First Debate,
New Hampshire (l) - let
the ads begin
From left, former Sen. Rick
Santorum of Pennsylvania; Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota; former
House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia; former Massachusetts Gov.
Mitt
Romney; Rep. Ron Paul of Texas; former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty;
and
businessman Herman Cain greet the audience before first New Hampshire
Republican presidential debate, at St. Anselm College in Manchester,
N.H., Monday. (Associated Press)From left, former Sen. Rick Santorum of
Pennsylvania; Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota; former House Speaker
Newt Gingrich of Georgia; former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney; Rep.
Ron Paul of Texas; former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty; and businessman
Herman Cain greet the audience before first New Hampshire Republican
presidential debate, at St. Anselm College in Manchester, N.H., Monday.
(Associated Press)
Some
candidates come back into focus who have dropped
out for want of $$?
Another Campaign for Sale
NYTIMES editorial
February 7, 2012
Two years ago, while delivering his State of the Union
address, President Obama looked the Supreme Court justices in the face
and told them they were wrong to have allowed special interests to
spend without limits on campaigns. “I don’t think American elections
should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests,” he said.
“They should be decided by the American people.”
On Monday, the president abandoned that fundamental principle and gave
in to the culture of the Citizens United decision that he once
denounced as a “threat to our democracy.”
His aides announced that the Obama campaign would begin to assist the
“super PAC” that can raise and spend unlimited sums to support the
president’s re-election effort. Even White House and cabinet officials
are expected to appear at fund-raising events for Priorities USA Action.
The announcement fully implicates the president, his campaign and his
administration in the pollution of the political system unleashed by
Citizens United and related court decisions. Corporations, unions and
wealthy individuals are already writing huge checks — with no
restrictions — to political action committees supporting individual
candidates, which have become bag men for campaigns that still
nominally operate under federal limits.
As misguided as it was, the Citizens United decision naïvely
believed
that the super PACs would remain separate from individual campaigns.
The White House’s decision to allow insiders like Kathleen Sebelius,
the health and human services secretary, and Jim Messina, the Obama
campaign manager, to speak at Priorities USA Action events shows how
ludicrous that notion has become, raising questions about whether the
law is being violated.
Up to now, Republicans have been the main defenders of this corrupt
system, and the main beneficiaries of it. Two of Karl Rove’s political
groups raised $51 million last year to use against Mr. Obama and other
Democrats, and the Republican presidential candidates’ PACs have raised
$40 million.
Priorities USA Action and other Democratic groups have raised only $19
million. And, as Mr. Messina wrote on the Obama campaign’s blog, “with
so much at stake” Democrats decided that they would not “unilaterally
disarm.”
But if President Obama had refused to join in this downward spiral —
and if he had proudly campaigned on that refusal — he and his campaign
might have made up for that deficit in other ways: with more small
contributions, and more support, from a public disgusted by the outsize
influence of big money.
A president has a megaphone bigger even than Mr. Rove’s bloated bank
account, and Mr. Obama could have impressed many wavering voters if he
had chosen to use it against campaign corruption. He could have pointed
out that it was Republicans who blocked the Disclose Act, which would
have ended secret corporate donations, and that it was Republicans who
used unlimited corporate funds to win back the House in 2010, pressing
a corporate agenda that has severely hurt the middle class.
He could have ridiculed Mitt Romney’s super PAC for accepting $18
million from just 200 donors in the second half of last year, including
million-dollar checks from hedge-fund operators, industrialists and
bankers.
But now Mr. Obama has given up that higher ground. He had already
undermined the public financing system for presidential campaigns by
refusing to use it in 2008, but this is much worse. In that campaign,
he at least forswore money from independent groups and lobbyists. Now
he is relying on a super PAC that can accept money from anyone.
He is also telling the country that simply getting re-elected is bigger
than standing on principle.
The AA+ Presidency
S&P
has blown the whistle on President Obama’s second-rate leadership.
National Review
Rich Lowry
August 9, 2011 12:00 A.M.
A few months ago, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner predicted with
unshakable confidence that there was “no risk” of a downgrade of U.S.
debt. In fact, he argued, “things are better than they’ve been if you
want to think about the prospects for improving our long-term fiscal
position.”
In his self-assured cluelessness, Geithner reflected the president he
serves. Upon taking office, Pres. Barack Obama gravely misread the
historic moment. He has brought us to a dangerous pass where a few
slips — another sharp recession, a spike in interest rates — could
bring on another terrifying economic crisis. To borrow his own put-down
of Congress during the debt-ceiling fight, he’s an AA+ president of an
AAA country.
