• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

U.S. 2012 Election

On Nov 6 Who Will Win President Obama or Mitt Romney ?

  • President Obama

    Votes: 39 61.9%
  • Mitt Romney

    Votes: 24 38.1%

  • Total voters
    63
  • Poll closed .
The interesting point in this article (besides the idea the Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu would be an outstanding cadidate) is the "short list" of potential Republican challengers. Anyone with more knowledge of US politics care to coment on this list?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/29/obama_the_weak_110029.html

Obama the Weak
By Jack Kelly

Many Republicans are unhappy with their choices for president, especially after Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels declined to run.

But the ideal GOP candidate was on display in Washington last week.

He has experience in executive positions in both government and private business, and an impressive military record.

As a graduate of both Harvard and MIT, his establishment credentials are impeccable. But his strong conservatism has a populist strain. He connects with ordinary folks.

He's a member of a minority group which usually votes Democratic.

A champion debater at Cheltenham High School in the Philadelphia suburbs, he is an inspiring orator. He gets under Barack Obama's skin.

Alas, Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu already has a job. He's prime minister of Israel.

Mr. Netanyahu concluded a powerful week Tuesday with an address to a joint session of Congress. He received 29 standing ovations. ABC's Jonathan Karl noted that during his (much longer) State of the Union address, President Barack Obama received only 25.

The Israeli prime minister returned home strengthened immeasurably by Mr. Obama's clumsy effort to diminish him. The highlight of his visit came during a joint appearance at the White House when Mr. Netanyahu delivered to the president's face a short, respectful, but powerful explanation for why Israel could never return to its 1967 borders.

Mr. Obama's body language indicated he was surprised and displeased that Mr. Netanyahu would dare confront him. And when the president tried to walk back what he'd said about borders during his speech Sunday to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the heavily Democratic audience of 1,200 mostly sat on their hands. Other speakers at the AIPAC conference -- including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. -- sided with Mr. Netanyahu.

"This is what a leader looks like," wrote Bryan Preston of Pajamas Media of Mr. Netanyahu's "very impressive" speech to Congress. "Not a word of it will have to be 'clarified' or walked back in a day or two. It will not be 'misunderstood,' as President Obama claims his speech of last week has been. I have had many friends on the Republican side tell me 'if only we had a candidate like that.' "

Bibi Netanyahu can't run for president of the United States. But he showed those who are running how to get the better of Mr. Obama: Talk straight. Talk substance. Go directly at him.

While Congress was applauding Mr. Netanyahu, Mr. Obama was showing us what leadership isn't. On a visit intended more to advance his re-election campaign than the interests of the United States, Mr. Obama played Ping-Pong with British Prime Minister David Cameron, signed the wrong date in the distinguished visitors' log at Westminster Abbey and botched a toast to the Queen.

The fluffiness of the agenda didn't prevent Mr. Obama and Mr. Cameron -- pygmies who imagine themselves giants -- from comparing themselves to Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

We should bear this in mind when Obamaphiles in the news media bemoan the alleged weakness of the Republican presidential field. Jay Cost, perhaps the premier psephologist in American today, noted that the three most plausible declared candidates -- former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman -- all have more impressive resumes than Barack Obama did when he ran for president. And -- unlike Mr. Obama, who voted "present" more than 100 times in the Illinois legislature -- all can boast significant accomplishments.

They are likely to be joined soon by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who takes a back seat to no one in the straight talk department. And a strenuous effort will be made to push Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis. -- who gets as deeply under Mr. Obama's skin as Mr. Netanyahu does -- into the race. (Wisconsin law would permit Mr. Ryan to run for president and for re-election to the House at the same time.)

The GOP field arguably is weak ... compared to Bibi Netanyahu. But Republicans are running against Barack Obama, who's made a hash of the economy and foreign policy, and who seems to spend more time golfing and partying and campaigning than attending to his duties. The weaker candidate in 2012 won't be the Republican nominee.
 
This may be the narrative the GOP runs with in 2012. By forensic examination of the mortgage crisis and the subsequent economic crisis names are named, blame is assigned and voters are invited to punish the guilty. It is hard to see how this could go wrong, but political parties have demonstrated wonderful creativity in shooting themselves...

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/06/07/fanniegate-gamechanger-for-the-gop/

Fanniegate: Gamechanger For The GOP?
Walter Russell Mead
Democrats, watch out.

The Republican Party and especially its Tea Party wing have just acquired a new weapon of mass destruction — and it has nothing to do with any of Congressman Wiener’s rogue body parts.  If they deploy this weapon effectively in the next election cycle — a big if — then they have the biggest opportunity to move the country rightward since Ronald Reagan took the oath of office back in 1981.

