U.S. 2012 Election

[Rifleman62]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qymIXlcO3JY

Masterpiece Theater

 

[Edward Campbell]

An interesting (and prescient?) bit of prognostication reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the National Post:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/12/28/kelly-mcparland-the-2012-presidential-result-you-read-it-here-first/

Kelly McParland: The 2012 presidential result. You read it here first

Kelly McParland

Dec 28, 2011

I’m not 100% sure (which is rare for a pundit), but at this point I’m pretty certain Barack Obama is going to win the U.S. election next November.

His numbers at the moment aren’t that good. They haven’t been good for some time. Hardly any Americans think the country is on the right track. Unemployment is near record numbers. The housing crisis persists, with home values a fraction what they were a few years ago. No one thinks the White House has a handle on the situation, and it’s been a long time since the President was able to rouse the kind of enthusiasm he did on a regular basis in 2008.

Still, I think he’s going to win, mainly because the Republicans seem to have a death wish. Not since they put forward Barry Goldwater against Lyndon Johnson have they seemed so intent on running a candidate with little mass appeal but who was able to tick off a series of ideological benchmarks dear to the hearts of the party’s fiercest and most uncompromising zealots.

If Newt Gingrich wins the nomination, the odds of eventual victory appear minute. As David Frum (who Republicans have excommunicated because he insists on questioning their determination to lose) has pointed out, Gingrich’s main weakness isn’t his character or ethical flaws, his failed marriages or overwhelming vanity.

The most important thing to remember about Newt Gingrich is that his colleagues in the House of Representatives effectively fired him as their leader even before the impeachment crisis, shifting power instead into the more competent hands of Tom DeLay… Gingrich was not pushed aside by his caucus for any of the offenses listed above. He was pushed aside because he plunged the caucus into chaos, because he lost fights that he himself had chosen, because he could not control his mouth, because he wanted to be a star more than he wanted to get things done. There’s a reason Gingrich is fascinated by management gurus: he needs the help.

The great fascination of a Gingrich campaign would be how far along he gets before he spontaneously combusts. If, on the other hand, Mitt Romney captures the nomination, the issue will be whether the 75% of Republicans who say they can’t stand him will be able to overcome their hostility and give him their vote. Either Republican would likely spend as much time defending his own record as attacking Obama’s.

Gingrich would have to explain being deposed by his own party, being reprimanded for ethics violations (the first Speaker ever), taking money from financial institutions he had publicly assailed, deriding Bill Clinton’s marital problems whole carrying on an affair himself,  demanding a divorce from one wife while she was recovering from a cancer operation… is there any need to go on?

Romney has changed so many positions so often it’s hard to know what his real policies are.  His unreliability is the basis of his failure to win broader support; most tellingly will be his effort to explain why he’s opposed to the Obama healthcare plan, which is famously modelled on his own. Are Americans really likely to embrace a multi-millionaire East Coast financier, who is still profiting from takeovers that leave thousands jobless, at a time when much of the country blames Wall Street people like him for the mess the country is in?

I just don’t see how either will be in any position to defeat Obama, who still attracts more personal sympathy than either Romney or Gingrich, and who may have a slightly better economy to work with by the time of the election. Obama has clearly been overwhelmed by the extent of the economic crisis he’s had to deal with, but he shares the blame with Congress, and Americans hold an even lower view of Congress than they do of him.

The GOP may once have had the stronger hand, when they were able to focus attention on the trillions of dollars of debt Obama has racked up, but they lost the advantage last summer when they turned the confrontation over the debt ceiling into  a farce so monumental it raised questions as to whether the U.S. government was even capable of acting rationally any more.

Is four more years of Obama a good thing? Despite what you may have heard, he is not an egomaniac socialist revolutionary from Kenya. Outside the economy he can claim some real successes. But the economy is everything in this election and on that he doesn’t inspire much confidence. The dream team of advisers he assembled in his early days appear to have devoted their time to jockeying for position, and most have now quit.

If the debt he’s amassed had at least been put to good use it might be defensible, but it wasn’t. When given a choice, he still seems to default to trusting the most loopy of Democrat liberals. When he had opportunities to head off serious conflicts — over taxes, for instance, and the debt ceiling — he let them slip away.

Not very inspiring. It would be nice if there was a reasonable alternative. You’d think that out of the entire Republican party they could do better than Gingrich and Romney. But they haven’t.

National Post

Like McParland and Frum I remain fascinated with the GOP's apparent determination to make Obama a two term president.

