The answer may surprise you? Or maybe not. Does it matter? Should it matter? Is there a distinction between the leadership role of 50 elected governors vs. any elected officials? Either way, read the original here.Chuck Todd: Why Do Republicans Have More Women and Hispanic Governors?
2:02 PM, AUG 31, 2012 • BY DANIEL HALPER
The Weekly Standard:
THE BLOG
MSNBC host Chuck Todd asked the co-chair of the Democratic party's convention, L.A. mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, why there are more Republican women and Hispanic governors:
"Let me ask you though, this one question, why is it that the Republicans have elected more women governors and have two Hispanic governors and the Democrats don’t?," asked Todd. "Don’t have as many women governors and don’t have Hispanic governors, why do you think that is?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KkJbOJ-BpI
"Well we have a lot more legislators and mayors and Congress members that are women, that are Latino, that are Asian, that are African American. We have a much broader tent, a much broader representation of every walk of life, people from, you know, every ethnicity and race and sex," said Villaraigosa. "It’s true, they may have more governors but we have a much broader field when you look at all of the elected officials."
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Friday, August 31, 2012
Sunday, July 8, 2012
Coincidence or Systemic Change?
Is this a coincidence or a result of an actual systemic change and improvement? You decide, and read the original here.
UNEMPLOYMENT RATE DROPPED IN EVERY STATE THAT ELECTED A REPUBLICAN GOV. IN 2010
by TONY LEE 8 Jul 2012, 6:24 AM PDT
UNEMPLOYMENT RATE DROPPED IN EVERY STATE THAT ELECTED A REPUBLICAN GOV. IN 2010
by TONY LEE 8 Jul 2012, 6:24 AM PDT
In 2010, influenced by the Tea Party and its focus on fiscal issues, 17 states elected Republican governors. And, according to an Examiner.com analysis, every one of those states saw a drop in their unemployment rates since January of 2011. Furthermore, the average drop in the unemployment rate in these states was 1.35%, compared to the national decline of .9%, which means, according to the analysis, that the job market in these Republican states is improving 50% faster than the national rate.
Since January of 2011, here is how much the unemployment rate declined in each of the 17 states that elected Republican governors in 2010, according to the Examiner:
Kansas - 6.9% to 6.1% = a decline of 0.8%
Maine - 8.0% to 7.4% = a decline of 0.6%
Michigan - 10.9% to 8.5% = a decline of 2.4%
New Mexico - 7.7% to 6.7% = a decline of 1.0%
Oklahoma - 6.2% to 4.8% = a decline of 1.4%
Pennsylvania - 8.0% to 7.4% = a decline of 0.6%
Tennessee - 9.5% to 7.9% = a decline of 1.6%
Wisconsin - 7.7% to 6.8% = a decline of 0.9%
Wyoming - 6.3% to 5.2% = a decline of 1.1%
Alabama - 9.3% to 7.4% = a decline of 1.9%
Georgia - 10.1% to 8.9% = a decline of 1.2%
South Carolina - 10.6% to 9.1% = a decline of 1.5%
South Dakota - 5.0% to 4.3% = a decline of 0.7%
Florida - 10.9% to 8.6% = a decline of 2.3%
Nevada - 13.8% to 11.6% = a decline of 2.2%
Iowa - 6.1% to 5.1% = a decline of 1.0%
Ohio - 9.0% to 7.3% = a decline of 1.7%
On the other hand, the unemployment rate in states that elected Democrats in 2010 dropped, on average, as much as the national rate decline and, in some states such as New York, the unemployment rate has risen since January of 2011.
This is yet another example of how the so-called “blue state” model is not working.
Since January of 2011, here is how much the unemployment rate declined in each of the 17 states that elected Republican governors in 2010, according to the Examiner:
Kansas - 6.9% to 6.1% = a decline of 0.8%
Maine - 8.0% to 7.4% = a decline of 0.6%
Michigan - 10.9% to 8.5% = a decline of 2.4%
New Mexico - 7.7% to 6.7% = a decline of 1.0%
Oklahoma - 6.2% to 4.8% = a decline of 1.4%
Pennsylvania - 8.0% to 7.4% = a decline of 0.6%
Tennessee - 9.5% to 7.9% = a decline of 1.6%
Wisconsin - 7.7% to 6.8% = a decline of 0.9%
Wyoming - 6.3% to 5.2% = a decline of 1.1%
Alabama - 9.3% to 7.4% = a decline of 1.9%
Georgia - 10.1% to 8.9% = a decline of 1.2%
South Carolina - 10.6% to 9.1% = a decline of 1.5%
South Dakota - 5.0% to 4.3% = a decline of 0.7%
Florida - 10.9% to 8.6% = a decline of 2.3%
Nevada - 13.8% to 11.6% = a decline of 2.2%
Iowa - 6.1% to 5.1% = a decline of 1.0%
Ohio - 9.0% to 7.3% = a decline of 1.7%
On the other hand, the unemployment rate in states that elected Democrats in 2010 dropped, on average, as much as the national rate decline and, in some states such as New York, the unemployment rate has risen since January of 2011.
This is yet another example of how the so-called “blue state” model is not working.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Free political hires...
Why hire more campaign staff, when the teacher will make students work for you for free? Read the original here.
Va. middle-schoolers assigned opposition research on GOP candidates
Published: 1:16 AM 03/22/2012
By Kalyn McMackin - The Daily Caller
A Virginia middle school teacher recently forced his students to support President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign by conducting opposition research in class against the Republican presidential candidates.
The 8th grade students, who attend Liberty Middle School in Fairfax County, were required to seek out the vulnerabilities of Republican presidential hopefuls and forward them to the Obama campaign.
“This assignment was just creepy beyond belief — like something out of East Germany during the Cold War,” one frustrated father, who asked for his family to remain anonymous, told The Daily Caller.
The assignment was for students to research the backgrounds and positions of each of the GOP candidates for president and find “weaknesses” in them, the parent explained. From there, students were to prepare a strategy paper to exploit those weaknesses and then to send their suggestions to the Obama campaign.
Liberty teacher Michael Denman, who declined to comment, unveiled the assignment in mid-January when he broke the Civics Honor’s class into four groups, one for each Republican candidate. The students were then to collaborate as a group and research the backgrounds of their assigned candidate.
Denman assigned two kids to write a paper revealing the identified “weaknesses,” two to write the attack strategy paper and two others to locate an individual inside the Obama campaign to whom they could send the information.
“My classmates don’t actually know a lot, but a few of us tended to agree that the most recent instruction on this project just didn’t seem right,” one of the students told TheDC. “Mr. Denman didn’t tell us where to find the information, just to research on them.”
As a result, the school received multiple phone calls from parents frustrated with the political nature of the assignment, the father told TheDC.
“I was shocked that a school teacher would so blatantly politicize the curriculum of a middle school classroom,” the parent said. “I asked [my child] if a similar assignment had been handed out to examine the background and positions of President Obama to see if the teacher was at least being bipartisan.”
No similar assignment was given to research Obama’s history, identify his weaknesses or pass them along to the Republican candidates.
John Torre, a spokesman on behalf of the Fairfax County Public School system, insists that students were never instructed to actually send their results to the Obama campaign.
“Instead, the teacher simply asked his students to find out the name of the office that would receive such information,” Torre wrote in an email to TheDC.
Torre explained that Principal Dr. Catherine Cipperly, who refused to comment, discussed the matter with Denman, citing that students should have been given a choice to research candidates from either major party.
“The principal advised the teacher that he should emphasize to his students that this assignment was meant to learn a process and not to endorse a particular candidate,” Torre said. “The teacher agreed with the principal’s direction.”
A district policy, which addresses employee political activities, states “employees shall not involve their schools in political campaigns, distribute political literature on school property or attempt to indoctrinate students with their personal political beliefs.”
Despite the rule, Denman’s intention was to exercise “a simulation activity with the intent of teaching students about the research process that a campaign committee goes through prior to an election,” Torre said.
The father, who describes himself as conservative, thought Denman’s behavior went too far and needed to be addressed.
“Teachers acting in such manner need to be called out,” he said. “I have no personal animosity toward the teacher in question at all, but let’s be real.”
In hopes of bringing this to the attention of other public school teachers, this father just wants one thing clear: “Leave politics out of the classroom,” he said. “Present a balanced viewpoint, teaching children to listen to all sides and think for themselves.”
Fairfax County, a suburban area situated across the Potomac River from Washington, D.C., is by far Virginia’s most populous county and among the state’s most liberal. In 2008, Barack Obama won 60 percent of Fairfax County’s presidential votes, compared to just 39 percent for Sen. John McCain.
Follow Kalyn on Twitter
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/22/va-middle-schoolers-assigned-to-do-oppo-research-on-gop-candidates/#ixzz1pwcp15qG
Va. middle-schoolers assigned opposition research on GOP candidates
Published: 1:16 AM 03/22/2012
By Kalyn McMackin - The Daily Caller
A Virginia middle school teacher recently forced his students to support President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign by conducting opposition research in class against the Republican presidential candidates.
The 8th grade students, who attend Liberty Middle School in Fairfax County, were required to seek out the vulnerabilities of Republican presidential hopefuls and forward them to the Obama campaign.
“This assignment was just creepy beyond belief — like something out of East Germany during the Cold War,” one frustrated father, who asked for his family to remain anonymous, told The Daily Caller.
The assignment was for students to research the backgrounds and positions of each of the GOP candidates for president and find “weaknesses” in them, the parent explained. From there, students were to prepare a strategy paper to exploit those weaknesses and then to send their suggestions to the Obama campaign.
