Presidential Candidates

[mikekerstetter]

Rumor has it that Anthony Weiner is going to run
for president. He has chosen attorney general Eric
Holder as his running mate. Get your Weiner-Holder
bumper stickers early, before they are all gone.

[philunderwood]

www.newsmax.com/Headline/michele-bachmann-media-attacks/2011/06/29/id/401949?s=al&promo_code=C890-1

Surging Bachmann Under 'Well-Orchestrated' Media Attack

Wednesday, 29 Jun 2011 07:23 PM

By David A. Patten

Just days after announcing her presidential candidacy, Minnesota GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann finds herself on the defensive and under attack from virtually every quarter in the media.

Small stumbles are being amplified across the media landscape, and Bachmann finds herself compared with former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin at every turn.

Even the UK Daily Mail on Tuesday reported Bachmann “is already following in Mrs. Palin’s footsteps of making unfortunate public gaffes after pulling a clanger in a television interview.”

Bachmann told supporters during a campaign stop in South Carolina Wednesday: “They want to see two girls come together and have a mud wrestling fight, and I’m not going to give it to ‘em. …We’re going to stick together, and we’re going to see this thing through.”

The broadsides have come from the right as well as the left. On Sunday, Fox News host Chris Wallace asked Rep. Bachmann, a former federal tax attorney, if she should be considered “a flake.” Bachmann said she found the question offensive, and Wallace later apologized.

Among the commentators coming to Bachmann’s defense: Former Democratic consultant and CNN contributor Hilary Rosen. CNN host Wolf Blitzer asked Rosen if Bachmann is being held to a different standard because she is a woman.

“The answer obviously is yes,” Rosen replied. “I don’t think Chris Wallace would have asked a man if he was a flake. And I think that the fact that she’s constantly compared to Sarah Palin, as opposed to the other men in the race, clearly would demonstrate that.”

Bachmann this week stated that the late screen icon John Wayne was born in Waterloo, Iowa. In fact, the actor’s parents met in Waterloo, Iowa, but Wayne himself was born about 150 miles southeast in Winterset, Iowa.

“People can make mistakes and I wish I could be perfect every time I say something,” Bachmann said on CNN Tuesday morning. “But I can’t.”

Conservatives have been warning for months that even the slightest misstep by Bachmann, who has a law degree from Oral Roberts University and a post-graduate degree from William & Mary, would provoke widespread attacks on her credibility.

“They have done this campaign after campaign, candidate after candidate,” Ohio GOP Senate candidate Ken Blackwell told Newsmax Magazine, part of an in-depth cover story on Bachmann in the magazine’s July edition. “So I think that you will see a well-orchestrated campaign from the left to define and destroy Michele Bachmann.”

Sal Russo, Tea Party Express founder, told Newsmax in that same report: “I think it terrorizes the left when a conservative can articulate their message in a hopeful, positive, and understandable way … As much as Reagan was bashed unmercifully, I think it may even be worse for attractive conservative women.

“The left thinks they should be liberals, not conservatives, so they are angry at them for defying the stereotype,” Russo said. “Black conservatives face the same thing.”

Some observers see the kneejerk media comparison of Bachmann and Palin as an effort to drive up Bachmann’s negatives, especially among all-important swing voters.

But others believe the criticism of Bachmann is so over-the-top that it could help her, at least with the GOP base.

“It’s mainly a superficial contrast … they are very different, but the media like simplicity, they like superficialities,” says Rich Noyes, research director of the conservative Media Research Center watchdog organization.

“The media have already done a job in attacking Sarah Palin, in minimizing Sarah Palin. If they can just transfer that identity over to Michele Bachmann, it might actually cause her some problems with independents who won’t give her a fresh look, won’t look at her as own identity but will accept the media paradigm about her,” he adds.

Unlike Palin, Bachmann has two law degrees and served as a federal tax attorney, before becoming a three-term member of Congress from Minnesota. Recent polls show she is already running nearly dead-even with establishment favorite and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

Noyes says the public quickly tires of blatant partisan attacks however. He says the effort to “Palin-ize” Bachmann could backfire politically.

