, Bob Dole essentially was disqualified in voters’ eyes and never really recovered his footing.”22 Further, a new CNN/ORC International poll finds that 53% of independents have an unfavorable view of Romney, compared with 44% last month.23 Further a new Des Moines Iowa Poll released February 18th shows Obama losing Iowa not only to Romney by a slim 46%-44% margin, but also losing to Santorum by 48%-44% and Ron Paul by 49%-42%.24[...]
Politics is personal. People vote for a guy who they either like or they trust to do the job well. Romney scores high on the latter category, but as the season wears on he’s looking less and less like a regular Joe. The sharp increases in Romney’s unfavorability ratings have removed the “electability” argument.
Meanwhile, a brokered convention needs party bosses, and today there aren’t any. In the old days, party chiefs often led delegations of regulars who took orders and depended on patronage. No longer. In some states, winning candidates don’t even pick their delegates—party conventions do. This means that while the delegation is committed to support a candidate for a certain number of ballots, many individual delegates remain loyal to other candidates. That makes it more difficult for anyone in a smoke-filled bargaining session to deliver a large number of delegates.
As for a contested convention: This last happened for the GOP in 1976. Neither President Gerald Ford nor Ronald Reagan had a majority when delegates arrived in Kansas City. The nomination was decided by the unpledged Mississippi delegation swinging in behind Ford. But there are far fewer delegations in 2012 that will arrive in Tampa unpledged.
It’s also important to remember that, according to the Republican National Committee, delegates have been officially awarded in just four contests. Missouri’s primary was just a beauty contest, and the caucus states have county, congressional-district and state conventions to go through later this spring before their delegations are set, all of which will be affected by what happens in the race between now and then.
There are 48 still to go (including D.C., American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands and Guam). And once a candidate starts winning, they tend to keep winning, especially beginning in April when more states award delegates on a winner-take-all basis.
Last night during Cuyahoga Valley Republican’s September meeting also was our picnic cookout Herman Cain won the monthly straw poll with 29% of the votes.
Mitt Romney came in second with 25% and Rick Perry had 13%.
This is a significant change from August’s straw poll where newly announce candidate Perry was first with 35% of the votes. Cain was fourth with 9% behind Michele Bachmann’s 14%. Romney was second last month, too, with 28%.
Amazing what learning about candidates from a few debates can do.
Perry and Bachmann fared the worse by what their debating styles revealed about them.
There were two invalid write-in votes: one for Obama which was probably meant as a twisted joke (although no booze was served at the picnic) and another for a member who was grilling the hamburgers and hot dogs. He only received one vote from his family but the food was good.
CVR will have monthly straw polls until the Ohio primary—whenever it may be.
The poster of this post is chairman of the CVR’s candidate screening committee.
This site is independent of Cuyahoga Valley Republicans.
Here are the totals. Percentages are rounded.
The political milieu is evident this sticky July evening at Mutt’s BBQ, where around 100 conservative activists and assorted curiosity seekers have come for a gander at Jon Huntsman. Before tonight’s event starts, they join in a religious invocation, the Pledge of Allegiance, the National Anthem, and an anti-statist poem known as the Republican Creed. Henry McMaster, the state’s silver-haired former attorney general, then makes the political tenor of the room explicit when he rises to introduce Jon Huntsman in his thick-as-gravy drawl. “Some of you folks may remembah that I made a pledge that I looked forward to the day Democrats in South Carolina were so rare we’d have to start huntin’ em with dawgs,” McMaster intones. “It’s come true! You cay-ant find any!”
There is, however, at least one moderate Republican present: the smooth, cosmopolitan former Utah governor, who not only is on record as a supporter of gay civil unions but also served under Barack Obama as ambassador to China until a few months ago. Surveying the motley crowd with an ironic expression, he begins, “All I can tell you is that I never thought I would be making an appearance at Mutt’s BBQ.”
The incongruity level rises as Huntsman makes his way around the dining room to shake hands. One of the state’s Tea Party leaders, Chris Lawton, asks what he knows about China’s setting up “secret free-trade zones” in the American West. Huntsman politely says he hasn’t heard anything about that and moves along. When an older gentleman in a veteran’s hat adorned with flag pins presses some religious literature into his hand, Huntsman thanks him, slips the pamphlet in the pocket of his crisp white shirt, and keeps going.
But when Huntsman speaks, he doesn’t act like he’s pinned down behind enemy lines or tailor his explanation of why he’s running to the audience. He says he’s running on his record as a “conservative problem-solver” in Utah and on his grasp of America’s economic challenges. “The future of the United States is not going to be determined in the fields of Afghanistan,” he says. “The future of the United States will be determined based upon how prepared we are to meet the twenty-first-century competitiveness challenge. That war is going to be waged economically, across the Pacific Ocean.”