Liberty teacher Michael Denman, who declined to comment, unveiled the assignment in mid-January when he broke the Civics Honor’s class into four groups, one for each Republican candidate. The students were then to collaborate as a group and research the backgrounds of their assigned candidate.
Denman assigned two kids to write a paper revealing the identified “weaknesses,” two to write the attack strategy paper and two others to locate an individual inside the Obama campaign to whom they could send the information.
“My classmates don’t actually know a lot, but a few of us tended to agree that the most recent instruction on this project just didn’t seem right,” one of the students told TheDC. “Mr. Denman didn’t tell us where to find the information, just to research on them.”
As a result, the school received multiple phone calls from parents frustrated with the political nature of the assignment, the father told TheDC.
“I was shocked that a school teacher would so blatantly politicize the curriculum of a middle school classroom,” the parent said. “I asked [my child] if a similar assignment had been handed out to examine the background and positions of President Obama to see if the teacher was at least being bipartisan.”
No similar assignment was given to research Obama’s history, identify his weaknesses or pass them along to the Republican candidates.
John Torre, a spokesman on behalf of the Fairfax County Public School system, insists that students were never instructed to actually send their results to the Obama campaign.
“Instead, the teacher simply asked his students to find out the name of the office that would receive such information,” Torre wrote in an email to TheDC.
Torre explained that Principal Dr. Catherine Cipperly, who refused to comment, discussed the matter with Denman, citing that students should have been given a choice to research candidates from either major party.
“The principal advised the teacher that he should emphasize to his students that this assignment was meant to learn a process and not to endorse a particular candidate,” Torre said. “The teacher agreed with the principal’s direction.”
A district policy, which addresses employee political activities, states “employees shall not involve their schools in political campaigns, distribute political literature on school property or attempt to indoctrinate students with their personal political beliefs.”
Despite the rule, Denman’s intention was to exercise “a simulation activity with the intent of teaching students about the research process that a campaign committee goes through prior to an election,” Torre said.
The father, who describes himself as conservative, thought Denman’s behavior went too far and needed to be addressed.
“Teachers acting in such manner need to be called out,” he said. “I have no personal animosity toward the teacher in question at all, but let’s be real.”
In hopes of bringing this to the attention of other public school teachers, this father just wants one thing clear: “Leave politics out of the classroom,” he said. “Present a balanced viewpoint, teaching children to listen to all sides and think for themselves.”
Fairfax County, a suburban area situated across the Potomac River from Washington, D.C., is by far Virginia’s most populous county and among the state’s most liberal. In 2008, Barack Obama won 60 percent of Fairfax County’s presidential votes, compared to just 39 percent for Sen. John McCain.
Follow Kalyn on Twitter
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/22/va-middle-schoolers-assigned-to-do-oppo-research-on-gop-candidates/#ixzz1pwcp15qG
I don't think this is going to help him...
in the Republican primaries....Read the original here.
Might As Well Have Obama Over Romney « CBS DC
March 22, 2012 10:37 PM
SAN ANTONIO (AP) — Presidential candidate Rick Santorum on Thursday said Republicans should give President Barack Obama another term if Santorum isn’t the GOP nominee and for a second day compared rival Mitt Romney to an Etch A Sketch toy.
Santorum reiterated an argument he has made before: The former Massachusetts governor is not conservative enough to offer voters a clear choice in the fall election and that only he can provide that contrast.
“You win by giving people a choice,” Santorum said during a campaign stop in Texas. “You win by giving people the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who’s just going to be a little different than the person in there.”
Santorum added: “If they’re going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk of what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate for the future.”
Santorum was referencing Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom’s comment Wednesday that “everything changes” for the fall campaign. “It’s almost like an Etch A Sketch,” he said on CNN. “You can kind of shake it up and we start all over again.”
The remark reignited criticism of Romney as the type of politician who will say or do anything to win.
Romney, who made no public appearances Thursday, issued a statement expressing disappointment “that Rick Santorum would rather have Barack Obama as president than a Republican.”
“This election is more important than any one person. It is about the future of America,” he said. “Any of the Republicans running would be better than President Obama and his record of failure.”
Rival Newt Gingrich tweeted: “Rick Santorum is dead wrong. Any GOP nominee will be better than Obama.”
During his speech to employees of USAA, a San Antonio-based insurance and financial services firm, Santorum briefly held up an Etch A Sketch and said his positions don’t change like etchings on the toy, which are erased with a shake. He could be seen fiddling with the toy’s knobs in the intervals between questions from audience members.
Addressing reporters afterward, Santorum lit into Romney for saying “I’m going to run as a conservative.”
“He didn’t say ‘I am a conservative.’ He said ‘I’m going to run as a conservative.’ So what do you do, you just sort of decide what you’re going to be for the elections?” Santorum asked. “No one can accuse me of that. People say, ‘Well, you can’t win because of that.’ No, I will win because of it.”
Santorum said his brand of political authenticity will play well in Texas because “people are looking for someone who is real, someone they can relate to, not someone who can get in front of an audience and say whatever they want.”
The Texas primary has been pushed to May 29 because of litigation over redistricting maps drawn by the Republican-dominated state Legislature. Santorum said he expects to win Saturday’s primary in Louisiana and added, “The race will not be over when Texas comes around.”
“You’ll have the opportunity here, in the state of Texas, to speak very loudly about what kind of leader you want in this country,” he said.
Santorum said he speaks with Texas Gov. Rick Perry before scheduled campaign stops in the state. Perry sought the GOP nomination but left the race in January and endorsed former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
“This is an important state for us,” Santorum said. “I’ve already spent a lot of time, I’ve already done a lot of campaign events in Texas. More than anybody else, I suspect.”
(© Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)
Might As Well Have Obama Over Romney « CBS DC
March 22, 2012 10:37 PM
SAN ANTONIO (AP) — Presidential candidate Rick Santorum on Thursday said Republicans should give President Barack Obama another term if Santorum isn’t the GOP nominee and for a second day compared rival Mitt Romney to an Etch A Sketch toy.
Santorum reiterated an argument he has made before: The former Massachusetts governor is not conservative enough to offer voters a clear choice in the fall election and that only he can provide that contrast.
“You win by giving people a choice,” Santorum said during a campaign stop in Texas. “You win by giving people the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who’s just going to be a little different than the person in there.”
Santorum added: “If they’re going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk of what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate for the future.”
Santorum was referencing Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom’s comment Wednesday that “everything changes” for the fall campaign. “It’s almost like an Etch A Sketch,” he said on CNN. “You can kind of shake it up and we start all over again.”
The remark reignited criticism of Romney as the type of politician who will say or do anything to win.
Romney, who made no public appearances Thursday, issued a statement expressing disappointment “that Rick Santorum would rather have Barack Obama as president than a Republican.”
“This election is more important than any one person. It is about the future of America,” he said. “Any of the Republicans running would be better than President Obama and his record of failure.”
Rival Newt Gingrich tweeted: “Rick Santorum is dead wrong. Any GOP nominee will be better than Obama.”
During his speech to employees of USAA, a San Antonio-based insurance and financial services firm, Santorum briefly held up an Etch A Sketch and said his positions don’t change like etchings on the toy, which are erased with a shake. He could be seen fiddling with the toy’s knobs in the intervals between questions from audience members.
Addressing reporters afterward, Santorum lit into Romney for saying “I’m going to run as a conservative.”
“He didn’t say ‘I am a conservative.’ He said ‘I’m going to run as a conservative.’ So what do you do, you just sort of decide what you’re going to be for the elections?” Santorum asked. “No one can accuse me of that. People say, ‘Well, you can’t win because of that.’ No, I will win because of it.”
Santorum said his brand of political authenticity will play well in Texas because “people are looking for someone who is real, someone they can relate to, not someone who can get in front of an audience and say whatever they want.”
The Texas primary has been pushed to May 29 because of litigation over redistricting maps drawn by the Republican-dominated state Legislature. Santorum said he expects to win Saturday’s primary in Louisiana and added, “The race will not be over when Texas comes around.”
“You’ll have the opportunity here, in the state of Texas, to speak very loudly about what kind of leader you want in this country,” he said.
Santorum said he speaks with Texas Gov. Rick Perry before scheduled campaign stops in the state. Perry sought the GOP nomination but left the race in January and endorsed former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
“This is an important state for us,” Santorum said. “I’ve already spent a lot of time, I’ve already done a lot of campaign events in Texas. More than anybody else, I suspect.”
(© Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Debt Crisis Talks update...no real update
Read the original here.
Obama Kills Bipartisan Deal, Then Reid Resorts To Smoke And Mirrors - Right Turn
Jennifer Rubin - Washington Post
As I reported earlier, the president rejected a bipartisan congressional deal that would have calmed the markets, resolved the debt-ceiling crisis and restored faith in Washington politicians. President Obama was having none of it, demonstrating once and for all that the problem is NOT the House Republicans, but the election-obsessed White House.
So then the parties begin to devise separate congressional plans. The Post reports, “Senate Democrats are preparing to introduce legislation that would avert a national default on Aug. 2 and achieve $2.7 trillion in deficit savings over the next decade without raising taxes.”
