Click on WORD or PDF for full content
Ron Christie, Pickings reader, says the GOP will do fine in November.
While gleeful reports abound that the G.O.P. is disorganized, dispirited and headed to defeat in November, facts have a way of ruining this rosy narrative for the Democrats. Observing Democrats and their supporters in the media (like the author of the New York magazine article), one would think President Obama has already been re-elected – and the actual voting is nothing more than a formality.
Despite such cheerleading, Democrats, not Republicans, should be worried about their prospects this election cycle. One need not look any further than the 2010 midterm election as a barometer as to why Democrats shouldn’t be planning their redecorations of the Oval Office, Congress or the state house following the 2012 contest.
Notwithstanding claims by the president and Democratic leaders, the “stimulus package” and the Affordable Care Act remain deeply unpopular with a majority of the American people. Whether the left believes it or not, voters chose the 2010 midterm elections to rebuke both President Obama and Congressional Democrats for their overreach in dramatically expanding the size and scope of the federal government. …
Andrew Malcolm spots the irony of the president kicking a woman out to the way so he can make an election year commencement address at Barnard College.
… we are now privy to how President Obama approaches commencement addresses: He invites himself. For strategic communications purposes.
Any president gets scores of speech invitations every graduation season. This president has followed a usual policy of doing four a year, usually a public school, a private school, a black school and a service academy.
This year, we now know, one of his speeches will be at Barnard College, the women’s college of Columbia University. Obama’s aides invited him to speak at Barnard, according to the school’s president, Debora Spar, because they said, ”As the father of two daughters, President Obama wanted to speak to some of America’s next generation of women leaders.”
Of course, Obama has been the father of two daughters for a decade now. So, what makes this leap year so daughtery-special? Well, mainly Nov. 6. The women’s vote is a very important sector in presidential politics.
And Obama’s policy people have been driving a variety of issues this year designed to place him in the most sympathetic light of female eyes. Can you say Health and Human Services’ contraception insurance coverage decision? And having the president insert himself into the Sandra Fluke controversy over a 30-year-old student seeking government support for her $3,000 birth control needs. …
The president gave a speech last week to the UAW. David Harsanyi comments.
… the United Auto Workers union is a special interest. Like other unions, the UWA regularly lobbies Congress, funds Democratic candidates across the country with millions, and advocates public policy that undercuts competition and free trade. And, as The New York Times recently reported, the UAW and other unions will “put their vast political organizations into motion behind Mr. Obama.” (Nothing like a few strategic taxpayer “investments” to get labor inspired.)
And if by “be beaten down” the president means “compete in the marketplace like every other sucker in America,” well, he’s right. If by “be beaten down” he means “go to bankruptcy court — even if you’ve ‘played by the rules’ — and honor contracts you’ve signed rather than have a friendly administration rip them up and rewrite them in favorable terms for others, then heck yeah.
Yet Obama claims, “I” — “I” — “placed my bet on American workers.”
Now, it’s your bet, technically, of course, Mr. President. And let’s be honest; all my favorite bets are made with other people’s money. But you didn’t bet on the American people. That would mean betting that the marketplace and those in it have the capacity and the smarts to find increasingly productive and innovative ways to produce the things that consumers demand. You bet on a politically convenient corporation that believes it’s entitled to eternal state-sponsored protection. Too bad Woolworth’s and Pan Am couldn’t hold out until you came along. …
Politico has a story that adds emphasis to Ron Christie’s post above. Pelosi and Reid have asked the White House for campaign cash this year and have been told to take a hike. Obama is all out for himself and the hell with the rest of the Dems. Oh the humanity!
… The tightfistedness by the Obama campaign toward Hill Democrats reflects the harsh realities of the 2012 White House fight. Obama, who broke all fundraising records in his historic 2008 run, isn’t going to be the overwhelming financial juggernaut that he was four years ago. Obama still has a big edge in money raised and cash on hand — OFA and the DNC reported nearly $92 million in cash at the end of January after hauling in a combined $250 million last year, according to campaign records — over any Republican challenger.
But that still leaves Obama far short of the $1 billion that many pundits had predicted he would raise this cycle. Messina has railed against such claims for months, as it became a problem for Obama because some donors didn’t think he needed their support. Obama could still raise $700 million to $800 million, Democrats predict, a total that could be eclipsed by the GOP nominee, the Republican National Committee and shadowy pro-GOP super PACs.
The financial caution for the Obama team also reflects the growing power of super PACs, especially for Republicans. The groups — technically unaffiliated with any candidate yet already a huge factor in the GOP presidential contest — are prepared to dump tens of millions, possibly hundreds of millions, into the White House race. So far, Democrats, including Obama’s own super PAC allies, have been unable to match that flood of pro-Republican cash.
For instance, Crossroads, the Karl Rove-linked super PAC and nonprofit, will spend as much as $300 million bolstering the GOP presidential nominee and Republican congressional candidates and incumbents, POLITICO and other news organizations have reported. …
Bill McGurn reminds us that in 1980 Reagan was not Reagan.
… Then as now, the Republican primaries opened with a bang, when George H.W. Bush upset Ronald Reagan in the Iowa caucuses. By late February, this loss would lead to Reagan’s firing of his campaign manager, John Sears, in a disagreement over strategy.
Then, as now, Republicans feared that an unhappy contender might bolt the party to mount an independent campaign. In 1980, that was liberal John Anderson, not libertarian Ron Paul. Mr. Anderson did end up running as an independent, whereas Mr. Paul will likely be constrained by the effect a third-party run would have on the future prospects for his Republican son, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul.
Then as now, the chattering classes wondered aloud whether a candidate who could win the Republican nomination could prevail against President Carter in November. On March 1, former President Gerald Ford amplified that view when he told a New York Times reporter, “Every place I go and everything I hear, there is the growing, growing sentiment that Governor Reagan cannot win the election.”
Then as now, some put their hopes on a late entry, in the same way that some now pine for Jeb Bush or Mitch Daniels or Chris Christie to enter the race. In the same interview where Mr. Ford predicted that Reagan’s nomination would mean a repeat of 1964, he also declared himself open to a draft if there were a genuine “urging” by the party. …
Rasmussen Reports shows the Obama weakness.
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 25% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-three percent (43%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -18 …