Financial crises like that of 2008 always create vast overhangs of
debt, but Obama believed he should heedlessly add more. And he’s never
once “pivoted” to responsibility.
In February, six months before the downgrade, Obama offered a budget
that increased spending and the debt. After ten years, the deficit
still would have been more than $1 trillion. In April, four months
before the downgrade, Obama delivered a gimmicky budget speech with no
specifics. On April 11, just seven days before S&P assigned a
negative outlook to our AAA rating, White House press secretary Jay
Carney said the president wanted a debt-ceiling increase with no
deficit reduction whatsoever.
Now that the downgrade is upon us, the administration is lashing out.
It reeks of desperation and blame-shifting, but, hey, this is the way
the game is played down at AA+.
Geithner scolded S&P: “They’ve handled themselves very poorly. And
they’ve shown a stunning lack of knowledge about the basic U.S. fiscal
budget math.” His huffiness is badly misplaced. Whatever S&P’s
failings, it’s not under the misimpression that it’s okay to spend 40
percent more than you take in, which is the basic error in “budget
math” of Geithner’s boss.
S&P had barely acted before every Democratic henchman hilariously
deemed it “the tea-party downgrade.” S&P does complain about
“political brinksmanship” in Washington. But what does it expect in a
divided government? We had blissfully united government for two years
in 2009–10, and it gave us a historic spending blowout vastly more
irresponsible than the debt-ceiling deal.
The denial runs so deep on the left that MSNBC host Rachel Maddow
insisted on Meet the Press that S&P downgraded us “not because
there’s too much debt, but rather that Washington is not working.” If
there weren’t such a huge and growing debt load, though, Washington’s
fiscal squabbles wouldn’t be so momentous. As S&P notes, “the
trajectory of the U.S.’s net public debt is diverging” from that of our
former peers among AAA countries.
The reason is fundamentally political — “elected officials remain wary
of tackling the structural issues required to effectively address the
rising U.S. debt burden.” Tea-partying House Republicans don’t suffer
from this endemic deficiency. The Ryan budget undertook precisely the
containment of entitlements that, S&P says, “we and most other
independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability.”
It’s President Obama who is “wary” to reveal his secret plan to control
entitlements as part of the aborted “Grand Bargain.” As the president
of a country that has just suffered a humiliating rebuke for its
inability to deal frankly with entitlements, it’s now time for him to
show his hand with concrete, detailed proposals. If Obama favors
significant entitlement savings in private, it’s his duty to favor them
in public.
To this point, Obama has put ideology and cute partisan games above the
national interest in leadership worthy of AA+. He thought he could
spend as much as possible in his first two years, and a favorable
business cycle and rhetorical repositioning would bail him out before
2012. He didn’t count on reality having different plans.
Now, S&P has blown the whistle. Like all political malefactors, the
administration isn’t sorry for what it did; it’s sorry it got caught.
Republican debaters target Obama
Hit president on economy; Bachmann
officially in
The Washington Times
By Seth McLaughlin
10:56 p.m., Monday, June 13, 2011
MANCHESTER, N.H. —
Together onstage for the first New Hampshire debate of the 2012
presidential campaign, the Republican field of candidates Monday took
aim at President Obama, saying that despite trillions of dollars of
spending and tax breaks, he has left the country in what one called
"the Obama depression."
From Democrats' 2010 health care law to Mr. Obama's energy and labor
policies, Republicans said the president has gotten the economy — the
biggest issue, according to voters — wrong.
"He didn't create the recession, but he made it worse, and longer,"
said former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. "This president has failed.
And he's failed at a time when the American people counted on him to
create jobs and get the economy going."
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich described the Obama administration
as an "anti-job, anti-business, anti-American-energy destructive force"
and labeled the slump "the Obama depression."
The surprise news of the night was from Rep. Michele Bachmann of
Minnesota, who announced she is officially in the race. Earlier, she
had been exploring a run.
"As president of the United States, I will not rest until I repeal
Obamacare," said the three-term House member, who has introduced
legislation to end both the health care law and the new
financial-regulation law Mr. Obama signed.
The repeal pledge won general approval from the rest of the field,
which repeatedly ganged up on Mr. Obama, at times even passing up
chances to attack each other in favor of going after the president
instead.