         

 

[a_majoor]

Of course the last time we had a Democrat President and a Republican House the budget came close to balance and an accounting surplus was reported:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/not-just-barney-eight-veteran-house-dems-retiring/?print=1

Not Just Barney: Eight Veteran House Dems Retiring

Posted By Richard Pollock On December 28, 2011 @ 12:00 am In Uncategorized | 27 Comments

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) caused a bit of a stir when he announced he was not seeking re-election. Frank, a high-visibility member of Congress for more than 30 years, is in one of the safest Democratic districts in the nation. Yet he is not alone: there are several other Barney Franks fleeing the 112th Congress. Eight other veteran House Democrats who reside in safe congressional seats are throwing in the towel.

The problem isn’t merely in the House. Just this week, U.S. Senator Ben Nelson from Nebraska announced he won’t seek re-election this coming November [1]. Nelson is one of seven Senate Democrats who have decided to “voluntarily” retire ahead of the 2012 elections. This is a repeat of the 2010 elections when a flood of Democrats decided to retire rather than face certain defeat.

The retirement of rank-and-file Democrats is an especially bad sign for the Democrats if they have any hope of retaking the U.S. House. The nine House retirements are even more notable because each ranks high in seniority for key House committees — if the House returned to Democratic rule, they would be in line to assume chairmanships. Chairmanships are great perks, offering hideaway offices in the Capitol building and less restrained power and authority. Voluntarily walking away from Hill leadership is uncommon: House members can sit for twenty years on the Hill and never get close to a chairmanship.

To Democratic Party faithful, the nine retiring congressmen present a dramatic picture of the hostile environment Democrats are facing as the 2012 election begins. Some of the retirees had easily won re-election with 60-70% majorities. Their stampede for the exit is yet another admission that the Democrats face a potential “wave” election, and of course, it portends considerable trouble for Barack Obama.

The accelerating House retirements come on the heels of last September’s special election in New York [2], where an unknown Republican defeated a popular Queens Democrat to take Anthony Weiner’s seat. The New York congressional district was Democratic for 80 years — registered Democrats outnumbered registered Republicans by a three-to-one margin.

Barney Frank is, of course, the headliner of this group: he is one of the best-known and most powerful Democrats outside of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), serving 16 uninterrupted terms. When the Democrats held the House during the first two years of the Obama administration, the Massachusetts Democrat served as the undisputed power at the House Financial Services Committee, muscling through many regulations that pummeled banks. His name is on the Dodd-Frank law, which threatens to impose new regulations on all financial institutions. The law is so complicated that, two years after its enactment, administration regulators still have failed to issue rules for methods of enforcement.

Including Frank, the departing group represents a wealth of experience that will not be easy to replace: The nine have served in office for a combined 172 years.

Most are like Rep. Dale Kildee (D-MI), a House member for a whopping 18 terms. Kildee won office in 1977, the same year Jimmy Carter won the presidency. He is the second most senior member on the House Natural Resources Committee, sitting only behind vocal global warming advocate Ed Markey (D-MA). Kildee has always won election with at least 70% of the vote.

Rep. Jerry Costello (D-IL) originally won office in 1988 with just 51% of the vote. Since then, he has garnered at least 60% each election. He was an early supporter of Barack Obama, and was a candidate to be his secretary of transportation. Costello is the second most senior member of the influential Science, Space and Technology Committee.

Rep. John Olver (D-MA) has served a congressional district with a Cook Partisan Voting Index [3] of D+14. (The most Democratic state in the country is Vermont, which Cook cites as D+13.) He hails from Frank’s state of Massachusetts, and has been a reliable member of the powerful House Appropriations Committee, following the lead of hardened progressive and former House Chairman David Obey (D-MI).

Rep. Charlie Gonzalez (D-TX) comes from an ultra-liberal San Antonio political dynasty that was headed up by his father, Rep. Henry Gonzalez. His father was far left-leaning and was once famously accused of being a communist, though he reportedly punched the accuser in the jaw for the remark. (A court exonerated the congressman.)

Gonzalez carefully groomed his son Charlie to succeed him in office. When Henry retired in 1988, Charlie easily won election and followed in the footsteps of his father.

Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) is leaving uber-liberal Marin and Sonoma counties after comfortably holding the post for 19 years. She is the second most senior member on the Energy and Environment subcommittee and ranking member on the pro-union Workforce Protection subcommittee. Woolsey won the congressional district after incumbent Rep. Barbara Boxer announced she would run for the U.S. Senate. Woolsey was one of 118 House members to oppose the U.S. invasion of Iraq. She once introduced a bill to abolish the charter for the Boy Scouts of America.