The Tea Party WMD stockpile is currently stored in book form:  Reckless Endangerment: How Outsized Ambition, Greed, and Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon. By Gretchen Morgenson, one of America’s best business journalists who is currently at The New York Times, and noted financial analyst Joshua Rosner, Reckless Endangerment gives the best available account of how the growing chaos in the mortgage and personal finance markets and the rampant bundling of dubious loans into exotically toxic securities plunged the world, and millions of American families, into the gravest financial crisis since World War Two. It is gripping reading as well, and its explanations are clear enough that readers without any background in finance will have no trouble following the plot.  The villains?  An unholy alliance between Wall Street, the Democratic establishment, community organizing groups like ACORN and La Raza, and politicians like Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi and Henry Cisneros.  (Frank got a cushy job for a lover, Pelosi got a job and layoff protection for a son, Cisneros apparently got a license to mint money bilking Mexican-Americans of their life savings in cheesy housing developments.)

If the GOP can make this narrative mainstream, and put this picture into the heads of voters nationwide, the Democrats are toast.  The party will have to reinvent itself (or as often happens in American politics, be rescued by equally stupid Republican missteps) before it can flourish.

If Morgenstern and Rosner are to be believed, the American dream didn’t die of old age; it was murdered and most of the fingerprints on the corpse come from Democratic insiders.  Democratic power brokers stoked the housing bubble and turned a blind eye to the increasingly rampant corruption and incompetence at Fannie Mae and the associated predatory lenders who sheltered under its umbrella; core Democratic ideas may well be at fault.

This is catnip to Republicans, arsenic to Dems.  If Morgenson and Rosner are right, there is someone the American people can blame for our current economic woes and it is exactly the cast of characters that a lot of Americans love to hate.  Big government, affirmative action and influence peddling among Democratic insiders came within inches of smashing the US economy.

The Morgenson/Rosner story is a simple and easily grasped one. It is made for campaign ads.  The Great Villain, the man who almost ruined America according to the book, is James Johnson, long one of the most important members of the Democratic establishment.  He ran Walter Mondale’s campaign.  He chaired John Kerry’s search for a vice-president — the brilliantly executed search that chose the revered anti-poverty warrior John Edwards.

Barack Obama, impressed by this track record of discernment, reportedly asked him to lead Obama’s search in 2008 — though Johnson withdrew when word got out that he benefited from the disgraced and disgusting Angelo Mozilo’s corrupt program of ‘special’ mortgages for political friends.  (Mozilo was the head of Countrywide, a massively fraudulent and predatory lender which benefited hugely from its business connections with Fannie Mae.)  He is a director of the much hated Goldman Sachs, a former director of Lehman Brothers, has chaired the board of the Brookings Institution, is a major Democratic Party fundraiser who bundled several hundred thousand dollars for President Obama, helped bring old Clinton friends into the Obama organization, and has been at the center of Democratic finance and politics for a generation.

Named CEO of Fannie Mae (a government backed mortgage corporation) Johnson decided to make untold wealth by making and securitizing junk housing loans and by massaging the financial reports to ensure that he qualified for the obscenely generous maximum bonus no matter what was actually happening to the company under his care.

Fannie Mae, a historically staid and predictable government linked company, needed to turn into a cutting edge speculative growth engine to make the hundreds of millions Johnson wanted.  Since taxpayers stand behind Fannie Mae’s debts, Johnson needed to get the politicians to back his desire to turn this milkwagon into a Porsche.  Fortunately for him — and unfortunately for the country and the world — he found a way.

Fannie Mae would adopt the goal of increasing the percentage of Americans who owned their own homes, targeting the inner city poor who, allegedly, were blocked from home ownership by racial discrimination.  (A bogus study to this effect was widely circulated; devastating criticisms and rebuttals quietly ignored.) This is where such luminaries of the American political scene as ACORN and La Raza get into the act.  They served as cheerleaders for Johnson’s self-enrichment plan, camouflaging a Wall Street rip-off by hymning its benefits for the poor.

The purpose of no doc, no money down loans wasn’t, Heaven forbid, to generate rich fees and high interest rates for mortgage brokers and Wall Street.  No, the smarmy defenders of the Great American Rip-off told us, those features were necessary to make sure that poor people (so cruelly, unfairly locked out of mortgages because they didn’t qualify for the stuffy old-fashioned kind) could participate in the American Dream.  Anybody who opposed Jim Johnson’s get rich scheme was a racist who hated the poor.  Political correctness married Wall Street chicanery as Maxine Waters, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank led the band; crooked accountants and clueless rating agencies performed the ceremony; big government dowered the couple with a debt guarantee and bankers dressed as flower girls showered the happy pair in a confetti of junk mortgages and junk bonds.

Fannie Mae and the housing market were off to the races — and where Fannie Mae led the way, the financial markets followed.  Regulators were captured by the interests they were supposed to regulate; favors were dispensed with a lavish hand; taxpayer-provided money was used to assemble a vast lobby focused on extracting more money from hapless taxpayers to make James Johnson even richer. In the process, millions of financially unsophisticated low income people were stuck with obscenely unfair mortgages, honest whistle blowers were subjected to savage personal attacks, home prices lost all touch with reality, taxpayers were stuck with losses that may approach one trillion dollars, and financial markets were poisoned almost beyond repair.

But there’s a bright side.  Mondale-Kerry-Obama confidant Johnson made a boatload of money, and Fannie Mae was able to pay many of his personal bills — at least until it went broke.

