President Obama’s support is eroding among elements of his base, and a yearlong effort to recapture the political center has failed to attract independent voters, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, leaving him vulnerable at a moment when pessimism over the country’s direction is greater than at any other time since he took office.Yeah, a larger field of candidates would be good, but what can you do? I'm frankly surprised at the shape of the GOP field as it is. Seems like we'd have more heavyweights, and having Sarah Palin in the race would have been nice. But the main thing is that, clearly, whoever wins the nomination is going to pound Obama and the Democrats. Victory's going to be sweet!! I can't wait to remind Markos Moulitsas about how he failed to "crush" our spirits, the idiot.
The president’s effort to seize the initiative on the economy was well received by the public, and clear majorities support crucial pieces of his new job-creation program. But despite Mr. Obama’s campaign to sell the plan to Congress and voters, more than half of those questioned said they feared the economy was already in or was headed for a double-dip recession, and nearly three-quarters of Americans think the country is on the wrong track.
Republicans appear more energized than Democrats at the outset of the 2012 presidential campaign, but have not coalesced around a candidate. Even as the party’s nominating contest seems to be narrowing to a two-man race between Mitt Romney and Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, a majority of their respective supporters say they have reservations about their candidate. Half of Republicans who plan to vote in a primary say they would like more choices.
“Any Republican who gets the nomination, whether it’s my first choice or not, is going to be better than what we’ve got now,” said Allen Hulshizer, 77, a Republican and retired structural engineer from Glenside, Pa. “By the time you get down to the final selections, any one of the top contenders will certainly be better than Obama.”
Republican voters are evenly split over whether Texas Gov. Rick Perry's outspoken stance on Social Security makes them more or less likely to support him for the presidential nomination, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, but they are worried that his views could cost him in the general election.Keep reading.
The survey, taken after the CNN/Tea Party Express debate among Republican contenders Monday, illustrates the complicated politics on the issue that has prompted the sharpest divide between Perry and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, the contenders at the top of national polls.
Perry, the Texas governor, calls Social Security a "Ponzi scheme" for younger workers that needs to be fundamentally revamped for future recipients. One in five Republicans say that position makes them more likely to support him; one in five say it makes them less likely to do so. However, by more than 2-1, 37%-17%, Republicans predict Perry's position will hurt rather than help his chances of being elected president.
Silicon Valley, the politically liberal technology hub, is an unlikely incubator of conservative Christian activism.Well, now's the time, if there ever was one. I'm still not holding my hopes out for any political breakthroughs in California, but this sounds nice.
But a group of its venture capitalists is backing an ambitious project that seeks to affect the 2012 election by registering 5 million new conservative Christians to vote.
The nonprofit organization United in Purpose is using sophisticated data-mining techniques to compile a database of every unregistered born-again and evangelical Christian and conservative Catholic in the country.
Through partnerships with Christian organizers and antiabortion groups, United in Purpose hopes to recruit 100,000 "champions" to identify unregistered Christians and get them to the polls as part of its Champion the Vote project. Profiles drawn from its database, which numbers more than 120 million people, will enable organizers to target potential voters with emails and Web videos tailored to their interests.
How did Republican Bob Turner pull off an 8-point win (54%-46%) in a district that gave Turner just 39% of the vote in 2010 and went 55% for Obama in 2008? Sure, it helped that the Democratic incumbent Anthony Weiner resigned in disgrace after he accidentally posted a lewd photo of himself, intended for a young woman, to his public Twitter account. But scandal alone wasn't enough to flip New York's 9th congressional district to Republicans. In early August a Siena poll showed Democrat David Weprin leading Turner 48% to 42%, but by late last week Siena showed Turner had pulled into the lead 50% to 44%.Keep reading.
o win in a Democratic district, Turner needed Democratic votes. The two issues that seem to have helped drive some of the district's traditionally Democratic voters to cast their ballots for Turner were Obama's Israel policy and Weprin's vote for same-sex marriage. Former Democratic New York City mayor Ed Koch endorsed Turner primarily to send a message to Obama on Israel. Democratic state senator Ruben Diaz backed Turner because of Weprin's vote on marriage. Democratic state assemblyman Dov Hikind says both issues, as well as dissatisfaction with Obama's failed economic policies, were "overriding" factors that led him to support Turner.
"This is an underlying issue that is extremely powerful issue," Hikind says of Weprin's vote for same-sex marriage. Weprin didn't merely vote for the bill. He got on the floor of the assembly and compared voting against same-sex marriage to "outlawing marriages between Jews and non-Jews or interracial marriages.”
"The fundamental message was 'I'm an orthodox Jew and gay marriage is perfectly fine,'" Hikind says of his Democratic colleague's speech. "To me, when he did that, he crossed every single line." Forty orthodox rabbis declared that orthodox Jews could not support Weprin.
Michelle Bachmann is desperate. She's an ambitious, egotistical woman who started running for President just two short years after she first ran for Congress. In the past two months her support went from 13% and rising to 4% and falling.And Dan Riehl's got this: "Perry Doesn't Look Ready to Lead America," and "So Much For NRO Being Conservative."