Monday marked the first time that Mr. Romney was onstage with his
fellow Republicans. He officially joined the campaign earlier this
month, and polls show him leading the Republican field and the best
poised to go head to head with Mr. Obama next year.
But all seven Republicans on the stage chose to focus their fire on the
White House more than on each other, arguing that Mr. Obama has bungled
health care, has failed to create jobs and has embraced policies that
have made government bigger rather than spur the economy.
When CNN anchorman John King, who moderated the debate at St. Anselm
College here, tried to create dissonance between Mr. Romney and former
Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, both men demurred.
Mr. Pawlenty played down his earlier attack comparing the health care
law Mr. Romney signed in Massachusetts to the national law Mr. Obama
signed, coining the term "Obamneycare" on Sunday.
Pressed about the comment, Mr. Pawlenty ducked the question, saying
that his comments were simply a "reflection of the president's comments
that he modeled" his health care plan after the program enacted in
Massachusetts.
Asked about the Mr. Pawlenty's remark, Mr. Romney repeated that his
first step as president would be to repeal the president's health care
plan and grant waivers to every state that wants to opt out of the
program.
"My guess is, the president is going to eat those words," Mr. Romney
said, going on to say he would be the ideal person to take the health
care debate to Mr. Obama and addressed a rhetorical question at him.
"If in fact you looked at what we were doing in Massachusetts, why
didn't you give me a call?" Mr. Romney asked, saying he would have told
the president that Mr. Obama's health care plan would not work.
Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, an ardent pro-lifer, also
passed up an opportunity to attack Mr. Romney not taking Mr. King's
invitation to attack the former Massachusetts governor, who once was
pro-choice, as a flip-flopper.
Rounding out the candidates were Rep. Ron Paul of Texas and former
corporate executive Herman Cain.
Noticeably absent from the event were some of those who have left the
door open to a possible bid; namely, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin,
Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and
Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the House Budget Committee chairman.
Former New Mexico Gov. Gary E. Johnson also was missing, after he did
not receive an invitation to participate from CNN.
The fast-moving two-hour debate saw Mrs. Bachmann pledge that she
wouldn't push New Hampshire to repeal the state's gay-marriage law,
saying, "I am running for president of the United States" and that
judging state legislation wasn't her role.
She also joined most of her colleagues in voicing her support of a
federal constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of one
man and one woman.
Mr. Cain and the rest of the field voiced support for right-to-work
legislation.
Mr. Paul distanced himself from the rest of the group by saying he'd
pull the troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq as soon as possible to save
money and because "our national security is not enhanced by our
presence there."
"I wouldn't wait for my generals," Mr. Paul said, alluding to the
stances of some of the others on the stage. "I'm the commander in
chief. I tell the generals what to do."
While more cautious about taking advice from his generals, Mr. Romney
was critical of what he characterized as nation-building efforts in
Afghanistan. "Only the Afghanis can win Afghanistan's independence from
the Taliban," Mr. Romney said.
Mrs. Bachmann's answer on Libya also indicated a move on the Republican
field's part more towards Mr. Paul's non-interventionist stance, on
which he was virtually alone in 2008.
"The president was not leading when it came to Libya," Mrs. Bachmann
said, noting with scorn in her voice that Mr. Obama had left leadership
of the operation to France.
Mr. Pawlenty went further than the Libya war and its multinational
character, taking on the entire Obama worldview, saying the president
was a "declinist" and someone who sees America "as one of equals around
the world," rather than a believer in American exceptionalism.
The two-hour event kicked off with a brief photo shoot, including some
awkward-looking exchanges between the candidates. They were given a
brief one-minute chance at the start of the broadcast to introduce
themselves to voters. Every candidate mentioned his family and children
— except for Mr. Gingrich, whose marital troubles have dogged him for
years and likely will continue to do so.
Mr. Gingrich also passed on an opportunity to dial back his description
of the House Republicans' plan to reshape Medicare as "right-wing
social engineering," claiming that his comments were taken out of
context.
"If you can't convince the American people it's a good idea, then maybe
it's not a good idea," he said.
Sponsored by CNN, the New Hampshire Union Leader newspaper and WMUR-TV,
the debate was billed as a town-hall style event because the candidates
took questions directly from voters, who wanted to know where they
stood on the president's health care plan and what they planned to do
to make a dent in the high unemployment rate.
"I have the experience, the leadership and results to lead it to a
better place," Mr. Pawlenty said.
Mr. Paul said he was the "champion of liberty" and defender of the
Constitution, while Mr. Cain said he was a "problem-solver with over 40
years of business experience."