But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is devising a sham that will never pass muster in the House. A Capitol Hill source with knowledge of the plan tells me: “It includes $1.2 trillion in OCO [Overseas Contingency Operations] savings . . . which was assumed anyway, $1.2 trillion (over $1.1 trillion less than [Majority Leader Eric] Cantor identified in the Biden talks) and $300 billion in interest savings.” A Senate aide says dryly that Reid “has about a trillion in ‘savings’ from ending the war in Iraq that’s already going to end.” And a disgusted House adviser bluntly tells me that Reid’s plan “isn’t real.”
We shouldn’t be too harsh on Reid. HE DID reach a bipartisan deal with the House. But the president squashed it. (Note to Congress: Next time don’t ask, just pass it and leave town.) Now we are back to gamesmanship.
It is extremely telling, however, that Reid’s plan contains NO tax hike. As I suspected, Obama doesn’t have enough support even in his own party (and particularly from Senate Democrats facing reelection) to pass the massive tax increases that he and his liberal base demand. And yet Obama at the last minute in negotiations with the speaker of the House last week threw in $400 billion in more taxes. There could only have been one purpose for that, since the Senate is as tax-hike-averse as the House: to create a crisis. We have finally found the president’s strong suit.
More on this topic in PostOpinions
Obama Kills Bipartisan Deal, Then Reid Resorts To Smoke And Mirrors - Right Turn
Jennifer Rubin - Washington Post
As I reported earlier, the president rejected a bipartisan congressional deal that would have calmed the markets, resolved the debt-ceiling crisis and restored faith in Washington politicians. President Obama was having none of it, demonstrating once and for all that the problem is NOT the House Republicans, but the election-obsessed White House.
So then the parties begin to devise separate congressional plans. The Post reports, “Senate Democrats are preparing to introduce legislation that would avert a national default on Aug. 2 and achieve $2.7 trillion in deficit savings over the next decade without raising taxes.”
But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is devising a sham that will never pass muster in the House. A Capitol Hill source with knowledge of the plan tells me: “It includes $1.2 trillion in OCO [Overseas Contingency Operations] savings . . . which was assumed anyway, $1.2 trillion (over $1.1 trillion less than [Majority Leader Eric] Cantor identified in the Biden talks) and $300 billion in interest savings.” A Senate aide says dryly that Reid “has about a trillion in ‘savings’ from ending the war in Iraq that’s already going to end.” And a disgusted House adviser bluntly tells me that Reid’s plan “isn’t real.”
We shouldn’t be too harsh on Reid. HE DID reach a bipartisan deal with the House. But the president squashed it. (Note to Congress: Next time don’t ask, just pass it and leave town.) Now we are back to gamesmanship.
It is extremely telling, however, that Reid’s plan contains NO tax hike. As I suspected, Obama doesn’t have enough support even in his own party (and particularly from Senate Democrats facing reelection) to pass the massive tax increases that he and his liberal base demand. And yet Obama at the last minute in negotiations with the speaker of the House last week threw in $400 billion in more taxes. There could only have been one purpose for that, since the Senate is as tax-hike-averse as the House: to create a crisis. We have finally found the president’s strong suit.
More on this topic in PostOpinions
Thursday, July 14, 2011
How come I can't just leave meetings I don't like?
Read the original here.
President Obama Abruptly Walks Out Of Talks - Jonathan Allen And Jake Sherman
President Barack Obama abruptly walked out of a stormy debt-limit meeting with congressional leaders Wednesday, a dramatic setback to the already shaky negotiations.
“He shoved back and said ‘I’ll see you tomorrow’ and walked out,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told reporters in the Capitol after the meeting.Continue Reading
On a day when the Moody’s rating agency warned that American debt could be downgraded, the White House talks blew up amid a new round of sniping between Obama and Cantor, who are fast becoming bitter enemies.
When Cantor said the two sides were too far apart to get a deal that could pass the House by the Treasury Department’s Aug. 2 deadline — and that he would consider moving a short-term debt-limit increase alongside smaller spending cuts — Obama began to lecture him.
“Eric, don’t call my bluff,” the president said, warning Cantor that he would take his case “to the American people.” He told Cantor that no other president — not Ronald Reagan, the president said — would sit through such negotiations.
Democratic sources dispute Cantor’s version of Obama’s walk out, but all sides agree that the two had a blow up. The sources described Obama as “impassioned” but said he didn’t exactly storm out of the room.
“Cantor’s account of tonight’s meeting is completely overblown. For someone who knows how to walk out of a meeting, you’d think he’d know it when he saw it,” a Democratic aide said. “Cantor rudely interrupted the president three times to advocate for short-term debt ceiling increases while the president was wrapping the meeting. This is just more juvenile behavior from him and Boehner needs to rein him in, and let the grown-ups get to work.”
On exiting the room, Obama said that “this confirms the totality of what the American people already believe” about Washington, according to a Democratic official familiar with the negotiations, and that officials are “too focused on positioning and political posturing” to make difficult choices.
Cantor insists he never interrupted the president, and was “deferential,” seeking permission to speak.
The latest and sharpest in a series of harsh exchanges between the two leaders heightened concern that markets could crash at any time amid fear of a reduction in the rating on once-ironclad U.S. debt.
Cantor, for his part, delivered the blow-by-blue of his interaction with Obama to a gaggle of Capitol Hill reporters in the Speaker’s Lobby, where lawmakers typically mingle with reporters during votes. It wasn’t through aides — it was Cantor taking on the president, directly.
Cantor accused the president and congressional Democrats of progressively low-balling, over the last several days, the savings that could be achieved from proposals discussed by Vice President Joe Biden’s working group on deficit reduction. Cantor warned that the group has not identified enough cuts to win House passage of a $2.5 trillion debt-limit increase — the size the president says is needed to get through the 2012 election, sources told POLITICO.
Obama told Cantor that he would either have to agree to tax increases or give up on his demand that the debt hike be matched dollar-to-dollar to the cuts — that is, $2.5 trillion in deficit-reduction over 10 years in exchange for a $2.5 trillion hike in the debt ceiling.
He said that the negotiators should return to the White House Thursday to discuss savings from health care programs, budget caps and options for raising revenue.
“Then he said we also ought to get in the mode here, because we’re going to have to decide by Friday which way we’re going,” Cantor said. “He said really we ought to all start to think about things we can do rather than things we can’t.”
That’s when Cantor said he would be willing to abandon his own insistence on having just one vote on the debt ceiling if they could agree to a smaller package of cuts in exchange for a shorter-term hike that would require another increase before the 2012 election.Continue Reading
But Obama said he wouldn’t do the debt-limit increase incrementally and that he would veto a short-term bill.
“That’s when he got very agitated,” Cantor told reporters.
“Obama lit him up. Cantor sat in stunned silence,” said an official in the meeting. “It was incredible. If the public saw Obama he would win in a landslide.”
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said no progress was made in the Wednesday talks.
“The president is spending a lot of time and effort to get us to an agreement, and it is tough,” Hoyer said.
Cantor said he’s trying to inform the group of what House members will agree to pass.
“I’m trying to represent where the votes are in the House. and we’ve always said the votes in the House are consistent with the principles that the speaker’s laid out that we’ve been operating on,” Cantor said. “It is dollar-for-dollar match, it is the no tax increase and it is this other subject that we are discussing tomorrow the enforcement mechanisms … I understand why he’s frustrated. But again, we’re trying to get this thing done, and that’s why I was a little taken aback.”
Despite the president’s abrupt exit, Democratic officials pointed to signs of progress. Officials on Wednesday for the first time reviewed a series of proposed spending cuts. Obama has offered $1.7 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years, and the parties have agreed in principle on roughly $1.5 trillion of those, officials said.
The agenda Thursday will focus on revenue — the touchiest subject of all for Republicans — and mandatory health programs.
On Friday, Obama wants an assessment of where the process stands, Democratic officials said. Of significant concern is the calendar, and the ability to get everything done in time to avert a crisis. It was unclear whether a lack of agreement by Friday was any sort of dealbreaker, or what consequences might be attached to that assessment.
“We are not miles apart here,” said one Democratic official familiar with the debt talks. “It’s sitting right in front of them.”
Julie Mason, John Bresnahan and Carrie Budoff Brown contributed to this story.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58937.html#ixzz1S5Mtvjrj
President Obama Abruptly Walks Out Of Talks - Jonathan Allen And Jake Sherman
President Barack Obama abruptly walked out of a stormy debt-limit meeting with congressional leaders Wednesday, a dramatic setback to the already shaky negotiations.
“He shoved back and said ‘I’ll see you tomorrow’ and walked out,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told reporters in the Capitol after the meeting.Continue Reading
On a day when the Moody’s rating agency warned that American debt could be downgraded, the White House talks blew up amid a new round of sniping between Obama and Cantor, who are fast becoming bitter enemies.
When Cantor said the two sides were too far apart to get a deal that could pass the House by the Treasury Department’s Aug. 2 deadline — and that he would consider moving a short-term debt-limit increase alongside smaller spending cuts — Obama began to lecture him.
“Eric, don’t call my bluff,” the president said, warning Cantor that he would take his case “to the American people.” He told Cantor that no other president — not Ronald Reagan, the president said — would sit through such negotiations.
Democratic sources dispute Cantor’s version of Obama’s walk out, but all sides agree that the two had a blow up. The sources described Obama as “impassioned” but said he didn’t exactly storm out of the room.
“Cantor’s account of tonight’s meeting is completely overblown. For someone who knows how to walk out of a meeting, you’d think he’d know it when he saw it,” a Democratic aide said. “Cantor rudely interrupted the president three times to advocate for short-term debt ceiling increases while the president was wrapping the meeting. This is just more juvenile behavior from him and Boehner needs to rein him in, and let the grown-ups get to work.”