That at least is the story of Reckless Endangerment.  No doubt Johnson’s memoirs will tell the story in a different way.  The housing bubble and the financial market meltdown were very complex phenomena, many cooks were required to spoil this broth and the arguments over what caused the crash may never end.

Truth is one thing; politics is another.  Politically, this story is a killer app for the GOP.  It demonizes Dems, lends itself to attack ads, divides Democrats between their Wall Street and union bases, and combines GOP hate figures in ways calculated to unify the GOP and heighten the intensity of the faithful.

The story illustrates everything the Tea Party thinks about the corrupt Washington establishment and the evils of big government.  It demonstrates the limits on the ability of government programs to help the poor.  It converts a complicated economic story into a simple morality play — with Dems as the villain.  It allows Republicans to capitalize on public fury at the country’s economic problems.  It links the Democrats to Wall Street — the one part of the private sector that the Republican base loathes.  It exposes that mix of incompetence and arrogance that is the hallmark of the modern American liberal establishment and links this condescending cluelessness to the real problems of real American families.  It links President Obama (through appointments, associations and friendships) with the worst elements of the Clinton legacy and it blunts some key Democratic talking points.

The story can also be a devastating wedge issue.  The Democratic Party today is a fragile coalition of elite liberals, traditionally Democratic ethnic blue collar whites, African Americans and Hispanics.  The Fannie Mae story is essentially a story of how liberal Wall Streeters raped every one else — and how the organized leadership of the other groups colluded in the attack.  Hammering this picture home will demoralize and divide the Democratic Party, reducing enthusiasm among minorities and pulling swing white ethnic votes toward the GOP.

The story builds GOP unity even as it divides the Democrats, allowing GOP populists and establishment figures to find some common ground.  For one thing, it builds the idea that Wall Street is a liberal Democratic institution rather than a conservative Republican one.  In fact, Wall Street is in love with power and cuts deals with whoever can make them, but for years Democrats have prospered by making running on Franklin D. Roosevelt’s platform against ‘the malefactors of great wealth’.  There are many powerful Wall Street figures who are closely linked to the Democrats, however, and the James Johnson story puts a face on that alliance.  Socially and culturally, most of Wall Street stands closer to the Democratic establishment than to the Republican Party these days; linking the Democrats to Wall Street, teacher unions and race hustlers is an easy and compelling way to push the Democrats closer to the cliff even as it allows GOP candidates to lace their speeches with populist anti-Wall Street rhetoric without embracing anti-business policy.

The story doesn’t just attack a failure of Democratic policy execution; it exposes a key flaw in New Democratic thinking.  The Third Way as dreamed up by Bill Clinton and Tony Blair sought to harness the power of financial markets to a public service agenda.  Old style command and control liberalism believed in directly mandating business to do what politicians thought should be done.  AT&T had to serve rural communities, but in exchange it had a phone monopoly and regulators made sure that it made a good profit.  The airlines and bus companies had to service unprofitable routes, but regulators made sure that their route networks as a whole were profitable.

As competition became more global and the inflexible regulations of the old liberalism proved less workable, a new and updated liberalism appeared.  Instead of old fashioned mandates, liberals would use new approaches that capitalized on the power of the market.  Use cap and trade schemes rather than command and control to control carbon through the market — and by creating an international market that will make money for financial firms.  Tweak the mortgage regulations to spread home ownership to the poor.  Both Britain and the US are looking at fun new ideas like ‘infrastructure banks’ that can fund projects that liberals like without putting large new debts on the public accounts.  Private profits can grow even as the public interest is served: this was the Clinton-Blair dream that was billed as liberalism’s response to the Thatcher revolution.  Additionally, liberal politicians like Al Gore and James Johnson were well placed to capitalize on the new arrangements.  Bill Clinton and Tony Blair have both become much wealthier after leaving office than old style liberals like Harry Truman ever could.

The story also undercuts what little is left of the credibility and the moral authority of the American establishment.  What is especially shocking in this story is that the higher up and more powerful people are usually the most venal and corrupt.  Low level researchers and bureaucrats are constantly raising questions and preparing devastating reports that expose the flawed premises behind Fannie Mae’s policies.  They are being constantly slapped down by the well connected and the well paid.  The American establishment does not have the necessary moral strength and intellectual acuity to run the affairs of this country; Tea Party believers will find much in this book that confirms their worst fears.

Republicans of course have a few financial scandals of their own that Democrats can take out and rattle.  But because Fanniegate offers a clear storyline, identifiable villains linked to specific disasters that have hit tens of millions of Americans in the pocketbook, and is overwhelming a story of Democratic abuses of Democratic ideas, it is potentially a game changing event.  It is also an issue that a GOP candidate for the nomination can use to break away from the field; it is an issue a contender could ride all the way to the White House.

Paul Krugman once told me that he thought that Enron would have a greater impact on American politics than 9/11.  He was wrong about that scandal, but if the GOP plays its cards right, Fanniegate could push this country into a new political era.
 