A number of moderate Democrats are also heading for the hills. This includes Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA), who won in 2003 when Rep. Gary Condit did not run after the murder of his intern, Chandra Levy. Cardoza’s district has been solidly Democratic since 1955. Cardoza, who comes from the agriculturally rich Central Valley, is a moderate on environmental matters and is a ranking member of the Livestock, Dairy and Poultry subcommittee.

Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK) is the son of one of Oklahoma’s main Democratic family dynasties. His father David served as a U.S. senator and governor for the state. His grandfather represented Oklahoma as a congressman in the 1930s. Boren is a moderate on the Natural Resources subcommittee that oversees Native Americans. He has served four terms in the House.

The most notable moderate to leave the House is Rep. Mike Ross. Ross is one of the co-chairs of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog caucus, which saw its number cut in half in the 2010 election. Ross, having served six terms from a conservative Arizona district, has been a powerful voice at the Energy and Commerce committee.

One of the reasons many congressmen poised to assume new power are leaving is that they have learned there is simply little power being in the minority, and the chances of regaining a majority appear slim to them.

Kyle Kondik, House race editor at the Center of Politics at the University of Virginia, tells PJ Media: “It’s no fun to be in the minority in the House.” He noted that the retirement of veteran Democrats in safe seats is an admission the House will not return to Democratic hands in 2012: “If you read between the lines, I think you can say that if they were hoping to get their committee chairmanships they would be back. They really don’t see the prospects being very good for taking the House back.”

Article printed from PJ Media: http://pjmedia.com

URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/blog/not-just-barney-eight-veteran-house-dems-retiring/

URLs in this post:

[1] he won’t seek re-election this coming November: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-12-27/ben-nelson-to-announce-he-won-t-run-in-2012-democrat-says.html

[2] September’s special election in New York: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/nyregion/ny-democrats-try-to-avoid-upset-in-special-election.html?pagewanted=all

[3] Cook Partisan Voting Index: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_Partisan_Voting_Index

I am more convinced that the real focus on the elections should shift from the high profile Presidential race to the "downline" elections. States, counties and municipalities, school boards and judges moving into the "Red" column will have an enormous effect on the economy in the short to medium term (think Texas), but perhaps more importantly, will provide a huge pool of experience and training for future generations of politicians. The results of 2010 are still working their way through the system (as the above article notes, Democrat politicans are jumping ship in anticipation of the coming wave), 2012 might actually be felt over the next two decades as a deep cultural change works its way through the political system.

 

[a_majoor]

The graph for the election campaign:

 

[Edward Campbell]

Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Citizen:

Source: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/editorial-cartoons/index.html

 

[Haletown]

    ****  MODERN VERSION

    The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

    The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

    Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving.

    CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.

    America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

    Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, ‘It’s Not EasyBeing Green’. Occupy the Anthill stages a demonstration in front of the ant’s house where the news stations film the SEIU group singing, We Shall Overcome. Then Rev. Jeremiah Wright    has the group kneel down to pray for the grasshopper’s sake, while he damns the ants.

    President Obama condemns the ant  and blames  President Bush 43, President Bush 41, President Reagan, Christopher Columbus, and the Pope for the grasshopper’s plight.

    Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid    exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share. Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti‑Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.

    The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the GovernmentGreen Czar and given to the grasshopper. The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ant’s food while the government house he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant’s old house, crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn’t  maintain it.

    The ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again.

    The grasshopper is found  dead in a drug related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over  by a gang of spiders who terrorize the ramshackle, once prosperous and peaceful, neighborhood.

    The entire Nation collapses bringing the rest    of the free world with it.

    MORAL OF THIS VERSION:Be careful how you vote in 2012.

http://tinyurl.com/73and8o

 

[Redeye]

That's a pretty well written summation of what's almost certain to happen in November. I can't believe that there are Republicans who think that any of their frontrunners for the nomination have any hope of beating President Obama. They've actually provided him with the best campaign material he could ask for.

The real race, however, is going to be for control of the Congress - especially the House of Representatives. Unless the Democrats can toss the GOP out of the lower house (and, ideally, get some more Senate seats), they'll face another couple of years of paralysis until the midterms.

An interesting (and prescient?) bit of prognostication reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the National Post:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/12/28/kelly-mcparland-the-2012-presidential-result-you-read-it-here-first/

Like McParland and Frum I remain fascinated with the GOP's apparent determination to make Obama a two term president.

         

 

[Edward Campbell]

If, and it is still a big IF, Obama looks likely to get a second term then the best choice, for America and, indeed, for the world, is that the GOP gets solid majorities in both the House and the Senate - ideally getting 60 Senate seats, an unlikely prospect but it would be ideal. The President's only power, when the loyal opposition controls the Congress, is the "bully pulpit," which Obama uses well. The simple fact, and I contend it is a fact, is that there are not enough responsible Democrats in the entire 50 states to elect a responsible Democratic Congress. You may not like some of the GOP legislators but when it comes to managing America they are orders of magnitude better than the Democrats - pretty much any and all Democrats.