On exiting the room, Obama said that “this confirms the totality of what the American people already believe” about Washington, according to a Democratic official familiar with the negotiations, and that officials are “too focused on positioning and political posturing” to make difficult choices.
Cantor insists he never interrupted the president, and was “deferential,” seeking permission to speak.
The latest and sharpest in a series of harsh exchanges between the two leaders heightened concern that markets could crash at any time amid fear of a reduction in the rating on once-ironclad U.S. debt.
Cantor, for his part, delivered the blow-by-blue of his interaction with Obama to a gaggle of Capitol Hill reporters in the Speaker’s Lobby, where lawmakers typically mingle with reporters during votes. It wasn’t through aides — it was Cantor taking on the president, directly.
Cantor accused the president and congressional Democrats of progressively low-balling, over the last several days, the savings that could be achieved from proposals discussed by Vice President Joe Biden’s working group on deficit reduction. Cantor warned that the group has not identified enough cuts to win House passage of a $2.5 trillion debt-limit increase — the size the president says is needed to get through the 2012 election, sources told POLITICO.
Obama told Cantor that he would either have to agree to tax increases or give up on his demand that the debt hike be matched dollar-to-dollar to the cuts — that is, $2.5 trillion in deficit-reduction over 10 years in exchange for a $2.5 trillion hike in the debt ceiling.
He said that the negotiators should return to the White House Thursday to discuss savings from health care programs, budget caps and options for raising revenue.
“Then he said we also ought to get in the mode here, because we’re going to have to decide by Friday which way we’re going,” Cantor said. “He said really we ought to all start to think about things we can do rather than things we can’t.”
That’s when Cantor said he would be willing to abandon his own insistence on having just one vote on the debt ceiling if they could agree to a smaller package of cuts in exchange for a shorter-term hike that would require another increase before the 2012 election.Continue Reading
But Obama said he wouldn’t do the debt-limit increase incrementally and that he would veto a short-term bill.
“That’s when he got very agitated,” Cantor told reporters.
“Obama lit him up. Cantor sat in stunned silence,” said an official in the meeting. “It was incredible. If the public saw Obama he would win in a landslide.”
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said no progress was made in the Wednesday talks.
“The president is spending a lot of time and effort to get us to an agreement, and it is tough,” Hoyer said.
Cantor said he’s trying to inform the group of what House members will agree to pass.
“I’m trying to represent where the votes are in the House. and we’ve always said the votes in the House are consistent with the principles that the speaker’s laid out that we’ve been operating on,” Cantor said. “It is dollar-for-dollar match, it is the no tax increase and it is this other subject that we are discussing tomorrow the enforcement mechanisms … I understand why he’s frustrated. But again, we’re trying to get this thing done, and that’s why I was a little taken aback.”
Despite the president’s abrupt exit, Democratic officials pointed to signs of progress. Officials on Wednesday for the first time reviewed a series of proposed spending cuts. Obama has offered $1.7 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years, and the parties have agreed in principle on roughly $1.5 trillion of those, officials said.
The agenda Thursday will focus on revenue — the touchiest subject of all for Republicans — and mandatory health programs.
On Friday, Obama wants an assessment of where the process stands, Democratic officials said. Of significant concern is the calendar, and the ability to get everything done in time to avert a crisis. It was unclear whether a lack of agreement by Friday was any sort of dealbreaker, or what consequences might be attached to that assessment.
“We are not miles apart here,” said one Democratic official familiar with the debt talks. “It’s sitting right in front of them.”
Julie Mason, John Bresnahan and Carrie Budoff Brown contributed to this story.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58937.html#ixzz1S5Mtvjrj
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Huntsman One Step Closer to Running « Hot Air
Read the original here.
Huntsman One Step Closer To Running « Hot Air
Jon Huntsman got another dose of White House love at the correspondents dinner this weekend when the president referred to him as, “my buddy, Jon.” While it’s always nice to have friends, that’s probably one friendship the ambassador could do without, particularly since he has now formed his own exploratory committee[1] for a run to take his old boss’s job.
Former U.S. Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman took his first step toward a presidential run Tuesday, creating a federal political action committee that will allow him to travel and raise money in the weeks before he’s expected to formally announce a bid.
Moving swiftly since his return to Washington from Beijing Friday, Huntsman filed paperwork with the Federal Election Committee to begin “H PAC.” In the event he runs, the organization will be the last placeholder before he announces a full-blown campaign.
File this one away as yet another of the worst kept secrets in DC. Of course, as we’ve already seen with other expected candidates like Haley Barbour, setting up your PAC and exploratory committee doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re going to announce. Huntsman still has several very steep hills to climb.
First of all, his name recognition is still essentially zilch outside of political wonk circles. In the recent “dark horse poll[2]” we referenced here previously, even if you take out all of the front runners, Huntsman still only rings up 3% support. The vast majority of the country still hasn’t even heard of him.
Further, if the responses of the Hot Air community in various polls here are anything to judge by, the base is looking for a confrontational warrior who is ready to take Obama on in an aggressive fashion. Taking a job working for the guy these past couple years doesn’t precisely lend itself to that kind of image coming out of the gate.
But yet again, it’s important to remember that we’re still very early in the process. If Huntsman can raise some serious cash, build a national team and start introducing himself to the general public, who knows? He seems to be a fairly charismatic figure with solid resume, but we’ll have to hear a lot more from him before he’ll have a chance at making the sale.
References
^ formed his own exploratory committee (www.politico.com)
^ dark horse poll (race42012.com)
^ formed his own exploratory committee (www.politico.com)
^ dark horse poll (race42012.com)
Huntsman One Step Closer To Running « Hot Air
Jon Huntsman got another dose of White House love at the correspondents dinner this weekend when the president referred to him as, “my buddy, Jon.” While it’s always nice to have friends, that’s probably one friendship the ambassador could do without, particularly since he has now formed his own exploratory committee[1] for a run to take his old boss’s job.
Former U.S. Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman took his first step toward a presidential run Tuesday, creating a federal political action committee that will allow him to travel and raise money in the weeks before he’s expected to formally announce a bid.
Moving swiftly since his return to Washington from Beijing Friday, Huntsman filed paperwork with the Federal Election Committee to begin “H PAC.” In the event he runs, the organization will be the last placeholder before he announces a full-blown campaign.
File this one away as yet another of the worst kept secrets in DC. Of course, as we’ve already seen with other expected candidates like Haley Barbour, setting up your PAC and exploratory committee doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re going to announce. Huntsman still has several very steep hills to climb.
First of all, his name recognition is still essentially zilch outside of political wonk circles. In the recent “dark horse poll[2]” we referenced here previously, even if you take out all of the front runners, Huntsman still only rings up 3% support. The vast majority of the country still hasn’t even heard of him.
Further, if the responses of the Hot Air community in various polls here are anything to judge by, the base is looking for a confrontational warrior who is ready to take Obama on in an aggressive fashion. Taking a job working for the guy these past couple years doesn’t precisely lend itself to that kind of image coming out of the gate.
But yet again, it’s important to remember that we’re still very early in the process. If Huntsman can raise some serious cash, build a national team and start introducing himself to the general public, who knows? He seems to be a fairly charismatic figure with solid resume, but we’ll have to hear a lot more from him before he’ll have a chance at making the sale.
References
^ formed his own exploratory committee (www.politico.com)
^ dark horse poll (race42012.com)
^ formed his own exploratory committee (www.politico.com)
^ dark horse poll (race42012.com)
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
WaPo declares Obama a Republican...
...and loses all relevance as a news media organization. Read the original here.
WaPo's Ezra Klein: Obama's Not A Socialist, He's A 'Moderate Republican'
Liberals are always trying to place themselves in the center. Washington Post business columnist Ezra Klein[1] tried out the old saw on Tuesday that just as Bill Clinton described himself pejoratively as an "Eisenhower Republican," Barack Obama isn’t a socialist, he’s a moderate Republican of the George H.W. Bush era:
Perhaps this is just the logical endpoint of two years spent arguing over what Barack Obama is — or isn’t. Muslim. Socialist. Marxist. Anti-colonialist. Racial healer. We’ve obsessed over every answer except the right one: President Obama, if you look closely at his positions, is a moderate Republican of the early 1990s. And the Republican Party he’s facing has abandoned many of its best ideas in its effort to oppose him.
If you put aside the emergency measures required by the financial crisis, three major policy ideas have dominated American politics in recent years: a plan that uses an individual mandate and tax subsidies to achieve near-universal health care; a cap-and-trade plan that attempts to raise the prices of environmental pollutants to better account for their costs; and bringing tax rates up from their Bush-era lows as part of a bid to reduce the deficit. In each case, the position that Obama and the Democrats have staked out is the very position that moderate Republicans have staked out before.
Klein has a huge "but" in this theory – if you leave out the massive stimulus program and TARP and taking over the auto industry, he’s not a socialist. But he argues that Republicans in the 1990s used to propose an individual mandate for health care, some form of a market-based "cap and trade" system, and the tax-hiking 1990 budget deal, and then claims it's the Republicans who are headed for the fringes.
It’s true that moderate Republicans were looking for compromise bills in attempts to stave off ultraliberal Clinton proposals like HillaryCare. It's true that moderates like John McCain proposed a "cap and trade" system in his 2008 campaign. But conservatives haven’t moved to the right on these issues – they were always on the right on these issues. Obama would look more like a moderate Republican if he’d infuriated his liberal base and actually made deals with Republicans on these issues – as he did on extending the Bush tax cuts. But he passed ObamaCare by stiff-arming Republicans and couldn’t get "cap and trade" to go anywhere in a Democrat-controlled Senate.