 
The Republicans need to get back to their roots: small town, small business, essentially liberal, middle-American roots. The Democrats have, in the modern era, more or less secured the BIG segments - just as the Liberal Party of Canada did here: big banks, big labour, big business, big education, big cities. But even big cities are, really, conglomerations of small towns and the GOP can find votes in neighbourhoods and, especially, middle class suburbs.

To win, over and over again, the GOP needs to declare the culture wars as won; declare victory and come home. Let the big banks, big labour and central city neighbourhoods have abortion and gay marriage - both are here (at least there) to stay, no matter what all the preachers in all the world say or pray.

Focus on fiscal and social responsibility - good, solid, middle-American value based governance. "Moderate conservatism," Eisenhower's conservatism, worked. Goldwater, Nixon, even Reagan and Bush Sr, and especially Bush Jr were divisive. America doesn't need more division; it needs responsible leadership and good management.

The GOP can win with a moderate conservative; but it, and the Tea Party, will lose again and again and again with social and religious conservatives - many of whom are no better that Christian fundamentalist fanatics, their own version of the Taliban. And they will deserve to lose, again and again and again because even left wing Democrats will appear more "middle American" and will capture the moderate independent vote.
 
From Lawrence Martin yesterday:

With our stable political situation, the no-surprise Throne Speech and Monday’s repeat budget, it’s a calm Canadian world. No looming crises, no outsized government plans, a “steady as she goes” environment. It’s not the best of times, it’s not the worst of times, but it could be the dullest of times.

One of the paramount questions of our day is the naming of the new prime ministerial kitten. Soon we’ll be having our 147th go-round on reforming the Senate. Usually after the election of a majority government, there are tall dreams to be contemplated and much political capital to be spent. But not with these guys: It’s about tweaking what we have. Their new politics is the politics of low expectations.

And the strategy may well be wise. Set the bar high, and you probably won’t reach it. Big promises are promises that often go unfulfilled. The lesson learned is not to make them, and that’s why Stephen Harper and company have come forward with an agenda that barely makes it to the bottom rung on the inspiration ladder.......

Aside from Lawrence bemoaning the fact that he won't have much to write about for the next four years, he does draw attention to the fact that Stephen Harper is about Governance and not Leadership.  Leadership roils the waters - and from time to time a little roiling is a necessary and useful thing.  But equally it is necessary to let the waters still and discover the impact of all that roiling.  If the waters become too turbulent it is hard to determine if the vessel moves because of the Leader or just because of the waters.

Harper's style is appropriate for a time of troubled waters.  The Americans could benefit from someone similarly inclined.

If you don't know what you are doing, if you can't predict the outcome within reasonable limits, then often it is better to do nothing at all.
 
Aside from Lawrence bemoaning the fact that he won't have much to write about for the next four years

Never stopped the Cdn media, let alone the Ottawa press corp, to create a story.
 
Breaking news from The Globe and Mail:

Republican Gingrich’s presidential hopes shattered as top aides resign en masse

DAVID ESPO
WASHINGTON— The Associated Press

Published Thursday, Jun. 09, 2011

Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich's campaign manager, senior strategists and key aides in early delegate-selection states all resigned on Thursday, a mass exodus that leaves his hopes of winning the Republican nomination in tatters ... Mr. Gingrich told the group he intends to stay in the race ...


Fun and games.  ???
 
Perhaps why the former speaker's team quit:

http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2011/06/09/gop-nomination-perrys-to-lose/?print=1

Gingrich staff quits: Is the Republican nomination Perry’s to lose?
Posted By Roger L Simon On June 9, 2011 @ 2:37 pm In Uncategorized | 41 Comments

The news that key long time advisers to Gov. Rick Perry of Texas — David Carney and Rob Johnson — have quit Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign [1], along with other Gingrich staff members, is a strong sign that Perry has decided to run for the presidency. Carney and Johnson only joined Gingrich in the first place when the ten-year Texas governor told them he would not compete for the presidency.

Many originally reported that seven Gingrich staffers resigned, but PJMedia has knowledge from a close source that the number was actually twelve — a mass exodus indeed and hugely embarrassing to the former speaker.

Nevertheless, Gingrich has already sent out email that he will restart his campaign Sunday night at the Republican Jewish Coalition annual summer bash in Los Angeles. PJTV will be there.

Why did the Gingrich staffers say they quit? “We just had a different direction in which we wanted to take the campaign,” a source told Politico [2]. My guess is that direction, for some at least, was toward Austin, although Gingrich certainly had not distinguished himself on the campaign trail, particularly with his clumsy personal attack on Rep. Paul Ryan.

Now it seems almost certain events have conspired to convince Rick Perry to run. And if he does, the Texas governor will be a formidable candidate.

In many ways, the Republican nomination would be Perry’s to lose.

My reasons:

The Tea Party vote would largely migrate to the Texas governor — and quickly. Michele Bachmann looked amateurish and confused with her selection of Ed Rollins as campaign manager. Rollins — who has a bad habit of making the campaign about him — made the mistake of pointlessly attacking Sarah Palin, thus alienating a large portion of Bachmann’s base should she be nominated. Bachmann might have redeemed herself by firing Rollins, but she didn’t.