So she needs something, doesn't she, and Rush Limbaugh warned her off her planned Social Security demagoguery.
So, instead, this bullshit.
WASHINGTON — Faced with a stalling economy, a hostile Congress and a disenchanted public, President Obama challenged lawmakers in a blunt address Thursday evening to enact a sweeping package of tax cuts and new spending designed to revive the stagnant job market.Also at Los Angeles Times, "Obama to Congress: Americans want action now on jobs." The text is available via Memorandum.
Speaking to a joint session of Congress, Mr. Obama ticked off a list of measures he said would put money in people’s pockets, encourage companies to begin hiring again, and jolt an American economy at risk of relapsing into recession. And he all but ordered Congress to pass the legislation.
“You should pass this jobs plan right away,” the president declared.
With Republicans already lining up to condemn the plan, Mr. Obama said, “The question is whether, in the face of an ongoing national crisis, we can stop the political circus and actually do something to help the economy.”
Though Mr. Obama’s proposals were widely expected — an extension and expansion of the cut in payroll taxes; new spending on schools and public works projects; and an overhaul of unemployment insurance — the overall package was considerably larger than expected, with an estimated $447 billion in stimulus money.
What was remarkable was the whiff of desperation conveyed by Obama, and the utter lack of interest by the Republicans. The speaker of the House looked bored. The Republicans neither booed nor applauded. No one thinks this grab bag, a mini son of the Stimulus Plan, is going to work. But Republicans must be relieved: Obama said nothing that would either win over independents or exert any pressure on them to pass it.And back over to LAT, "Republicans' reaction to Obama speech is lukewarm -- and that's a start," and "Economists give Obama's jobs plan mixed reviews.
On taxes, Mr. Romney would immediately cut the top corporate income-tax rate to 25% from 35%. His advisers say there's already a bipartisan consensus that the U.S. rate hurts American companies, and they're right. Even Mr. Obama agrees.That does sound a bit timid.
But on other taxes, Mr. Romney shrinks from a fight. He says he favors tax reform with lower individual tax rates but only "in the long run." His advisers say that means in the first two years of his Presidency, but then why not sketch out more details?
The answer may lie in his proposal to eliminate the capital gains tax—but only for those who earn less than $200,000 a year. This eviscerates most of the tax cut's economic impact and also suggests that he's afraid of Mr. Obama's class warfare rhetoric. He even picked Mr. Obama's trademark income threshold for the capital gains cut-off.
If Mr. Romney thinks this will let him dodge a class warfare debate, he's fooling himself. Democrats will hit him anyway for opposing Mr. Obama's proposal to raise taxes on higher incomes, dividends and capital gains in 2013. Perhaps Mr. Romney feels that his wealth and background make him especially vulnerable to the class charge, but if he won't openly make the economic case for lower tax rates he'll never get Congress to go along.
On spending, Mr. Romney joins the GOP's "cut, cap and balance" parade, setting a cap on spending over time at 20% of GDP. What Mr. Romney doesn't do is provide even a general map for how to get there, beyond cutting spending on nonsecurity domestic programs by 5% upon taking office.
The Fox hotties are not my concern, as they're supposed to be critiquing the candidates and pumping the ratings. Erick Erickson's purportedly about building a movement. And it seems to me the last person you'd want to bash in that regard is Sarah Palin. Has she held out too long? Probably. I wish she would've announced early this year so she could've been amassing a war chest to rival Barack Obama's expected $1 billion haul. And that's not counting the possibility that Palin could lose the nomination despite being the ultimate conservative rock star. Fact is, Palin's more in tune with the values of more conservatives than anyone else out there. Frankly, it doesn't matter when she announces, except as a matter of strategy. No doubt the waiting is hard, but it'd still be worth it if she came out in November or December with a major policy speech declaring her candidacy. I'd be behind her in a second. I've said all along that as much as I like and support Michele Bachmann, I throw my support to Palin without batting an eye. (Now, thinking about it, a Palin/Bachmann dream team would put me over the top.) But at this point we don't know, so faulting her for "teasing" only arms Palin's divisions of enemies on the progressive left. And Erick Erickson should know better, but then again, he's obviously not too bright.
In any case, see William Jacobson, "Erick Erickson: “moving on from Sarah Palin is like leaving Scientology”, and Linkmaster Smith, "Not Enough." And more commentary at Memeorandum.
Oh, and don't forget Dan Riehl, "Erick Erickson All Wee Weed Up Over Palin," and "For All The Brave Whiners On Palin."
With the opening of the fall political season and tonight's Republican candidate debate, expect influential conservative voices to clamor for fellow conservatives to set aside half-measures, eschew conciliation, and adhere to conservative principle in its pristine purity. But what does fidelity to conservatism's core convictions mean?That's a long time ago. I don't know if we've got big tentyness these days. Besides, I have a hunch Republicans will may well nominate Romney. Perry's giving Romney a run for his money, and I'm not discounting Bachmann. But I'd be surprised if a purity candidate got the nod. That said, maybe purity is what the voters want, or at least in California? We'll know in due time.