“Palinized sort of has two meanings,” says Noyes. “One, we’ll see a definite disdain from the media elite toward these people. But supporters seem to almost take it as a badge of honor when you’re attacked … you know, [the media] aren’t held in any great esteem themselves.”

Mark McKinnon, the columnist and consultant who directed former President George W. Bush’s political advertising, tells Newsmax that the sharp criticism directed at Bachmann may be an effort to drive a wedge between GOP elites and the Republican rank-and-file in the heartland. But the effort to marginalize Bachmann could backfire, he says.

“The more the candidate is attacked personally, the more deeply entrenched her supporters will become in her defense,” he says. “This is not about crying ‘victim’ as some may charge. It’s righteous indignation.”

The challenge for Bachmann is how she will respond to the lambasting, says McKinnon.

“Reagan laughed off the attacks. ‘W’ ignored them -- to the detriment of his near-term legacy, I think. Palin, at first, responded emotionally. Can Bachmann turn it around, with grace and gravitas? … This a test for her. And it’s not going to get easier.”

[Ritty77]

Thad McCotter throws his hat into the ring.

www.breitbart.tv/mccotter-rocks-presidential-field/

[philunderwood]

www.qando.net/?cat=59

The second term of Jimmy Carter?

July 14th, 2011 | Author: Bruce McQuain

Charles Hurt at the Washington Times seems to think so:

It has taken three decades, but Americans are finally living through Jimmy Carter’s second term.

Now we’ve got Jimmy Jr. barking at us from the White House about eating our peas and ripping off our Band-Aid. He might not even let us have our Social Security checks.

These are just the latest in a long line of nagging lectures. Already, we have been taught how we should sneeze into the crook of our arm. We need to drive less. And we need to caulk up those drafty houses of ours.

What ever happened to the soaring rhetoric and big bold ideas President Obama promised us in that historic election of his?

Billy Hollis hit this very well the other day. This is how intrusive government has become. And as we all know, this has been an incremental thing taking years and years. Yes, it’s more prevalent under Democrats but Republicans have done their share as well.

I lived through the Carter presidency and I can see many parallels to that time and that man. I remember him as the incredible shrinking president. It seemed he almost visibly shrunk in size as his term continued. I’ve never been more happy to see a president shown the door – until now.

Carter was pathetic and ineffective. Obama is dangerous. The good news, if there is any, is he’s also fairly incompetent and the Democrats couldn’t organize a circus if they had a monopoly on popcorn, hot dogs and cotton candy. But that aside, there are some Carteresque things going on that certainly remind me of Jimmy:

One of the most unpleasant things about Mr. Carter was the condescending disdain he could barely disguise for struggling Americans and their irritating malaise.

Increasingly, Jimmy Jr. is having difficulty concealing that very same disdain for us as the political winds around him turn hostile and all of his bright ideas lie fallow as nothing more than socialist hocus-pocus.

But even Mr. Carter never laid bare so baldly and plainly as Mr. Obama did earlier this week his deep-seated contempt for this whole annoying process we call “democracy.”

I have to agree that Obama’s condescension is at least as bad as Carter’s. I’m not sure what happens to some people when they achieve the Oval Office, but they seem to want to be the Daddy-in-Chief instead of the Commander-in-Chief. There’s something within that makes them feel they have to meddle in the lives of others to the extent, as Hurt and Billy noted, of lecturing on eating their peas.

And Hurt is right about Obama’s apparent disdain for democracy. Other than a tool to get him elected, Obama has displayed little desire to accomplish his “change” legislatively. Instead we have executive fiat the chosen path with the EPA getting ready to enact rules that appear to be regulator overreach and properly the business of Congress. We have the administration single-handedly shutting down oil and gas production. The NLRB is on a vendetta against businesses and busily trying to enact a pro-union agenda. Democracy? Who needs it.

And then there’s the sanctimonious hypocrisy:

The problem with reaching a deal to raise the debt ceiling, he explained in a long sermon, is that there is this huge wave of Republicans who won control of the House in the last election by promising not to raise any more taxes and to cut the absurd overspending that has driven this town for decades.