Meanwhile, Palin seems more like she’s running to be a conservative Oprah than to be president of the United States. And her continuing high negatives make it unlikely she would be able to capture the center of the country, necessary in order to win, anyway. And Herman Cain, while appealing, has little to run on but a successful pizza company.

Perry has been America’s most successful governor for the last decade, helping create jobs in his state at a rapid clip while most of the rest of the country was shedding them. This is a huge competitive asset against Obama who seems increasingly clueless about how to rescue our near-disastrous economic situation.

This will also give the Texas governor an advantage against his mainline Republican competition — Romney, Pawlenty, Hunstman, etc. Furthermore, unlike the others, Perry is a charismatic figure who seems like he could be president. He can easily hold the stage with Obama.

The rap on Perry is that he is another Texan, like George Bush. And because of Bush, the country is Texas-weary. But in person the governor is much more like Ronald Reagan than Bush. If I seem overly enthusiastic, it’s because I have spent a fair amount of time with Perry — pistol shooting [3] and at the NASCAR races [4].

Perry is a people person’s people person. The guy is as much of a political natural as I have seen. He is also a great friend of new media. At a time when our country is in danger of imploding and going into a serious decline, a potential disaster for the entire globe, it would be a relief if he ran.
[5]

Article printed from Roger L. Simon: http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2011/06/09/gop-nomination-perrys-to-lose/

URLs in this post:

[1] quit Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43343808/ns/politics-decision_2012/
[2] Politico: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56631.html#ixzz1OoJNbRd7
[3] pistol shooting: http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2010/01/23/shootin-with-the-governor-perry/
[4] NASCAR races: http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2010/05/05/god-guns-and-nascar-the-motion-picture-roger-simon-goes-racing-with-gov-perry/
[5] Image: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wFY_sXfVJI
 
Gingrich has been out of politics so long he forgot how to run a campaign. :)
 
Perry served in the USAF as a C-130 pilot, retiring as a Capt after approx five years service. Texas A & M grad, married his childhood sweetheart.

Very popular in Texas.
 
Governor Palin roils the waters yet again. Based on the evidence of her governorship, she probably would make a good president, but obviously needs a much better team of advisors and houshold troops to pull this off. (Maybe Prime Minister Harper can offer some advice...):

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-sarah/?print=1

How Do You Solve a Problem Like Sarah?

Posted By Mary Claire Kendall On June 22, 2011 @ 11:36 am In Conservatism 2.0,Culture,Culture Bytes,economy,Elections 2008,Elections 2012,Film,Homeland Security,US News | 88 Comments

Have you heard the rumor?

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin will announce her decision this week regarding whether or not she will seek the 2012 GOP presidential nomination. Problem is, she tweeted, nobody told her [1].

No matter. With Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN) [2] and Texas Governor Rick Perry surging in the polls — as Palin remains comfortably ensconced in a strong second place — it feels right [3].

But it must be an excruciating decision — less than three short years after she splashed onto the national stage when she accepted Senator John McCain’s nomination to be his running mate on the 2008 GOP presidential ticket.

Of course, it was a great first impression, after which she was soon engulfed in a swell of bad press, starting with “Trooper-gate,” suggesting she was too green to fill the shoes of vice president, which was confirmed as the campaign progressed.

You see, being a VP nominee is akin to sitting in that carnival contraption where, if someone hits the bull’s eye, you’re dunked in water.

Sarah Palin didn’t take kindly to being dunked in water. She tangled with the staff of McCain-Palin ’08 because she was being treated poorly, which surely she was — not understanding that’s par for the VP course.

On the positive side of the ledger: Palin was/is a star on the stump, electrifying an audience like nobody’s business.

Now, along comes Steve Bannon’s remarkable feature-length documentary film, The Undefeated, [4] which hits the reset button on Sarah Palin — and also hits AMC Theaters [5] on July 15.

Washington Post’s Phil Rucker — like me, invited to a private screening — told Lawrence O’Donnell on The Last Word that it’s “professionally done” [6] and shows how truly accomplished Palin was as governor of Alaska, at one point registering 80% approval; albeit, he noted, the film has “not a single dissenting voice.”

It’s a stunning, Reaganesque portrait. What she accomplished in 18 months as governor of Alaska, most notably on the energy front, is testament to her political and policy understanding and skill — and her forbearance.

Specifically, she shepherded through legislation other governors had tried, but failed, to pass for decades, including initial legislation for a natural gas pipeline; oil tax reform garnering billions for Alaska and its residents; and a solution by which Exxon Mobil was prodded to start drilling in a leased oil field it had left idle for decades.

The only problem is Sarah Palin — a wild thing in desperate need of corralling — has the tendency to hit the reset button back to negative impressions.

If only McCain had not picked her or she had not accepted. If only  she had not quit the governorship eleven months later. If only she had continued building her impressive governing credentials, starting a legal defense fund to deal with those pesky and frivolous ethics complaints.

If only. How indeed to solve the Palin problem?

She reminds me of great talents in the entertainment industry — Betty Hutton of Annie Get Your Gun fame seems a particularly apt comparison [7] — whose talent overwhelms them, then because they don’t know how to get and take the right direction, their potential is never fully realized.