Huntsman has rarely criticized President Obama or his Republican opponents directly, though he does pepper his remarks with occasional digs at Mitt Romney, the Republican front-runner.
As you listen to Huntsman’s blunt assessment of the country’s prospects, it’s hard not to notice the commonalities with the man he would challenge in 2012—the hazard Obama hoped to forestall by sending him to Beijing. There is, to begin with, the physical resemblance. Huntsman is slender, athletic, and stylish, with a winning smile. Huntsman is 51, Obama is 50, and both have an unusual reserve, a cool unflappability. More important is a shared fundamental outlook: substantive, patient, with a preference for compromise over confrontation, and a pragmatic rather than ideological approach to politics.
When we chat at the airport, Mary Kaye tells me about the first time her husband and Obama met, in a holding room at Coretta Scott King’s funeral in 2006. She glimpsed some kind of spark, a connection between the two men, as if they knew that they would figure jointly in some future history.
Just what we want as conservative Republicans, a spark between our candidate and Obama as they share their fundamental outlook. And if you believe he has not criticized his fellow Republicans, just check out his ABC News This Week interview.
People tend to see Mormonism as a binary, you-are-or-you-aren’t question, but Jon Huntsman is something more like a Reform Jew, who honors the spirit rather than the letter of his faith. He describes his family on his father’s side as “saloon keepers and rabble rousers,” and his mother’s side as “ministers and proselytizers.” The Huntsman side ran a hotel in Fillmore, Utah’s first capital, where they arrived with the wagon trains in the 1850s. They were mostly what Utahans call “Jack Mormons”—people with positive feelings about the Latter-Day Saints church who don’t follow all of its strictures. “We blend a couple of different cultures in this family,” he says.
The conventional wisdom on independents is, naturally, completely wrong. Independents are not a monolithic group of moderates. In fact, they are very diverse in their political opinions and there isn’t a “move to the middle” formula that will win them over. Moderates, in fact, are now overwhelmingly Democrats. Independents are, for the most part, disaffected political partisans.
The American National Election Study learned that of the vast majority of independents who voted in 2008, 21 percent of independents were truly independent. The rest, all 79 percent, had a definite party preference. Their votes:Fully 87% of them voted for the candidate of the party they leaned toward: 91% of independent Democrats voted for Barack Obama while 82% of independent Republicans voted for John McCain. That 87% rate of loyalty was identical to the 87% loyalty rate of weak party identifiers and exceeded only by the 96% loyalty rate of strong party identifiers.
In other words, independents who prefer Democrats vote like Democrats, and independents who prefer Republicans vote like Republicans. The vast majority of independents are not truly independent, but are for whatever reason partisans who don’t want the party label.
It is highly unlikely that folks who lean toward either party, and remember the vast majority of independents lean, are going to swing their votes to and fro between the parties. What is likely, however, is that many independents may not be as motivated to vote as strong or weak partisans. To solve this problem, the parties need to motivate them to vote. Since the matrix of issues that motivate independents will more or less coincide with those issues that motivate party partisans, political strategists should do something counter-intuitive to the conventional wisdom: To win independents, motivate your base.
What happened in the 2010 election wasn’t so much that independents swung their votes solidly toward Republicans. The Democratic leaning independents didn’t show up. There is evidence to back this up.
The 2010 midterms revealed the fragility of this electoral base. While both Solid Liberals and Hard-Pressed Democrats remained solidly behind Democratic congressional candidates in 2010, support slipped substantially among New Coalition Democrats and Post-Moderns – not because Republicans made overwhelming gains in these groups, but because their turnout dropped so substantially. Where two-thirds of New Coalition Democrats came out to vote for Obama in 2008, just 50% came out to back Democrats in 2010. The drop-off in the Democratic vote was even more severe among Post-Moderns, 65% of whom backed Obama, but just 43% of whom came to the polls for Democrats in 2010.
Pew studied folks identified as Solid Liberals, whom you could also call “strong partisan Democrats,” albeit 24 percent of this group identify themselves as independents who lean Democrat. There was no drop in turnout among this group in 2010. Where there was significant drop, however, is what Pew calls the “New Coalition” Dems (moderates & Dem leaners) and the Post-Moderns (youth). Of those “New Coalition” Dems, fully 42 percent of them identify as independents. We [Dems and Libs] didn’t lose in 2010 because we lost independents. We lost 2010 because our independent leaners and young folks didn’t vote, while Republican leaning independents turned out in droves. Keep in mind, the enthusiasm gap reported on this site in 2009 was most prevalent in political typology groups most identified with President Obama’s winning coalition in 2008.