Klein argued that usually a party changes its stance because policies don’t work – as if that’s ever stopped liberals. He argues that these "moderate Republican" ideas were hugely successful, from Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts health care plan to the Clean Air Act of 1990, and "The 1990 budget deal helped cut the deficit and set the stage for a remarkable run of growth."
Klein is completely ignoring statistical reality [2]on that last claim, at least in the first few years. The deficit in Fiscal Year 1989 (which began under President Reagan) was $152 billion, and then it rose to $221 billion in Fiscal 1990. So how did the budget deal "help" cut the deficit? In 1991 and 1992, the deficits set record highs – $269 billion and $290 billion.
Remember that when pundits start talking like "moderate Republicans" on today's budget and insisting they'll raise taxes but get "two dollars of spending cuts for every dollar of tax hike." That's not the way government spenders operate.
References
^ Ezra Klein (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ statistical reality (www.cbo.gov)
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2011/04/26/wapos-ezra-klein-obamas-not-socialist-hes-moderate-republican#ixzz1KeSQ7slI
WaPo's Ezra Klein: Obama's Not A Socialist, He's A 'Moderate Republican'
Liberals are always trying to place themselves in the center. Washington Post business columnist Ezra Klein[1] tried out the old saw on Tuesday that just as Bill Clinton described himself pejoratively as an "Eisenhower Republican," Barack Obama isn’t a socialist, he’s a moderate Republican of the George H.W. Bush era:
Perhaps this is just the logical endpoint of two years spent arguing over what Barack Obama is — or isn’t. Muslim. Socialist. Marxist. Anti-colonialist. Racial healer. We’ve obsessed over every answer except the right one: President Obama, if you look closely at his positions, is a moderate Republican of the early 1990s. And the Republican Party he’s facing has abandoned many of its best ideas in its effort to oppose him.
If you put aside the emergency measures required by the financial crisis, three major policy ideas have dominated American politics in recent years: a plan that uses an individual mandate and tax subsidies to achieve near-universal health care; a cap-and-trade plan that attempts to raise the prices of environmental pollutants to better account for their costs; and bringing tax rates up from their Bush-era lows as part of a bid to reduce the deficit. In each case, the position that Obama and the Democrats have staked out is the very position that moderate Republicans have staked out before.
Klein has a huge "but" in this theory – if you leave out the massive stimulus program and TARP and taking over the auto industry, he’s not a socialist. But he argues that Republicans in the 1990s used to propose an individual mandate for health care, some form of a market-based "cap and trade" system, and the tax-hiking 1990 budget deal, and then claims it's the Republicans who are headed for the fringes.
It’s true that moderate Republicans were looking for compromise bills in attempts to stave off ultraliberal Clinton proposals like HillaryCare. It's true that moderates like John McCain proposed a "cap and trade" system in his 2008 campaign. But conservatives haven’t moved to the right on these issues – they were always on the right on these issues. Obama would look more like a moderate Republican if he’d infuriated his liberal base and actually made deals with Republicans on these issues – as he did on extending the Bush tax cuts. But he passed ObamaCare by stiff-arming Republicans and couldn’t get "cap and trade" to go anywhere in a Democrat-controlled Senate.
Klein argued that usually a party changes its stance because policies don’t work – as if that’s ever stopped liberals. He argues that these "moderate Republican" ideas were hugely successful, from Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts health care plan to the Clean Air Act of 1990, and "The 1990 budget deal helped cut the deficit and set the stage for a remarkable run of growth."
Klein is completely ignoring statistical reality [2]on that last claim, at least in the first few years. The deficit in Fiscal Year 1989 (which began under President Reagan) was $152 billion, and then it rose to $221 billion in Fiscal 1990. So how did the budget deal "help" cut the deficit? In 1991 and 1992, the deficits set record highs – $269 billion and $290 billion.
Remember that when pundits start talking like "moderate Republicans" on today's budget and insisting they'll raise taxes but get "two dollars of spending cuts for every dollar of tax hike." That's not the way government spenders operate.
References
^ Ezra Klein (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ statistical reality (www.cbo.gov)
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2011/04/26/wapos-ezra-klein-obamas-not-socialist-hes-moderate-republican#ixzz1KeSQ7slI
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
President scolds Congressional Leaders
Read the original here.
Barack Obama: Time To Act Like 'Grown-Ups' - Glenn Thrush And MJ Lee
President Barack Obama on Tuesday called on congressional leaders – especially Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) – to act like “grown-ups” and avert a government shutdown after they made no apparent progress[1] in reaching a budget agreement at a White House meeting earlier in the day.
Obama, in a surprise appearance[2] at the daily White House press briefing, underscored his direct involvement in the process – after weeks of publicly staying on the sidelines — and promised round-the-clock talks to stave off the shutdown that could occur on Friday.Continue Reading[3]
And he rejected[4] a Republican proposal to enact a third short-term spending deal — unless it’s a technical “paperwork” bridge to a larger bipartisan agreement.
Obama said lawmakers need to “act like grownups” and get a deal done, claiming “we have more than met the Republicans half way,” by agreeing to $73 billion in cuts from his 2011 budget - a number originally proposed by Boehner.
“We are now closer than we’ve ever been in getting an agreement,” Obama said, holding his thumb and forefinger an inch apart.
Obama, who left open the possibility of postponing a planned Wednesday trip to Philadelphia to directly participate in talks, added: “There are some things we can’t control… like earthquakes and tsunamis… What we can control is our capacity to have a reasoned, fair conversation between the parties.”
The president said his meeting with Boehner and legislative leaders Tuesday morning was productive but the speaker rejected the idea that the two sides had reached a deal.
“I think the American people recognize we are in some pretty unsettled times right now, we don’t have times for games, we don’t have time for trying to score political points and maneuvering… Not on this.”
For his part, Boehner said the meeting went well, but told reporters that the two sides weren’t close to a deal, citing the nature and size of the cuts proposed by the White House.
“Despite attempts by Democrats to lock in a number among themselves, I’ve made clear that their $33 billion is not enough,” he said in a statement, referring to the amount of real cuts proposed by Democrats.
Boehner blasted Obama’s proposal as “smokes and mirrors” and has suggested the White House accept a new one-week extension with a year-long guarantee for military spending.
Boehner and Reid will meet later today – and have asked for administration officials to stay away, Obama said.
“The speaker apparently didn’t want our team involved in that discussion,” he added. “That’s fine. If they can sort it out, then we’ve got more than enough to do. If they can’t sort it out then, I want them back here tomorrow. But it would be inexcusable for us to not be able to take care of last year’s business.”
Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck contested Obama’s account of the the afternoon meeting.
“The Speaker never said he didn’t want the White House there, just that he wanted to meet with Senator Reid,” he said. “Speaker Boehner and Senator Reid have been having regular discussions on this topic for weeks. This is just one of those occasions.
Federal agencies have begun making contingency plans for a possible shut down and Obama laid out several functions that would stop if the government shuts down, including some veterans’ benefits, small business loans and national parks and monuments.
He quipped that lawmakers have “enough of a cushion” that is not available to other Americans.
Matt Negrin contributed to this report.
References
^ no apparent progress (www.politico.com)
^ surprise appearance (www.politico.com)
^ Continue Reading (www.politico.com)
^ he rejected (www.politico.com)
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52593.html#ixzz1IkSQPsNC
Barack Obama: Time To Act Like 'Grown-Ups' - Glenn Thrush And MJ Lee
President Barack Obama on Tuesday called on congressional leaders – especially Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) – to act like “grown-ups” and avert a government shutdown after they made no apparent progress[1] in reaching a budget agreement at a White House meeting earlier in the day.
Obama, in a surprise appearance[2] at the daily White House press briefing, underscored his direct involvement in the process – after weeks of publicly staying on the sidelines — and promised round-the-clock talks to stave off the shutdown that could occur on Friday.Continue Reading[3]
And he rejected[4] a Republican proposal to enact a third short-term spending deal — unless it’s a technical “paperwork” bridge to a larger bipartisan agreement.
Obama said lawmakers need to “act like grownups” and get a deal done, claiming “we have more than met the Republicans half way,” by agreeing to $73 billion in cuts from his 2011 budget - a number originally proposed by Boehner.
“We are now closer than we’ve ever been in getting an agreement,” Obama said, holding his thumb and forefinger an inch apart.
Obama, who left open the possibility of postponing a planned Wednesday trip to Philadelphia to directly participate in talks, added: “There are some things we can’t control… like earthquakes and tsunamis… What we can control is our capacity to have a reasoned, fair conversation between the parties.”
The president said his meeting with Boehner and legislative leaders Tuesday morning was productive but the speaker rejected the idea that the two sides had reached a deal.
“I think the American people recognize we are in some pretty unsettled times right now, we don’t have times for games, we don’t have time for trying to score political points and maneuvering… Not on this.”
For his part, Boehner said the meeting went well, but told reporters that the two sides weren’t close to a deal, citing the nature and size of the cuts proposed by the White House.
“Despite attempts by Democrats to lock in a number among themselves, I’ve made clear that their $33 billion is not enough,” he said in a statement, referring to the amount of real cuts proposed by Democrats.
Boehner blasted Obama’s proposal as “smokes and mirrors” and has suggested the White House accept a new one-week extension with a year-long guarantee for military spending.