But it’s not too late for Sarah Palin.

Now that she’s found a great director for her life story, let’s hope she can find a director who can help shape her story going forward in a more focused, strategically effective way.

FDR had his Louis Howe [8]; Ronald Reagan had his Lyn Nofziger [9]. The question is will Sarah Palin find someone who can guide her out of rogue territory, deftly shaping her into a towering figure who can accomplish for America what she did for Alaska.

Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-sarah/

URLs in this post:

[1] nobody told her: http://theothermccain.com/2011/06/17/was-that-a-denial-governor/

[2] Michele Bachmann (R-MN): http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/has-michele-bachmann-become-mitt-romney’s-main-rival/

[3] it feels right: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html#polls

[4] The Undefeated,: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-palin-movie-20110620,0,5202739.story

[5] hits AMC Theaters: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/sarah-palin-movie-undefeated-be-196851

[6] it’s “professionally done”: http://myprops.org/channelcontent/Video-At-the-movies-with-Sarah-Palin/

[7] a particularly apt comparison: http://www.maryclairecinema.com/pubs/BeingBeautifulBetty_%20(Newport%20Life-Best%20of%202009)May%202009.pdf

[8] Louis Howe: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/eleanor/peopleevents/pande04.html

[9] Lyn Nofziger: http://articles.latimes.com/2006/mar/28/local/me-nofziger28
 
E.R. Campbell said:
The Republicans need to get back to their roots: small town, small business, essentially liberal, middle-American roots. The Democrats have, in the modern era, more or less secured the BIG segments - just as the Liberal Party of Canada did here: big banks, big labour, big business, big education, big cities. But even big cities are, really, conglomerations of small towns and the GOP can find votes in neighbourhoods and, especially, middle class suburbs.

To win, over and over again, the GOP needs to declare the culture wars as won; declare victory and come home. Let the big banks, big labour and central city neighbourhoods have abortion and gay marriage - both are here (at least there) to stay, no matter what all the preachers in all the world say or pray.

Focus on fiscal and social responsibility - good, solid, middle-American value based governance. "Moderate conservatism," Eisenhower's conservatism, worked. Goldwater, Nixon, even Reagan and Bush Sr, and especially Bush Jr were divisive. America doesn't need more division; it needs responsible leadership and good management.

The GOP can win with a moderate conservative; but it, and the Tea Party, will lose again and again and again with social and religious conservatives - many of whom are no better that Christian fundamentalist fanatics, their own version of the Taliban. And they will deserve to lose, again and again and again because even left wing Democrats will appear more "middle American" and will capture the moderate independent vote.

E.R. I think a lot of your ideas are admirable, but I wonder if they are realistic. The GOP is not a party of the middle. It has been captured by the Christian right, and by Wall Street. However, the fact that the GOP has become a highly ideological grouping does not mean that it has become a less successful grouping.

Pandering to Wall Street brings the party millions in campaign donations. Pandering to fundamentalism brings in campaign volunteers by the busload.

It may be a sad comment on human society, but division, anger and prejudice often sell better at the ballot box than moderation, compromise, and sound management.
 
toyotatundra said:
E.R. I think a lot of your ideas are admirable, but I wonder if they are realistic. The GOP is not a party of the middle. It has been captured by the Christian right, and by Wall Street. However, the fact that the GOP has become a highly ideological grouping does not mean that it has become a less successful grouping.

Pandering to Wall Street brings the party millions in campaign donations. Pandering to fundamentalism brings in campaign volunteers by the busload.

It may be a sad comment on human society, but division, anger and prejudice often sell better at the ballot box than moderation, compromise, and sound management.

Was the GOP captured by Wall Street?  Or was the GOP left as the sole supporter of Wall Street after the Democrats were "captured" by the "progressive left"?

My sense is that Democrats had as many, if not more Millionaires in their Rolodex as the Republicans ever had.  Equally Wall Street has made every effort over the years to lobby, pander and play both sides against the middle so as to ensure their position.

The difference seems to be that thosed prized Rolodexes no longer wield as much influence as they used to.  MoveOn's tweeting and friending on their social networks resulted in the Wobblies of the World finally managing to pull the only party they had a chance with, the Democrats, closer to their point of view and away from those "centrists" on Wall Street.
 
The GOP has not been captured by the Christian right or Wall St.  The Christian right is a minor faction in the GOP tent.  Wall St tends to follow whichever party it thinks is likely to win the next election.  If any faction can claim to have captured influence over the GOP, it is the TEA faction, and their influence is not assured.  The GOP is still, like the Donks, controlled mostly by its own internal elite.
 
Well, how many candidates fit this profile?

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/what-to-look-for-in-a-presidential-candidate/?print=1

What to Look for in a Presidential Candidate
Posted By Adam Graham On July 6, 2011 @ 12:24 am In Elections 2012,Opinion,Politics | 25 Comments

Recently, I examined [1] what not to look for in a presidential candidate in a previous piece. The question now becomes: what should conservative voters look for in a Republican nominee?