He bemoaned – in public – that these Republicans are more concerned about the “next election” rather than doing “what’s right for the country.” In other words, he is saying the honorable thing would be for these Republicans to ignore the expressed wishes of voters, break their campaign promises and raise taxes. Wow.

Exactly. This while he tries to frame the whole thing politically as well. I mean what was the walk out but political theater – something of which Obama is a master?

Jimmy Jr., as Hurt calls him, has to go. We’ve suffered through most of one term of the “Daddy-in-Chief” (one political sin among many). Among many things I’m most tired on the Chief Nanny. I’d prefer we make him eat his political peas come November 2012 and go back to community organizing. And among near future generations, I’d prefer Barack Obama be the example of a totally failed presidency and retire Jimmy to the political peanut farm.

~McQ

[philunderwood]

www.qando.net/?cat=16

Are you better off today than you were in January 2009?

Published July 26, 2011 | By Bruce McQuain


Obama is prone to liken himself to Ronald Reagan at times (and Abe Lincoln at others). If you remember the Reagan/Carter race, the question in the title is a paraphrase of the question Reagan rhetorically ask of voters during the campaign. Obama is definitely on the wrong side of that Reagan question. You can expect a resurrection of that question (if the GOP has any sense at all) in the 2012 election.

The answer to the question manifests itself in a recent poll and it is not very encouraging for the incumbent president. An NBC/Washington Post poll just released gives the latest “atmospherics”:


Despite those hundreds of billions of blown stimulus dollars and almost as many upturn promises from Joe Biden, 82% of Americans still say their job market is struggling. Ninety percent rate the economy negatively, including half who give it the worst rating of "poor."

A slim 15% claim to be "getting ahead financially," half what it was in 2006. Fully 27% say they’re falling behind financially. That’s up 6 points since February.

A significant majority (54%) says they’ve been forced to change their lifestyle significantly as a result of the economic times — and 60% of them are angry, up from 44%.

So, you say, doesn’t it depend on who voters blame as to who this poll negatively effects? Well, yes, of course. And here’s an indicator of who that might be:


Strong support among liberal Democrats for Obama’s jobs record has plummeted 22 points from 53% down below a third. African Americans who believe the president’s measures helped the economy have plunged from 77% to barely half.

I’m sure you’re all familiar with the fact that independents have been deserting Obama for quite some time. We just had a Pew poll that said many whites that previously supported him have left him. And it gets worse for Obama:


Obama’s overall job approval on the economy has slid below 40% for the first time, with 57% disapproving. And strong disapprovers outnumber approvers by better than two-to-one.

That prompted Bernie Sanders, Socialist – Vermont, to exclaim the other day:


"I think it would be a good idea if President Obama faced some primary opposition."

He’s not the first to float that heretical idea either. And that sort of talk is a sure sign of crumbling support within one’s political base. When even the “homers” aren’t happy (and the reason really doesn’t matter) then you can be assured most of the rest of the voters aren’t happy either. Obama is trying desperately to run to the center and all he’s really accomplishing by that run is to lose base support. It doesn’t appear the big middle is warming to his attempts to woo them as support for him in all areas continues to drop.

Standard disclaimer applies – in political terms it is still light years to November 2012. That said, these are trends we’re talking about here. They’ve been developing over quite some time. Looking into the future, and given the economic reports we’re seeing, it’s hard to see how this all improves enough for Obama to offset the high negativity that is building right now.

And despite continued efforts to push this off on Bush, this is now considered to be Obama’s economy, whether he likes it or not. The excuse was good for a year or so as many were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on that. However, now it’s considered whining. Obama ran for the job, got it and is now expected to perform up to the standards or expectations he established in his campaign. On all fronts, he’s falling woefully short and most people have no patience for the continued attempts to pass his failure off on someone else.

So …. are you better off than you were in January, 2009?

Very few Americans find themselves able to answer “yes”, at least at this point.