Boehner and Reid will meet later today – and have asked for administration officials to stay away, Obama said.
“The speaker apparently didn’t want our team involved in that discussion,” he added. “That’s fine. If they can sort it out, then we’ve got more than enough to do. If they can’t sort it out then, I want them back here tomorrow. But it would be inexcusable for us to not be able to take care of last year’s business.”
Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck contested Obama’s account of the the afternoon meeting.
“The Speaker never said he didn’t want the White House there, just that he wanted to meet with Senator Reid,” he said. “Speaker Boehner and Senator Reid have been having regular discussions on this topic for weeks. This is just one of those occasions.
Federal agencies have begun making contingency plans for a possible shut down and Obama laid out several functions that would stop if the government shuts down, including some veterans’ benefits, small business loans and national parks and monuments.
He quipped that lawmakers have “enough of a cushion” that is not available to other Americans.
Matt Negrin contributed to this report.
References
^ no apparent progress (www.politico.com)
^ surprise appearance (www.politico.com)
^ Continue Reading (www.politico.com)
^ he rejected (www.politico.com)
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52593.html#ixzz1IkSQPsNC
Friday, March 25, 2011
Who deserves freedom in this country?
… The Republicans in Congress claim they’re concerned about the budget balance, but it’s a disguise! It’s not true! It’s a lie! That’s not what they want. They want — they want other people not to be able to have their own opinions. They don’t deserve the freedoms that are in the Constitution! But we’ll give it to them anyway.
-Sen. Frank Lautenberg, 3/22/2011
-Sen. Frank Lautenberg, 3/22/2011
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Confidence in US Govt drops to 35 year low
Hope and Change.
Read the original article here.
Most Americans take the middle ground in deficit-reduction: A substantial 64 percent say the best way to trim the deficit is with a combination of spending cuts and tax increases, rather than just cutting spending (31 percent, down 5 points from December) or only raising taxes (3 percent).
OBAMA -- Obama, in all, is holding up fairly well. His job approval rating stands at 51 percent, with 45 percent disapproving -- probably about as good as it can get in this kind of economy. The president's rating exactly matches his average in more than a dozen ABC/Post polls since December 2009, when the first bloom of his presidency faded.
In addition to his advantage over the Republicans in trust to handle the economy (12 points) and the deficit (9 points), Obama holds a 7-point edge in trust to handle "protecting the rights of working people," a potential area of differentiation given the controversy over the bargaining rights of unionized state employees.
He also leads the Republicans on two empathy measures: by 12 points in better understanding the economic problems people in the country are having, and by a scant 5 points in better representing "your own personal values."
There are still substantial negatives for the president. In addition to his 55 percent disapproval on the economy and the deficit, just 28 percent of Americans say they think the economic stimulus package actually helped the economy, the fewest to say so since June 2009. It's a central and sharp criticism of a president elected above all to turn the economy around.
CONGRESS/GOP -- Congress overall, meanwhile, is laboring under just a 27 percent approval rating; it's received less than 30 percent approval continuously since July 2008, its longest run that low in polling data since 1974.
For their part, the Republicans, as noted, are seen as having a stronger leadership role in Washington, at 46 percent to Obama's 39 percent. That compares with as essentially even split in December. It's much weaker than the leadership roles ascribed to congressional Democrats over Bush in early 2007, or to congressional Republicans over Bill Clinton in 1995; that may be because the out-party in those cases won both houses of Congress, not just one.TWO KAHUNAS -- Ultimately, the big kahuna in U.S. politics long has been the economy, and as noted, more than half of Americans, 53 percent, say it's not yet begun to recover; 46 percent think recovery has begun. While that's not great, it's better than it's been: The number who see economic improvement has risen by 12 points since October.
People who think the economy is improving are 20 points more apt than those who don't to express optimism about the country's system of government. That suggests that further perceived economic improvement would do much to ease the public's long-running snit.
But there are two clear risks: One, the pain of gas prices. And two, simmering discontent with the war in Afghanistan. The irony for Obama would be to turn the corner on the economy, just as unhappiness with the war reaches full boil.
METHODOLOGY -- This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone March 10-13, 2011, among a random national sample of 1,005 adults, including landline and cell-phone-only respondents. Results have a margin of sampling error[5] of 3.5 points.
The survey was produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates[6] of New York, N.Y, with sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS of Horsham, Pa.
Read the original article here.
ABC News-Washington Post Poll: Confidence in Government Falls to New Low
Confidence in the U.S. system of government has dropped to a new low in more than 35 years, with public attitudes burdened by continued economic discontent, soaring gasoline prices[1], record opposition to the war in Afghanistan[2] -- and a letdown in hopes for political progress after a bout of bipartisanship last fall.
Only 26 percent of Americans in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll say they're optimistic about "our system of government and how well it works," down 7 points since October to the fewest in surveys dating to 1974. Almost as many, 23 percent, are pessimistic, the closest these measures ever have come. The rest, a record high, are "uncertain" about the system.
The causes are many. Despite a significant advance, more than half still say the economy has not yet begun to recover. And there's trouble at the pump: Seventy-one percent in this poll, produced for ABC News byLanger Research Associates[3], report financial hardship as a result of rising gas prices. Forty-four percent call it a "serious" hardship.
Click Here for PDF With Charts and Questionnaire[4]
WAR -- On an equally critical front in terms of potential political impact, just 31 percent now say the war in Afghanistan has been worth fighting, a new low. Sixty-four percent call it not worth fighting, and 49 percent feel that way "strongly," both record highs in ABC/Post polls.
Two-to-one opposition for the first time puts public criticism of the war in Afghanistan at the level seen for the war in Iraq. Such views had a devastating impact on President George W. Bush, the least popular second-term president in polls since the Truman presidency. And there's danger ahead; fighting in Afghanistan, now in its winter lull, is expected to intensify come summer.
Indeed, with Gen. David Petraeus set to testify on Capitol Hill this week, a broad and bipartisan 73 percent of Americans say the United States should withdraw a substantial number of its combat forces from Afghanistan this summer. But just 39 percent think it will. (ABC News reported Monday that field commanders in fact are asking for more troops, and a senior official called a sizable reduction unlikely despite the administration's July 11 date for a drawdown to begin.)
The causes are many. Despite a significant advance, more than half still say the economy has not yet begun to recover. And there's trouble at the pump: Seventy-one percent in this poll, produced for ABC News byLanger Research Associates[3], report financial hardship as a result of rising gas prices. Forty-four percent call it a "serious" hardship.
Click Here for PDF With Charts and Questionnaire[4]
WAR -- On an equally critical front in terms of potential political impact, just 31 percent now say the war in Afghanistan has been worth fighting, a new low. Sixty-four percent call it not worth fighting, and 49 percent feel that way "strongly," both record highs in ABC/Post polls.
Two-to-one opposition for the first time puts public criticism of the war in Afghanistan at the level seen for the war in Iraq. Such views had a devastating impact on President George W. Bush, the least popular second-term president in polls since the Truman presidency. And there's danger ahead; fighting in Afghanistan, now in its winter lull, is expected to intensify come summer.
Indeed, with Gen. David Petraeus set to testify on Capitol Hill this week, a broad and bipartisan 73 percent of Americans say the United States should withdraw a substantial number of its combat forces from Afghanistan this summer. But just 39 percent think it will. (ABC News reported Monday that field commanders in fact are asking for more troops, and a senior official called a sizable reduction unlikely despite the administration's July 11 date for a drawdown to begin.)
§
POLITICS -- In politics, many Americans appear to regard President Obama and the Republicans in Congress as a choice between a rock and a hard place.
On one hand, 55 percent disapprove of Obama's handling of the economy and budget deficit alike. On the other, Republicans have lost ground in public trust to deal with both issues, now trailing Obama by 12- and 9-point margins, respectively.
Preference for the Republicans on both those issues has declined by 11 points since December, a comedown from the sentiment that lifted the party to its midterm success. More Americans now see the GOP as taking the stronger leadership role in Washington; the results on trust show how that position can carry a price
The drop in trust to handle the economy has occurred chiefly among independents, now drawing away from the GOP after rallying to its side.
As recently as January, 42 percent of independents preferred the Republicans in Congress over Obama to handle the economy. Today just 29 percent say the same, and there's been a rise in the number who volunteer that they don't trust either side.
BUDGET -- Perceived non-cooperation on the budget deficit is one problem for the Republicans in Congress. Seventy-one percent say the GOP is not willing enough to compromise with Obama on the deficit; that even includes 42 percent of Republicans. Fifty-two percent overall also say Obama isn't willing enough to compromise -- still a majority, but a substantially smaller one. (Indeed, 30 percent call Obama "too willing" to make peace; half as many say that about the GOP.)
It follows that on another measure, the public by a 14-point margin says it's more apt to hold the Republicans than Obama responsible if the budget impasse forces a partial government shutdown. (Then again, three in 10 also say a partial shutdown would be a good thing.)
There's a close division on another basic element of the debate: By 45-41 percent, Americans split on whether large reductions in the budget would do more to cut jobs or create them.
The public also divides essentially evenly, 43-42 percent, on another measure -- which side, Obama or the Republicans, they trust more to find the right balance between keeping government spending that is needed, and cutting spending that's not needed.
Preference for the Republicans on both those issues has declined by 11 points since December, a comedown from the sentiment that lifted the party to its midterm success. More Americans now see the GOP as taking the stronger leadership role in Washington; the results on trust show how that position can carry a price
The drop in trust to handle the economy has occurred chiefly among independents, now drawing away from the GOP after rallying to its side.