Obama has shown electing a president to be far easier than electing one who will govern well. Republicans must nominate a presidential candidate who can achieve three primary goals: 1) the enactment of a pro-growth agenda that will revitalize the economy, 2) the reform of entitlements programs to ensure fiscal solvency, and 3) a long-term plan for the reduction in the national debt.

These three things must be accomplished in the next term. The rising tide of debt and entitlement spending threatens to wreak havoc on America’s economic security. Other issues can factor in a voter’s choice, but to choose a candidate who can’t achieve these three ends will be a wasted effort. The fate of most conservative issues is tied to the electoral fate of Republicans. If the GOP takes the White House, the fate of Republicans will be tied primarily to the state of the nation’s economy.

These goals are not easy. A president who can make them happen must possess the following four things:

Political Courage. Washington’s ability to spend unlimited amounts of money without paying for it has created an irresponsible world where political convenience rules the day. A GOP president must be willing to go against the political grain and demand that real and difficult reforms be enacted.

Republicans do not need to nominate a gadfly, or a soldier who dies on every hill, but they do need someone who will not run from a fight when the country’s future is on the line. They must be willing to push ahead in the face of political opposition.

Character. Character is important in the negative sense of not being dishonest or unfaithful. Whether or not we believe personal character is a qualifier for the presidency, the Anthony Weiner case has shown how much a lack of character can distract from the business of government.

Character is also important in the sense of having positive virtues like compassion and decency. The left will personally attack any president who proposes reductions in government as uncompassionate and inhuman. Voters will be less likely to believe these lies if the person is truly a good and decent person.

This same personal character will give them credibility when they explain to the American people what hard choices must be made.

The Confidence of the Base. A Republican president trying to address entitlement reform and the debt will need to cut deals with moderate Democrats like Mark Pryor (D-AR) and moderate-to-liberal members of the GOP like Susan Collins (R-ME). To cut deals, the president must have the confidence of the Republican base. A Republican president must be trusted as a true supporter of conservative values.

Republicans would make a mistake if they nominate a candidate whom party regulars don’t trust in hopes of winning the general election. Any compromise by such a president will be greeted with suspicion as a long-expected sellout — and the compromise will be undermined, and probably fail, thanks to a groundswell of opposition.

Only a president trusted by the party’s base can be a successful negotiator. A compromise may not be welcomed, but more of the base will be willing to accept it if someone they trust obtained it. They’ll be more likely to understand that the compromise was the most conservative outcome under the circumstances.

Ability to Inspire Optimism. This is vital to long-term economic recovery. Under President Obama, America has received uncertain leadership. As was the case after Jimmy Carter, America needs a boost to its self-confidence to be able to grow and succeed. A nation where the people believe buying gold and food storage make more sense than buying homes [2] and investing is not one that will prosper.

If the American people elect a Republican president in 2012, that president must renew the confidence of Americans in America’s future, not just by being cheerful, but also by being clear that America’s fiscal problems can be fixed and are being addressed.

This is a tall order, and no candidate will be found to be perfect in all areas, but if voters keep in mind the task the next president must achieve and what it will take to accomplish it, we’ll make a far better choice.

Also: Read up on Mitt Romney’s primary confusion on the Tatler [3].


Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/what-to-look-for-in-a-presidential-candidate/

URLs in this post:

[1] examined: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/how-not-to-choose-a-presidential-candidate/
[2] buying homes: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Freason.com%2Fblog%2F2011%2F05%2F25%2Fsurvey-says-owning-a-house-is&ei=RcH_TazsNejniAKv5s2NBQ&usg=AFQjCNFE8LIZiU3eEJCJS29wLfo7vGk_Tw
[3] Mitt Romney’s primary confusion on the Tatler: http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/07/07/is-mitt-romney-confused-about-which-primary-hes-running-in/
 
Since jobs and economic recovery isn't going to be in play anytime soon, what will the narrative be for the Democrat party? Of course the Republicans also have an issue in that they haven't defined how Post Progressive society is going to work either:

http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2011/07/08/out-of-a-job/?print=1

Liberalism: Out of a Job
Posted By Richard Fernandez On July 8, 2011 @ 10:41 am In Uncategorized | 98 Comments

An Obama political aide [1] argued:

People won’t vote based on the unemployment rate, they’re going to vote based on: “How do I feel about my own situation? Do I believe the president makes decisions based on me and my family?”

David Plouffe was responding to news that not only was Recovery Summer not in the offing, but that a Jobless Fall stood at the door:

Today’s Labor Department report shows that many people are still struggling in the current economy: the unemployment rate rose to 9.2 percent in June, and the economy generated just 18,000 net new jobs last month — making it the slowest month for job creation in nine months.



Since World War II, the only president to win re-election when the unemployment rate was over 7.2 percent was Ronald Reagan, and the rate was falling when Reagan won a second term in 1984.

While the economy will certainly be at the forefront of political debate in the next election, Plouffe said Wednesday that the presidential election will be more forward-looking.

“Their decision next year will be based upon two things,” he said. “How do I feel about things right now and then, ultimately, campaigns are always much more about the future and who do I think has got the best idea, the best vision for where to take the country?”