More than anything else, it served as the unofficial kickoff to the
2012 campaign in the Granite State, which is home to the
first-in-the-nation primary and where voters tend to think pocketbook
issues trump all others at the ballot box.
It also provided the lesser-known faces in the field with a golden
opportunity to introduce themselves to a national audience, while
rolling out the reasons why they're best equipped to make Mr. Obama a
one-term president and to get the nation's financial house back in
order.
In lighter moments, CNN asked the candidates quick questions about
personal preference in what Mr. King called a bid to humanize the
candidates.
Mr. Cain, a former pizza magnate, was asked whether he preferred
thin-crust or deep-dish and said emphatically, after a pregnant pause,
"deep-dish." However, Mrs. Bachmann waffled on her answer about two
legendary singers, before eventually deciding she preferred Elvis
Presley over Johnny Cash.
Mr. Romney answered Mr. King's question by saying he preferred spicy
wings over mild, but then he took the opportunity to be the bearer of
good sporting news in the NHL's Stanley Cup finals to the New England
audience: "By the way, Bruins are up 4-0."
2012: The Racing
Form:
A
look at the
long shots, the serious candidates, and the 2016 bench.
NATIONAL REVIEW
ONLINE
Charles Krauthammer
April 22, 2011 12:00 A.M.
Unified Field Theory of 2012, Axiom
One: The more the Republicans can make the 2012 election like
2010, the better their chances of winning.
The 2010 Democratic shellacking had the distinction of being the most
ideological election in 30 years. It was driven by one central argument
in its several parts: the size and reach of government, spending and
debt, and, most fundamentally, the nature of the American social
contract. 2010 was a referendum on the Obama experiment in
hyper-liberalism. It lost resoundingly.
Of course, presidential elections are not arguments in the abstract but
arguments with a face. Hence, Axiom Two: The less attention the
Republican candidate draws to him/herself, the better the chances of
winning. To the extent that 2012 is about ideas, about the case for
smaller government, Republicans have a decided edge. If it’s a
referendum on the fitness and soundness of the Republican candidate —
advantage Obama.
Which suggests Axiom Three: No baggage and no need for flash. Having
tried charisma in 2008, the electorate is not looking for a thrill up
the leg in 2012. It’s looking for solid, stable, sober, and, above all,
not scary.
Given these Euclidean truths, here’s the early line. (Remember: This is
analysis, not advocacy.)
Long shots
Michele Bachmann: Tea Party favorite. Appeals to Palinites. Could do
well in Iowa. Hard to see how she makes her way through the rest of the
primary thicket. A strong showing in debates and a respectable finish
would increase her national stature for 2016. But for now: 20:1 to win
the nomination.
Donald Trump: He’s not a candidate, he’s a spectacle. He’s also not a
conservative. With a wink and a smile, Muhammad Ali showed that
self-promoting obnoxiousness could be charming. Trump shows that it can
be merely vulgar. A provocateur and a clown, the Republicans’ Al
Sharpton. The Lions have a better chance of winning the Super Bowl.
The major candidates
Mitt Romney: Serious guy. Pre-vetted (2008). Tons of private- and
public-sector executive experience. If not for one thing, he’d be the
prohibitive front-runner. Unfortunately, the one thing is a big thing:
Massachusetts’s Romneycare. For an election in which the main issue is
excessive government (see Axiom One), that’s a huge liability. Every
sentient Republican has been trying to figure out how to explain it
away. I’ve heard no reports of any success. Romney is Secretariat at
Belmont, but ridden by Minnesota Fats. He goes out at 5:1.
Newt Gingrich: Smart guy. A fountain of ideas. No, a Vesuvius of ideas.
Some brilliance, lots of lava. Architect of a historic Republican
victory in 1994. Rocky speakership. Unfortunate personal baggage. 12:1.
Haley Barbour: Successful governor. Experienced Washington hand.
Abundant charm. Baggage: Years of lobbying, unforced errors on civil
rights, early neo-isolationist deviations. Rarely without a comeback,
however. 7:1.
Tim Pawlenty: Formerly, an unassuming, unprepossessing, solid two-term
Minnesota governor. Currently, mouse that roars. Uptempo style,
middle-of-the-road conservative content. Apparently baggageless. Could
be the last man standing. 5:1.
Mitch Daniels: Highly successful governor. Budget guru. Delightful
dullness satisfies all axioms (see above). Foreign policy unknown,
assuming he has one. Alienated some conservatives with his call for a
truce on — i.e., deferring — social issues. If he runs, 6:1.