~McQ

[philunderwood]

www.qando.net/?cat=137

The only acceptable “compromise” and “balance” involves spending cuts

Published July 26, 2011 | By Bruce McQuain


I tend to agree with Charles Krauthammer’s immediate reaction after Obama’s speech last night:






Krauthammer astutely picked up on Obama’s use of the poll tested word “balanced” and it’s appeal to the middle. Unless you haven’t been following these negotiations at all, it might have had some effect. But his explanation or how he defined “balanced” is pretty political. First his claim is you can only define balanced one way – his way. Secondly, you can only achieve balance one way – again, his way. Of course neither is true. However, assuming you buy into his “my way or the highway” definition, he then tells you why the Republicans – the only group who have actually offered and voted on a plan ironically called “cut, cap and balance” – are working for the corporate jet owners (anyone tired of that line yet?).

Obama specifically calls for “compromise” yet then tells us he won’t accept a short term increase in the debt ceiling. He calls it “kicking the can down the road”. What it would actually mean is kicking this can into next year – an election year. So he obviously doesn’t feel inclined to “compromise” on what would obviously hurt him politically.

What I’d have also like to have heard is why Obama voted against a debt ceiling increase when he had a chance and now that Republicans are against it it’s the wrong thing to do. Some have said that he ought to have admitted he was wrong and the GOP is wrong now. I’m sorry, but I don’t think he was wrong then and I do think he’s wrong now.

Moving on, here’s a bit of misdirection in the Obama speech:


We all want a government that lives within its means, but there are still things we need to pay for as a country -– things like new roads and bridges; weather satellites and food inspection; services to veterans and medical research.

But? But that’s not what we’re talking about is it? This is the usual political spin – talk about what the public will lose that the politician is sure the public finds valuable – at a local level it is usually firefighters, police and teachers. Never talk about reducing bureaucracy, or the costly and wasteful redundancy, inefficiency or pure bloat found in government. Nope, pretend it takes government of this size to inspect food. And pretend only government has any hand in “medical research” and without that we’re all going to be left to die from preventable conditions.

And of course, the “compromise” being sought, the “balance” desired is really aimed at the ideological agenda item Democrats have been attempting for years – tax the rich:


And keep in mind that under a balanced approach, the 98 percent of Americans who make under $250,000 would see no tax increases at all. None. In fact, I want to extend the payroll tax cut for working families. What we’re talking about under a balanced approach is asking Americans whose incomes have gone up the most over the last decade – millionaires and billionaires – to share in the sacrifice everyone else has to make.

I won’t bore you again with the percentage the “rich” contribute now as their ‘share’ contributes to the profligacy that Obama would like to extend. But they already carry the lion’s share of the income tax burden. Obama want’s more because he claims they can afford it. Here’s a newsflash for the politicians – you don’t get to decide who can afford what, instead you need to find a way to live within the means provided by the present revenue stream, not claim you should have more. Obviously giving politicians “more” always ends up in the same place – “more” debt.

“Balance” has nothing to do with the approach, it has to do with the result. And that should include massive spending cuts. If any “sacrifice” is to be made, it should be made by government, not the people. Even Obama admits that there is only one class of citizen responsible for this mess:


Because neither party is blameless for the decisions that led to this problem, both parties have a responsibility to solve it.

That’s right. The only totally true statement in the entire speech. Note it wasn’t the “corporate jet owners” who got us in this condition, it was the politicians. So the only "sacrifice” I see necessary is politicians sacrificing their spending, not the public. It’s time both parties realize the spending spree is over. At least one of them seems to have gotten that message. They’re actually offering solutions that concentrate in the necessary area – spending cuts.

This is a problem of and by politicians. It’s fairly simple to understand – they’ve used their powers to ignore spending limits and now they’ve found themselves in deep, deep trouble. One side’s solution is to cut back on the spending and balance future spending to revenue and paying down the horrendous debt they’ve piled up. The other’s solution is to continue to try to put a claim on the earnings of others so they don’t have to cut as much and, frankly, can continue to spend on programs we can’t afford. Obama has been very clear on this saying on at least two occasions that savings in defense spending could be spent on other programs – such as food stamps.

Compromise? The reason we’re in this position now is we’ve compromised for decades and run up a debt that is now threatening our very well-being. This hasn’t been done by the “rich”. It hasn’t been done by the “corporate jet owners”. It hasn’t been done by anyone but compromising politicians eager to use their power to spend to buy votes.