Plouffe was putting the best face on a catastrophe. There was nothing to do but dodge and weave. The president indirectly blamed Congress’ reluctance to increase the debt ceiling for the bad economic news:

President Obama pointed to the disappointing jobs report out Friday morning to make the case for quick action on a deal to increase the nation’s $14.3 trillion debt ceiling, saying that “the sooner that the markets know” a deal is done, the sooner they will have “the certainty that they will need in order to make additional investments to grow and to hire.”

But he must know in his heart of hearts that barring some unforeseen stroke of luck, the “recovery” is finished. He will go into 2012 with economic calamity on his back. Liberal blogger Jane Hamsher [2] warned that the president’s party may cut spending and refuse to raise taxes in economic desperation, an act of betrayal which would result in the “death of the Democratic Party … as most of us have known it.” She correctly understands that — like Lenin’s New Economic Policy in 1921 [3] — there would be immense electoral pressure to beat an ideological retreat:

What we’re watching is the death of the Democratic Party. Or, at least the Democratic Party as most of us have known it. The one that has taken its identity in the modern era from FDR and the New Deal, from Keynesianism and the social safety net. Despite any of its other shortcomings (and they are myriad), the Democratic Party has stood as a symbol for commitment to these principles. As recently as 2006, Democrats retook the House in a surprise wave election because the public feared that George Bush would destroy Social Security, and they trusted the Democrats over Republicans to secure it.

But that was before the public realized that real danger — not only to Social Security, but to their actual next meal — came not from the bogeymen trotted out by the media but from the “Democratic Party as most of us have known it.” The liberal project has finally run out of other people’s money. The public has engaged in an a posteriori evaluation of their beliefs and Hamsher correctly understands that it places the blame squarely down on the president and the ideology he espoused in coming into office.

Whether or not this is true is a matter for debate, but the political crisis now facing the president stems precisely from the fact that he is being held responsible for an economy that is falling in a seemingly bottomless abyss. The jobs report is likely to be only one of several pieces of forthcoming bad news: the sovereign debt crisis is spinning out of control in Europe, China’s bubble may have burst, Japan is still crippled from decades of stagnation made worse by a tsunami, the Middle East is in flames.

Not just “the Democratic Party as most of us have known it,” but the post World War II structure may abruptly be juddering to an end. We are living through the crisis of the elites, whose ranks encompass but a few of the “oligarchy” Hamsher fears. Big government, multinational institutions, giant welfare states, and large scale public sector unionism may be dying.

All her heroes are now wearing black hats and losing the gunfight. And they will not go gentle into that good night.

What the jobs report signals is the impossibility of President Obama’s reelection by any ordinary means at a time when in the eyes of the Left it has become imperative to achieve by any means necessary. Disappointed that the buttons aren’t working, they are prepared to push them harder. Whenever the Left has found its nostrums wanting, it has always responded with an act of faith in itself. The jobs crisis signals an existential threat to the liberal project, at least for now, and perhaps for years to come. It will be interesting to watch the response of a dream that is running out of money.

[4]
“No Way In” print and Kindle edition at Amazon [5]
Tip Jar or Subscribe for $5 [6]

Article printed from Belmont Club: http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2011/07/08/out-of-a-job/

URLs in this post:

[1] Obama political aide: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20077888-503544.html
[2] Liberal blogger Jane Hamsher: http://firedoglake.com/2011/07/07/the-breaking-point/
[3] Lenin’s New Economic Policy in 1921: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy
[4] Image: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7TKW7vAe_k
[5] “No Way In” print and Kindle edition at Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1453892818/wwwfallbackbe-20
[6] Tip Jar or Subscribe for $5: http://wretchard.com/tipjar.html
 
Party supported prospects were pitted against phony Democratic prospects in a Wisconsin primary election. All six real Democrats triumphed over the bogus ones, and the victors will all face incumbent republicans in and August recall election (All six Democrats win over fake candidates in Wisconsin election). What do you think about it? I smell other agendas. I don't really support this recall election things... It just costs way too much for the state just to have this and simply too impractical. This is mostly just a facade for them to have their way with what they want (talking about delaying the election and fund raising). And what's with the fake democrats? It's worth noting that even these fake democrats somehow gained some votes.  :facepalm:
 
Let's get real and get plain talking. Enough of the PC crap.

Obama is black and a socialist.

He got voted in by blacks (most who have never voted), welfare people and a bunch of white idealist suburbanites that swallowed his 'Hope and Change' bullshit.

He's been able to deliver on nothing. He's got near both Houses in revolt. The country is bankrupt. He is closing in on 'Executive Orders' to ensure the populace follows his edict.

He has accomplished in one term, what took Trudeau almost forty years to accomplish here, before the sanity of of the CPC found it's way into the collective psyche of the Canadian public.

 
Can't wait for Redeye's reply, especially the first few words!
 
recceguy said:
Let's get real and get plain talking. Enough of the PC crap.

Obama is black and a socialist.

.

everything America needs to know about Barry but doesn't

http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1852/article_detail.asp

 
Back
Top