As recently as January, 42 percent of independents preferred the Republicans in Congress over Obama to handle the economy. Today just 29 percent say the same, and there's been a rise in the number who volunteer that they don't trust either side.
BUDGET -- Perceived non-cooperation on the budget deficit is one problem for the Republicans in Congress. Seventy-one percent say the GOP is not willing enough to compromise with Obama on the deficit; that even includes 42 percent of Republicans. Fifty-two percent overall also say Obama isn't willing enough to compromise -- still a majority, but a substantially smaller one. (Indeed, 30 percent call Obama "too willing" to make peace; half as many say that about the GOP.)
It follows that on another measure, the public by a 14-point margin says it's more apt to hold the Republicans than Obama responsible if the budget impasse forces a partial government shutdown. (Then again, three in 10 also say a partial shutdown would be a good thing.)
There's a close division on another basic element of the debate: By 45-41 percent, Americans split on whether large reductions in the budget would do more to cut jobs or create them.
The public also divides essentially evenly, 43-42 percent, on another measure -- which side, Obama or the Republicans, they trust more to find the right balance between keeping government spending that is needed, and cutting spending that's not needed.
§
OBAMA -- Obama, in all, is holding up fairly well. His job approval rating stands at 51 percent, with 45 percent disapproving -- probably about as good as it can get in this kind of economy. The president's rating exactly matches his average in more than a dozen ABC/Post polls since December 2009, when the first bloom of his presidency faded.
In addition to his advantage over the Republicans in trust to handle the economy (12 points) and the deficit (9 points), Obama holds a 7-point edge in trust to handle "protecting the rights of working people," a potential area of differentiation given the controversy over the bargaining rights of unionized state employees.
He also leads the Republicans on two empathy measures: by 12 points in better understanding the economic problems people in the country are having, and by a scant 5 points in better representing "your own personal values."
There are still substantial negatives for the president. In addition to his 55 percent disapproval on the economy and the deficit, just 28 percent of Americans say they think the economic stimulus package actually helped the economy, the fewest to say so since June 2009. It's a central and sharp criticism of a president elected above all to turn the economy around.
CONGRESS/GOP -- Congress overall, meanwhile, is laboring under just a 27 percent approval rating; it's received less than 30 percent approval continuously since July 2008, its longest run that low in polling data since 1974.
For their part, the Republicans, as noted, are seen as having a stronger leadership role in Washington, at 46 percent to Obama's 39 percent. That compares with as essentially even split in December. It's much weaker than the leadership roles ascribed to congressional Democrats over Bush in early 2007, or to congressional Republicans over Bill Clinton in 1995; that may be because the out-party in those cases won both houses of Congress, not just one.
§
People who think the economy is improving are 20 points more apt than those who don't to express optimism about the country's system of government. That suggests that further perceived economic improvement would do much to ease the public's long-running snit.
But there are two clear risks: One, the pain of gas prices. And two, simmering discontent with the war in Afghanistan. The irony for Obama would be to turn the corner on the economy, just as unhappiness with the war reaches full boil.
METHODOLOGY -- This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone March 10-13, 2011, among a random national sample of 1,005 adults, including landline and cell-phone-only respondents. Results have a margin of sampling error[5] of 3.5 points.
The survey was produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates[6] of New York, N.Y, with sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS of Horsham, Pa.
References
- ^ gasoline prices (abcnews.go.com)
- ^ war in Afghanistan (blogs.abcnews.com)
- ^ Langer Research Associates (www.langerresearch.com)
- ^ Click Here for PDF With Charts and Questionnaire (www.langerresearch.com)
- ^ sampling error (abcnews.go.com)
- ^ Langer Research Associates (www.langerresearch.com)
Friday, November 30, 2007
CNN Republican Debate
Regarding the controversy over the unscreened (and biased) questioners on the CNN Republican debate Wednesday night, my quick pair of pennies:
1¢: I tend to value the substance of the question more than the questioner. I like that they faced hard questions, although I wished that when the Democrats debated in the same format, they had the same quality questions.
2¢: My understanding of this debate's format was that these were supposed to be members of the American Public at the very least, preferentially undecided likely Republican voters and caucus goers. Instead, we get questions from activists in CAIR, LGBT Americans for Hillary, United Steelworkers of America, and about another half dozen groups. This should not have been the "CNN/Special Interest Debate." We already have too many problems in this country with special interests, we don't need CNN giving them special access to Presidential candidates.
1¢: I tend to value the substance of the question more than the questioner. I like that they faced hard questions, although I wished that when the Democrats debated in the same format, they had the same quality questions.
2¢: My understanding of this debate's format was that these were supposed to be members of the American Public at the very least, preferentially undecided likely Republican voters and caucus goers. Instead, we get questions from activists in CAIR, LGBT Americans for Hillary, United Steelworkers of America, and about another half dozen groups. This should not have been the "CNN/Special Interest Debate." We already have too many problems in this country with special interests, we don't need CNN giving them special access to Presidential candidates.
CNN hit for planted questions
The Washington TimesCNN intended for political sparks to fly during Wednesday's Republican presidential debate, but outrage and accusations of partisanship were directed at the network instead.
The backlash started after it turned out that a homosexual retired soldier asking about "don't ask, don't tell" has an affiliation with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign. The network was forced to apologize and scrubbed the exchange from its repeat of the two-hour debate, even though the Clinton campaign says retired Brig. Gen. Keith H. Kerr was not acting on behalf of the Democratic presidential front-runner.
But things spiraled downward for CNN yesterday as bloggers - a more natural audience for a debate co-hosted by YouTube - held each questioner under a magnifying glass and found anti-Republican links ranging fro the Council on American-Islamic Relations to a pro-Democratic labor union. The network defended its choice of questioners and noted that it drew 5 million viewers - the most-watched primary debate every.
Reports flew on the Internet that at least nine of the 34 questions posed via YouTube videos - on topics ranging from corn subsidies to Social Security reform - came from voters who have ties to Democrats or a vested interest in asking the Republicans to go on record.
"Would it have killed CNN to Google some of these people?" conservative blogger Jason Coleman asked.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
If this doesn't prove the system is broken...
According to a poll reported in ABC News, in Iowa, the two leading Republican candidates are - Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. Governors Romney and Huckabee are both way behind in national polls, both trialling Senators McCain and Thompson and Mayor Giuliani. Why do we have a process which skews so heavily to a couple of states which are so out of touch with the rest of the country.
Poll: Top Democrats Deadlocked in Iowa
Huckabee Catching Up to Romney Among Hawkeye State Republicans
November 13, 2007Democrats and Republicans are both headed toward heated showdowns in Iowa, where, according to a new CBS News / New York Times poll, Hillary Clinton holds a statistically insignificant lead over John Edwards and Barack Obama, and GOP hopeful Mitt Romney finds his long-held position as the state's front-runner challenged by a surging Mike Huckabee.
The situation in Iowa, where nominating caucuses are scheduled for Jan. 3, is in stark contrast to New Hampshire, where Clinton and Romney continue to hold large leads among those likely to vote in the state's first-in-the-nation primary, which would come only two days after Iowa's contests.
But in both states, large chunks of voters have yet to make up their minds, meaning the results of the contests that will kick off the 2008 nominating season are still difficult to predict.
In Iowa, the Democratic contest is knotted up. Among likely caucus-goers, Clinton came out on top with 25 percent support, but she was trailed closely by Edwards at 23 percent, and Obama at 22 percent. With a margin of error of 4 percentage points, there is no clear leader. Trailing behind was Bill Richardson, at 12 percent, with all other candidates in single digits.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Have to take issue...
Normally, I'm very much a fan of FactCheck.org, a private, non-partisan group which analyzes statements by politicians and determines their veracity. In a recent article on their site, they look at a Mitt Romney ad that talks about immigration. They take issue with two items. The first, their assertion that Gov. Romney's claims of ordering the State Police to enforce immigration laws is misleading, is fine. When Gov. Romney did order the State Police to work with the Federal government to enforce immigration laws, the order came very late in his tenure as Governor and was immediately rescinded by his successor. Their second claim, however, I take issue with.
Governor Romney claims that when he becomes President, he will deny funding to sanctuary cities. FactCheck.org takes issue with this because he did not do that as Governor and claims that this is somehow misleading. Frankly, this is an unfair statement on their part. Gov. Romney never made this statement in order to talk about what he's done in the past; only about what he intends to do in the future. He never gives the impression that he had done the same as governor of Massachusetts, nor that he feels that it is a Governor's responsibility to deny state funding to sanctuary cities; only that he feels it is the President's responsibility to deny federal funding to the same. These are definitely different issues and it is perfectly valid for someone to feel differently about the two different topics.
I'm not saying Gov. Romney isn't flipping on this issue. He very may well be doing so. However, to label it as misleading is unfair.
The real concern I have with Gov. Romney is that his views on issues such as abortion, gay rights, and immigration seem to have dramatically changed in the past two years. It makes it difficult for me to understand where he stands on these issues and where he'd stand if elected. Are the new views on abortion and gay rights just an act to get the nomination? Were his old views on immigration just an act to garner support in Massachusetts? I'm hoping that these were acts, but it's tough for me to think that he's just acting on abortion and gay rights to get a nomination now but has had a revelation about immigration and what he's saying is now what he believes.