Superstar radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh has, with characteristic bravado, championed a take-no-prisoners approach. In late July, as the debt-ceiling debate built to its climax, he understandably exhorted House Speaker John Boehner to stand strong and rightly praised the tea party for "putting country before party." But then Mr. Limbaugh went further. "Winners do not compromise," he declared on air. "Winners do not compromise with themselves. The winners who do compromise are winners who still don't believe in themselves as winners, who still think of themselves as losers."
We saw the results of such thinking in November 2010, when Christine O'Donnell was defeated by Chris Coons in Delaware in the race for Vice President Joe Biden's vacated Senate seat. In Nevada Sharron Angle was defeated by Harry Reid, who was returned to Washington to reclaim his position as Senate majority leader. In both cases, the Republican senatorial candidate was a tea party favorite who lost a very winnable election.
The notion of conservative purity is a myth. The great mission of American conservatism—securing the conditions under which liberty flourishes—has always depended on the weaving together of imperfectly compatible principles and applying them to an evolving and elusive political landscape.
William F. Buckley Jr.'s 1955 Mission Statement announcing the launch of National Review welcomed traditionalists, libertarians and anticommunists. His enterprise provides a model of a big-tent conservatism supported by multiple and competing principles: limited government, free markets, traditional morality and strong national defense.
In my speech on Saturday in Iowa, I said: “Between bailouts for Wall Street cronies and stimulus projects for union bosses’ security and ‘green energy’ giveaways, [Barack Obama] took care of his friends. And now they’re on course to raise a billion dollars for his re-election bid so that they can do it all over again.” This was shamefully on display yesterday at President Obama’s taxpayer-funded campaign rally in Detroit. In introducing the President, Teamsters President James Hoffa represented precisely what I was talking about as he declared war on concerned independent Americans and on the freshman members we sent to Congress last November by saying, “Let’s take these son-of-a-bitches out!”Read it all...
What I say now, I say as a proud former union member and the wife, daughter, and sister of union members. So, as a former card-carrying IBEW sister married to a proud former Laborers, IBEW, and later USW member, please hear me out. What I have to say is for the hard working, patriotic, selfless union brothers and sisters in Michigan and throughout our country: Please don’t be taken in by union bosses’ thuggery like Jim Hoffa represented yesterday. Union bosses like this do not have your best interests at heart. What they care about is their own power and re-electing their friend Barack Obama so he will take care of them to the detriment of everyone else.
In politics, things change fast.Keep reading.
Less than a month ago, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann sat atop the political world fresh off her win at the Ames Straw Poll.
Today, two new polls show Bachmann’s support badly eroding — a finding that when coupled with a Labor Day staff shakeup raise serious questions about her ability to recapture the momentum that shot her into the top tier over the summer.
In a new Washington Post/ABC News poll, Bachmann now stands at six percent in a hypothetical 2012 Republican primary ballot, well short of the 13 percent she took in a mid-July Post/ABC survey of registered voters
The latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows a similar decline with Bachmann now winning 8 percent — half of the 16 percent she received in July.
There appear to be a few reasons for Bachmann’s slippage.
Voters appear to be looking for a new direction. By 44% to 40%, Americans now say they are more likely to vote Republican next year than for Mr. Obama's re-election. In June, the president held the edge, 45% to 40%. The president is losing support from key groups including political independents, women and Hispanics.Blue collar America is turning against this administration. Not even three years after Barack Obama was elected as a man who could virtually walk on water, he's being repudiated viciously among voters from left to right. This helps explain why Democrats and union leaders are so combative. It's all slipping away. The mask of "hope and change" is falling off. The electorate's rose colored glasses are off too. I'm getting really excited for next year, no matter who wins the GOP nomination.
In the Mahoning Valley of Northeast Ohio, a Democratic stronghold that Mr. Obama must win handily next year, the president can find all the hurdles that will impede his path: 10% unemployment, collapsing incomes, private-sector payrolls that have begun creeping back from the depths of early 2010 but which remain roughly 19,000 jobs down from a decade ago for the metropolitan area here.
The lukewarm support Mr. Obama finds here not only endangers his hopes in Ohio, one of the country's key swing states, but shows the erosion in enthusiasm for the president even among voters he should be able to reach and who he will need badly next year.
Bill Hiznay—a registered Democrat who voted for John McCain in 2008 and says he's currently undecided—says the president inherited the terrible U.S. economy, "But we're still going to blame Obama for our misfortunes." Mr. Hiznay, a 58-year-old pipe-mill worker, added: "He's in trouble, no question about it."
Among blue-collar workers nationally, the president's disapproval rating reached 56% last month. Some 49% of union members and union households disapprove of the job Mr. Obama is doing, vs. 45% who approve.