While we may survive this particular crisis, the problem remains systemic and only promises repeats unless someone or some party actually takes a stand, says “enough” and actually enacts enforceable laws which won’t allow this to happen again.

“Balance” and “compromise” are two poll tested words that Obama is sure will appeal to the big middle and, he hopes, will sway them to his class warfare agenda and tax increases which will enable Obama to push this past his re-election attempt in 2012. He is the consummate can kicker – he just wants to kick the can further down the road than does the GOP (who also has political motives behind their “short term debt limit increase” plan).

Bottom line – stipulated there are all sorts of politics being played here, but … the GOP needs to stand firm on its principle that this crisis isn’t a problem created by too little revenue, but instead one created by profligate spending, none more profligate than that in which this particular administration has engaged. Therefore, the solution – the balanced solution – is to reduce spending (and that includes debt service) to revenue levels, not the other way around.

That’s the only “compromise” I’m interested in seeing.

~McQ

[philunderwood]

Why Obama's Economy Won't Improve

By Mona Charen

www.JewishWorldReview.com |

There are some on the right who believe that Barack Obama is intentionally steering the United States into disaster — that he privately rejoices in the dismal economy because it partially fulfills his objective to bring the country down.

This strikes me as, at the very least, overwrought. One would have to accept the idea that Gene Sperling, Timothy Geithner and the president clapped one another on the back when the latest GDP figures arrived. ".04 percent growth in the first quarter. 1.3 percent last quarter. Way to go! We'll be in recession again in no time."

Not likely. The president and his team were no doubt surprised and dismayed by the economy's poor performance in the past six months. The president, after all, has announced for re-election. The country was supposed to be well into the Obama recovery by now. Actually, the summer of 2010 was going to be, the Obama administration promised, "recovery summer."

The president's team has taken to offering ever more creative explanations for the economy's weakness. It was George Bush's fault, or a "bump in the road," or a response to the Eurozone crisis, or a consequence of the Japanese earthquake and tsunami, or a result of the drought in the southwest. It's reminiscent of the old Soviet Union's explanation that for the 69th, 70th and 71st consecutive year, poor weather had caused a bad harvest.

The president and his economic advisers should not be surprised, though, because this administration has not been about growth — it has been about "fairness." And in the name of fairness, it has created the most anti-business climate since Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration. As Steve Wynn, CEO of Wynn Resorts, recently complained:

"I'm saying it bluntly, that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business and progress and job creation in my lifetime. And I can prove it, and I could spend the next three hours giving you examples of all of us in this marketplace that are frightened to death about all the new regulations, our health care costs escalate, regulations coming from left and right."

It's not that the president wants to hurt the country; it's that he believes that the best things the country has ever done have been done by government. "We do big things," he said in his State of the Union address in January. But when enumerating those things, he focused on the things government has done — building the interstate highway system, setting up the Internet, funding education. (Oh, do we ever fund education!) And that's what he wants more of:

"Over the last two years, we have begun rebuilding for the 21st century, a project that has meant thousands of good jobs for the hard-hit construction industry. Tonight, I'm proposing that we redouble these efforts._ We will put more Americans to work repairing crumbling roads and bridges. We will make sure this is fully paid for, attract private investment, and pick projects based on what's best for the economy, not politicians._ Within 25 years, our goal is to give 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail, which could allow you to go places in half the time it takes to travel by car."

The president is dazzled by the vision of those shiny high-speed rail trains — and by solar panels, electric cars and other pet projects that have caught his imagination. What he has been unwilling to do is to permit the vast private sector to make its own decisions — to follow its own ideas.

Instead, the administration has been saddling the private sector with a stifling load of regulations. The burden of Obamacare, most of which does not take effect until 2014, is mostly in the realm of fear and uncertainty. Employers do not know how much each new hire will cost under the new health care regime. Nor can they estimate how the 129 new boards, commissions and agencies will affect the business world.