Governor Romney claims that when he becomes President, he will deny funding to sanctuary cities. FactCheck.org takes issue with this because he did not do that as Governor and claims that this is somehow misleading. Frankly, this is an unfair statement on their part. Gov. Romney never made this statement in order to talk about what he's done in the past; only about what he intends to do in the future. He never gives the impression that he had done the same as governor of Massachusetts, nor that he feels that it is a Governor's responsibility to deny state funding to sanctuary cities; only that he feels it is the President's responsibility to deny federal funding to the same. These are definitely different issues and it is perfectly valid for someone to feel differently about the two different topics.
I'm not saying Gov. Romney isn't flipping on this issue. He very may well be doing so. However, to label it as misleading is unfair.
The real concern I have with Gov. Romney is that his views on issues such as abortion, gay rights, and immigration seem to have dramatically changed in the past two years. It makes it difficult for me to understand where he stands on these issues and where he'd stand if elected. Are the new views on abortion and gay rights just an act to get the nomination? Were his old views on immigration just an act to garner support in Massachusetts? I'm hoping that these were acts, but it's tough for me to think that he's just acting on abortion and gay rights to get a nomination now but has had a revelation about immigration and what he's saying is now what he believes.
Tough Guy on Immigration?
Romney puffs up his record.
FactCheck.orgMitt Romney casts himself as tough on illegal immigration in a new add in which he says that, as Massachusetts governor, "I authorized the State Police to enforce immigration laws." He doesn't mention that his order never took effect. It came in the closing days of his administration and was rescinded by his successor, as we wrote back in August.
He also promises, "As president, I'll ... cut funding for sanctuary cities." Maybe so, but as governor he took no action against several such towns in his state.
We find Romney misleading on both counts.
Friday, November 9, 2007
Mike Huckabee: Extremist
Salon has an interview with Mike Huckabee which goes into detail about exactly how much of a radical extremist he is when regarding social issues. It's a very interesting read and anyone who will be voting in the Republican primary (assuming, of course, that the Democrats let us have one) should read it.
Mick Huckabee, on a wing and a prayer
In a Salon interview, the long-shot GOP candidate reveals his convictions about gay marriage, wonders about Mitt Romney's faith, and fires back at Fred Thompson
SalonVINTON, Iowa -- Unlike junior high, it's often a good sign in presidential politics when people say nasty things about you. It means you are threatening. It means others fear you. IT means you might just win something.
So, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, the dark horse in the Republican race, has not been sweating the recent barrage of attacks against him. In recent weeks, Mitt Romney has accused Huckabee of supporting tuition assistance for the children of illegal immigrants. (Gasp!) Fred Thompson called him "one of the highest taxing governors" in the nation. (Zing!) A Wall Street Journal editorialist called Huckabee a waffling conservative. (Ka-pow!) Conservative doyenne Phyllis Schlafly blamed him for wrecking the Republican Party in Arkansas. (Wham-o!) One Thompson supporter really went for the jugular, evoking the specter of Bubba: "I certainly cannot support another individual from Hope, Arkansas," announced retired Brig. Gen. James Livingston before a Thompson event on Tuesday in Columbia, S.C.
Why all of the sudden attention? With a scant staff and no television advertisements, Huckabee, a former Baptist pastor, has moved into second place in the Iowa caucus polls, and he is inching up on a big spender Romney in the still highly speculative national polls. He has earned consistent praise for his performance in debates, and regularly overperforms in straw poll contests. "He is coming on like gangbusters," says David Woodard, a South Carolina political scientist and a Republican political consultant.
So when Huckabee arrived in Iowa Wednesday for a four-stop tour of the eastern cornfields, he was greeted by the full weight of the national press: the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the McClatchy News Service and a half dozen others. In January, when Huckabee launched his campaign, only a couple of local reporters were around to ask questions. Now his daughter, Sarah, who serves as a top aide on the road, has to call "last question" in press scrums so her dad can stay on schedule.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
ABC a part of the New Hampshire lovefest
ABC has a completely meaningless article with a ridiculous title: NH Could Turn GOP Race Upside Down. The article then goes on to point out that even though New Hampshire residents frequently vote for GOP contenders other than the front-runners, they never get the nominations. Examples include John McCain in 2000 winning New Hampshire and losing the nomination and Pat Buchanan winning the state in both 1992 and in 1996 before losing out to George H. W. Bush and Bob Dole, respectively. So, basically, the last three time the GOP nomination was contested, New Hampshire had exactly zero impact on the race -- in all three times, the favorite going into New Hampshire failed to win New Hampshire and still got the nomination. Nice!
NH Could Turn GOP Race Upside Down
NH Up in the Air, Could Turn Republican Presidential Race Upside Down
ABC NewsNew Hampshire is known for turning Republican presidential primaries upside down.
It could happen again this year.
"We're a tiny little state, but we get to go out and rub shoulders with all of the candidates, and be a big of the big decision," says Cindy Horvath, 46, an undecided Republican voter from Somersworth.
And, she added, have a big impact.
Polls show a tight race for the GOP nomination in the state. Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain are in strong contention. Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul could complicate an already muddled contest.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Newsflash! Chuck Norris Endorses Mike Huckabee
Fox News has the best line so far this election season:
Chuck Norris endorses Mike Huckabee for President
Fox NewsChuck Norris does not vote for President of the United States. He gives the voting machine a swift roundhouse kick and Mike Huckabee wins.
So the joke would read after the martial arts announced his endorsement Sunday for the former Arkansas governor.
"Though (Rudy) Giuliani might be savvy enough to lead people, Fred Thompson wise enough to wade through the tides of politics, (John) McCain tough enough to fight terrorism, and (Mitt) Romney business-minded enough to grow our economy, I believe the only one who has all of the characteristics to lead America forward into the future is ex-Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee," Chuck Norris wrote in a commentary posted on WorldNetDaily.com.
Norris listed Huckabee's upbringing, family values and the fact that he's an avid outdoorsman as reasons for backing.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Surprised?
It shouldn't surprise anyone that the Democrats are afraid to be around real Americans. As much as the Ivory Tower members of the Liberal Elite like to talk about helping "the poor" (their term, apparently, for families making less than $100,000 a year at which point they become "the rich"), they largely have a great disdain for hard-working, blue-collar Americans. Viewing a NASCAR race as akin to visiting a Third World country, and thus recommended staffers to get hepatitis vaccinations before visiting, lines up pretty well for a group of privileged elites who become that they have the right to extra-democratically dictate the course of life for America.
GOP: NASCAR is contagious, but its fans are not
McClatchy NewspapersWASHINGTON - Being around NASCAR fans requires no inoculation.
That was the word Thursday from Republican officials after they learned that a congressional committee's Democratic staffers had advised aides to get vaccinated for hepatitis and other diseases before visiting NASCAR events in Concord, N.C., and Talladega, Ala.
Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said his committee aides were visiting health-care centers, detention facilities and other operations where they could be exposed to communicable diseases. He said the immunizations were routine for health-care workers.
"Democrats should know that there is no preventative measure yet designed to ward off the blue-collar values and patriotism that NASCAR fans represent," said LInda Daves, the chairwoman of the North Carolina Republican Party. "If they aren't careful, they just might catch some of it."
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Ron Paul
I attending some of the events surrounding the Republican debate yesterday in Dearborn, Michigan. I attended a meet-and-greet with Ron Paul and one with Sam Brownback. The reason to attend these particular events had to do only with expediency: they were the only ones having meet-and-greets with the public instead of private fund-raisers. What stuck out most were three things:
- Rep. Paul really struck me as having a bit of a vacant look to him as he walked by. He walked directly by me (needing, apparently, to gently nudge me out of the way as he passed) and I was really struck the vacant look. He was probably just tired, but it was a clear differences from Senator Brownback's very energetic, purposeful gaze.
- The Ron Paul supporters well organized. I can understand. I can understand now first hand why he does so well in things like straw polls, instant reaction surveys, and web polls. Perhaps 30% of there were Ron Paul supporters, which is notable in that less than 10% of Republicans support him. The vast majority of his supporters clearly were not students and had been brought in. I heard a couple of campaign workers talk about the Dearborn rally for Ron Paul and the follow-up rally in Ann Arbor. Apparently, there were going to be quite a number of people who'd be at both and members of the campaign were definitely helping move people.
- Presidential candidates are ridiculously tall. On TV, Ron Paul never struck me as particularly tall. He's definitely over 6 foot and Senator Brownback is probably 6'4".
Monday, October 1, 2007
What's reasonable and responsible about genocide?
I'd love to see Sen. Levin's plan which would have a "reasonable date of completion" for handing off duties to the Iraqi's in less than 15 months. I love that the Democrats have started using words like "reasonable" and "responsible" to refer to their unreasonable, irresponsible dates for surrender.
GOP Offers New Iraq Plan
ABC NewsA small group of Republicans facing election fights next year have rallied around war legislation they think could unite the GOP: call for an end to U.S. combat in Iraq, but wait until President Bush is out of office.
The legislation was deemed essentially a nonstarter by Democrats Friday and underscored the difficulty Congress has in striking a bipartisan compromise on the war. What attracts democrats has repelled Republicans and vice versa, making it impossible so far to find a middle ground.
"To try to put this off until after the election, rather than a reasonable period of completion, I believe would be to unnecessarily introduce a political element to what is a bipartisan effort," said Sen. Carl Levin, the Democratic Chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
The proposal, by Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, would require that Bush change the misison of U.S. troops from combat to primarily support roles, such as training Iraqi security forces and protecting U.S. infrastructure in Iraq. His legislation would set a gol of completing such a mission transition within 15 months.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