 

[GAP]

The two pics you posted today pretty much sums up the entire electoral field......

 

[Edward Campbell]

The two pics you posted today pretty much sums up the entire electoral field......

Sad, isn't it?  :'(  And this is America about which we are talking ... America: Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt ... and now Obama or Gingrich? :crybaby:

 

[Redeye]

If, and it is still a big IF, Obama looks likely to get a second term then the best choice, for America and, indeed, for the world, is that the GOP gets solid majorities in both the House and the Senate - ideally getting 60 Senate seats, an unlikely prospect but it would be ideal. The President's only power, when the loyal opposition controls the Congress, is the "bully pulpit," which Obama uses well. The simple fact, and I contend it is a fact, is that there are not enough responsible Democrats in the entire 50 states to elect a responsible Democratic Congress. You may not like some of the GOP legislators but when it comes to managing America they are orders of magnitude better than the Democrats - pretty much any and all Democrats.

It would appear, if you look at sentiment in the US as reflected by polls, they don't agree - they're not too happy with the completely useless Congress at the moment. Your final contention I simply can't agree with. Most of the massive debt the USA has is thanks to Republican Congresses and their chronic misspending coupled with their total unwillingness to levy the taxes necessary to pay for their massive defence budgets, unnecessary military adventures, and so on. If you look at where debt has grown most in the US, it tends to be when the GOP is at the helm.

What we'll have to see if whether the American electorate wants more paralysis, or if they shift to giving the Democrats the ability to do something - anything. I'd venture to guess that that will be one of the ways they frame the debate over the coming year.

 

[GAP]

That sounds more like wishful thinking.

 

[Redeye]

That sounds more like wishful thinking.

Which aspect? The idea of a constructive discourse leading to people voting based on more than labels and attack ads? Probably, from everything I've observed of American politics.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Most of the massive debt of the US, if you include its future obligations, is tied to entitlement programs.  Generally, entitlements are not opposed by Democrats.

 

[Redeye]

Most of the massive debt of the US, if you include its future obligations, is tied to entitlement programs.  Generally, entitlements are not opposed by Democrats.

Neither, however, are taxes to pay for those programs, which is the other side of the coin.

Half of the US government budget goes to maintenance of a massive defence apparatus that neither party is willing to take on with serious cuts. No serious discussion of fiscal responsibility can occur without that, I'd content. When President Obama concluded a treaty with Russia to further reduce nuclear arsenals, he was attacked by some on the right as somehow jeopardizing national security, a ridiculous assertion given the size of that arsenal - but the cuts will surely have paved the way to save a lot of money on maintenance thereof. Again, though, without defense cuts seriously on the table, any discussion of fiscal responsibility, in my opinion, is meaningless.

 

[Infanteer]

I agree with Redeye's point on the U.S defense budget - it's the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I agree with Redeye's point on the U.S defense budget - it's the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about.

You and Redeye are quite right - but when, not if, the US scales back it's global security obligations who, if anyone picks up the tasks? Do we (or Australia or Belgium of Chile, or, or, or ...) want to do more? I think not. Do we want China to be a global policeman?

 

[Infanteer]

when, not if, the US scales back it's global security obligations who, if anyone picks up the tasks?

Is occupying Iraq a global security obligation or a U.S. foreign policy decision?  Are these two separate things?  What is the real cost - in Divisions, Air Wings and Fleets - of global security?

I think the real problem in the U.S. security budget is bang for the buck.  13 Divisions (10 Army, 3 Marine) is all the land power that it gets out of 400 billion dollars.  There needs to be some hard choices on what is more important - frontline units or those 1,000 extra nuclear warheads.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I was thinking about two things:

1. Keeping the sea lines of communications open and safe for commerce; and

2. Being able to intervene, quickly and decisively, when a small local crisis becomes a threat to regional peace and security.

I don't know how far the US will have to cut - how many carrier battle groups, how many combat brigades - but my guess is that sometime before 2025 the US will have fewer of each, maybe something like seven Army and two Marine divisons, and proportionately (1/3?) fewer carriers, air wings and destroyers and submarines, too. That will make the world a somewhat more dangerous place - some "bad guys" will feel less afraid of US intervention and so on.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Frankly, the US probably needs a lot less Army and Marine Divisions, fewer nuclear weapons, with a Navy and Air Force about the same size as today, if all that it is concerned about is protecting itself and it's interests.