Likely not running
Mike Huckabee: Has a good life — hosting a popular TV show, making
money, building his dream house in Florida. He’d be crazy to run.
Doesn’t look crazy to me.
Sarah Palin: Same deal. Showed her power in 2010 as kingmaker and
opinion shaper. Must know (I think) she has little chance at the
nomination and none in the general election. Why risk it, and the
inevitable diminishment defeat would bring?
Even less likely to run — the 2016
bench
A remarkable class of young up-and-comers includes Paul Ryan, Chris
Christie, Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley. All impressive, all new to the
national stage, all with bright futures. 2012, however, is too early —
except possibly for Ryan, who last week became de facto leader of the
Republican party. For months, he will be going head-to-head with
President Obama on the budget, which is a surrogate for the central
issue of 2012: the proper role of government. If Ryan acquits himself
well, by summer’s end he could emerge as a formidable anti-Obama.
One problem: Ryan has zero inclination to run. Wants to continue what
he’s doing right now. Would have to be drafted. That would require
persuasion. Can anyone rustle up a posse?
— Charles Krauthammer is a nationally
syndicated columnist. © 2011 the Washington Post Writers Group.
'Leading
from behind' could doom O
NEW YORK POST
By JOHN PODHORETZ
Last Updated: 12:14 AM, April 26, 2011
Posted: 10:02 PM, April 25, 2011
The reliably liberal New Yorker magazine isn't usually in the habit of
presenting gifts to the Republican Party, but it has just published
three little words that may prove central to the GOP effort to defeat
President Obama next year. Those words are "leading from behind," and
they appear at the end of a Ryan Lizza article on Obama's foreign
policy.
Lizza didn't coin the phrase. "Leading from behind" is a direct quote
from of "one of [Obama's] advisers," who is describing his boss' policy
on Libya. That same adviser goes on to say that the effort to lead from
behind is "so at odds with the John Wayne expectation for what America
is in the world. But it's necessary for shepherding us through this
phase."
And there you have it: the 2012 campaign against Obama's foreign policy
in a nutshell. By the time Election Day rolls around, if the GOP knows
what's good for it, the phrase "leading from behind" will be the "yes,
we can" of 2012.
The reason the phrase is so devastating is that "leading from behind"
wasn't intended as criticism but rather as a sympathetic, even proud,
defense of the administration's approach and goals.
Lizza describes it thus: "It's a different definition of leadership
than America is known for, and it comes from two unspoken beliefs: that
the relative power of the US is declining, as rivals like China rise,
and that the US is reviled in many parts of the world."
It is one thing to argue that the United States has made mistakes in
foreign and defense policy. Everybody believes that, however deep our
disagreements about what those mistakes are.
It is something entirely different, and much more profoundly serious,
for a presidency to be operating on the basis that the United States
can only lead if it "leads from behind" because the country's power is
"declining" and because America "is reviled in many parts of the world."
Is this something that the independent voters Obama will desperately
need next year will be pleased to hear? One gets the sense that they
are riven with anxiety about their future and the country's future.
This is not the sort of talk that will calm that anxiety.
Quite the opposite. It would, rather, seem custom-made to provoke
anxiety about Obama's leadership. In the first place, "leading from
behind" makes no sense logically or grammatically, so it confuses
before it enlightens. And then, once you figure it out, the problems
really begin.
A nation's declining power isn't like the moon's effect on the tide,
caused by forces beyond our control. It is the result of actions,
behaviors, ideas. If the White House truly believes the authority of
the United States has suffered a decline, then its paramount
responsibility is to reverse that decline.
Even for those who don't care about foreign policy, it should make
little sense for the planet's most powerful nation to allow its
position in the world to erode.
That erosion isn't bad news because it's good fun to be the Big Man on
the World Campus. It's bad news because the continued erosion of
America's influence will inexorably lead to military, strategic and
economic challenges for the United States that will make the current
geopolitical chessboard look like a game of Candyland.
And yet one gets the distinct sense not that Obama has been forced into
the position of "leading from behind" by the circumstances in which he
finds himself, but rather that he wants to "lead from behind."
In one sense, that's entirely understandable: The burdens of world
leadership are exceptionally heavy at the moment, and seem quite
thankless. But then, nobody told Barack Obama to run for president, and
no one is telling him to run for re-election.
Of course, this article and that pithy three-word closing phrase just
made that challenge significantly more difficult.