Meanwhile, the EPA is regulating carbon dioxide as an air pollutant. The NLRB is attempting to prevent the Boeing Corporation from opening a new plant in South Carolina. The FCC is seeking to exert control over Internet commerce through the deceptively named "net neutrality" policy. The Department of Labor is strictly enforcing racial and gender quotas. And the Federal Reserve, along with the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (created by the Dodd-Frank law) is practically freezing small-business lending.

This president has spun fantasies about the industries of tomorrow, while punishing the industries of today. His fulminations against "millionaires and billionaires" and his wrath about "corporate jets" betray a fundamentally childish urge to punish success. Under his economic stewardship, there is less and less of that around.

[Ritty77]

Yeah, it's sad that some might think he wants to purposely bring down the American economy. But when repeated failures give rise to his proposals for more of the same, one might wonder.

Obama likes to punish success in the name of "fairness." In 18 months, the people will punish failure in the name of common sense.

[Ritty77]

Rick Perry is in.



Don't mess with Texas!

[relenemiller]

Did anyone watch the Straw Poll Caucuses today in Iowa? At this juncture, unless Palin jumps in (and she's great for surprises and spontaneity that has a purpose) I'm hoping for Bachman/Cain!

Like I've pointed out before, a woman and a black man...that's a great ticket and would dispel the racist comments and false accusations by the left, and a woman who is strong and oh so conservative from top to bottom....love it!

Cain is great..today, his speech was great and no he doesn't read teleprompters and yes, he admits his weak areas, and yes he struggled a couple of times to deliver his message, but his thinking is sooooo Independent/Libertarian and very much conservative/constitutionalists. Oh, did I mention he's black?

[leisuresuitlarry]

I wish that the debate was on earlier, too late for me to stay up and watch. I liked what I saw of Cain though. Newt had a few good spots too.

How about Michelle Bachman coming out of the Straw Poll so good? I like and respect her, but didn't think she'd fair that well with all of the liberal assaults on her painting her as a nut job - which she isn't.

I liked the one line, I think it was Tim Pawlenty who said it, that someone should just change their name to "I'm Not Obama" and they'd be a shoe-in to win the presidency. Sad, (well maybe not that sad), but true. Lord help us if the chosen one gets elected to a 2nd term.

[Ritty77]

Pawlenty Drops Out

www.nationalreview.com/corner/274572/pawlenty-drops-out-katrina-trinko

[Ritty77]

It was one of the best debates ever. And here it is:

[philunderwood]

Hillary vs. Obama in 2012? It'll Never Happen --- I Don't Think

By Bernard Goldberg

www.JewishWorldReview.com |

I come to you today, my friends, with good news and bad news. First the bad news.

If Hillary Clinton looks at the polls and decides that Barack Obama is Jimmy Carter all over again, and if she figures, what the hell, and makes a run against him, she will win. Not just the Democratic nomination. The whole thing.

Hillary can beat Mr. Obama and anyone the Republicans nominate.

In the primaries liberals wouldn't even have to feel (too) guilty about abandoning America's first black president. They could convince themselves that with the economy in the dumps, Mr. Obama can't win in 2012. And it's not as if they'd be dropping the president for some vanilla white guy. They could feel good about themselves knowing that in 2008 they made history by helping to elect America's first black president � and in 2012 they would be making history again, this time by helping elect America's first woman president.

As for the general election, while Republicans would turn out in droves to vote for anybody but Hillary, she'd certainly get a huge percentage of the party's base (except for some black voters furious that she ran against Mr. Obama) and more importantly, she'd probably pick up enough of those crucial independent votes to become President Clinton. Independents, after all, went Democratic in 2008. And just because the polls show a majority of them no longer support President Obama, that doesn't mean they wouldn't vote for Mrs. Clinton - especially if the Republicans go crazy and nominate Michelle Bachmann or Rick Perry.

Of course none of this would be good for the country, since Mrs. Clinton would try to impose her liberal worldview on all of us just as President Obama has. No, she's not as liberal as Mr. Obama, but she's liberal enough to drive conservatives nuts.

That's the bad news.

The good news is this is a crazy drama that will never play out. She won't run. No way. I don't think.

But if President Obama continues to drop in the polls, if Americans continue to think he's doing a terrible job handing the economy, you never know.

Nah! Can't happen. At least I hope it can't.