As they prepare to wage political war against President Obama, the potential 2012 Republican candidates are doing everything they can to draw sharp distinctions with him. But Mr. Obama isn’t cooperating. Rather than emphasize his differences with potential Oval Office rivals or Republican adversaries on Capitol Hill, the president is taking every opportunity he can to embrace members of the other party as co-conspirators in his efforts to confront the country’s challenges. The logic behind Mr. Obama’s approach appears to be rooted in the belief that voters — and especially independents — are looking for evidence that politicians in Washington are working together on problems rather than content to live with an unending stalemate.
He might as well try and control the spin. It helps counter the Republican effort to draw sharp contrasts with him.
In addition to appealing to some voters, the bipartisan rhetoric from Mr. Obama may be an attempt to disarm his potential 2012 rivals and Republicans on Capitol Hill. In Miami this month, Mr. Obama stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida, to promote education reforms.
Hanging out with Jeb was interesting. Countering Romney's criticisms by reminding voters that Obamacare is based on Romneycare is political common sense. Remaining above the fray will make him appear presidential; the Rose Garden strategy is a time-honored tradition that works. Until the heat of the election.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Friday, March 11, 2011
Spinnin' the news
Back in the US, the Republicans continue pursuing their agenda. In hearings called to examine homeland Muslim extremism, the Council on American-Islamic Relations is on the proverbial hot seat. From Minnesota, home of that moderate and sober voice, Michelle Bachman, comes Chip Cravaack (yup, a grown man serving in Congress calls himself Chip). Navy veteran, patriot.
After Peter King blabbed on, Representative Frank R. Wolf of Virginia accused CAIR of “an attempt to stifle debate and obstruct cooperation with law enforcement.” Representative Chip Cravaack of Minnesota went further, telling a witness, Leroy D. Baca, the Los Angeles County sheriff, “Basically, you’re dealing with a terrorist organization.” Sheriff Baca disagreed.
For the casual observer, it may have been a puzzling set of comments. But it is an old argument for CAIR, an aggressive civil rights organization that has long been pilloried by conservatives as the American Civil Liberties Union with a Muslim spin.
For these jerks, the ACLU is evil.
After Peter King blabbed on, Representative Frank R. Wolf of Virginia accused CAIR of “an attempt to stifle debate and obstruct cooperation with law enforcement.” Representative Chip Cravaack of Minnesota went further, telling a witness, Leroy D. Baca, the Los Angeles County sheriff, “Basically, you’re dealing with a terrorist organization.” Sheriff Baca disagreed.
For the casual observer, it may have been a puzzling set of comments. But it is an old argument for CAIR, an aggressive civil rights organization that has long been pilloried by conservatives as the American Civil Liberties Union with a Muslim spin.
For these jerks, the ACLU is evil.
Run, Ron Paul, run
Paul once voted to deny Mother Teresa the Congressional Gold Medal because he didn't think the government should have to pay for it.
That's the spirit. I hope he runs.
That's the spirit. I hope he runs.
Right speaks
Some blogger posted on the right wing's elocutions on Libya.
“Ronald Reagan bombed Libya, if you want to be Reagan-esque, it seems the path is pretty clear here.”-Santorum
An original thinker, this bozo.
“I think a no-fly zone would be a good thing for the United States to do.”- Pawlenty
How? and Why?
“The United States doesn’t need anybody’s permission, the no-fly zone should begin immediately.” -Gingrich
That's the spirit, Newt: let's do whatever the hell we want, start another war, and send other people's children to uphold the stupidity of your decisions. Quite presidential.
Huckabee says: “I think a no-fly zone would be absolute – yeah a no fly zone very important”
Yeah, Huck,
Palin adds: ”NATO and our allies should look at establishing a no-fly zone” (at least she is not calling for unilateral intervention like the others)
How, and why?
Romney, Cain, Trump, Bachmann, Daniels, Huntsman, Barbour, Johnson, have all remained silent on the issue (as far as I could find).
Cain? Silence is golden, especially when one doesn't know squat about a topic.
Then, a breath of fresh air, someone who doesn’t think plunging our nation into yet another war is a great idea. That man, Ron Paul.
”It is my opinion that we should NOT…. go into Libya and impose a No Fly Zone. You have to remember, a No Fly Zone is an act of war. What moral right do we have to participate in war activity against Libya? …. There’s no constitutional authority for a President to willie nillie go and start placing No Fly Zones over countries around the world.”
John Quincy Adams said during an Independence day address (note: she=America):
“Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own”
Yes Gadhafi is a monster, but if we run around looking for monsters to destroy, we will never stop running. You see, monsters are everywhere, kill one, and another surfaces. We can no longer afford to search for monsters, to police the world. Adam’s had great advice, Ron Paul listens, will you?
Even though this blogger transforms Adams to Adam, it is still a valid point.
“Ronald Reagan bombed Libya, if you want to be Reagan-esque, it seems the path is pretty clear here.”-Santorum
An original thinker, this bozo.
“I think a no-fly zone would be a good thing for the United States to do.”- Pawlenty
How? and Why?
“The United States doesn’t need anybody’s permission, the no-fly zone should begin immediately.” -Gingrich
That's the spirit, Newt: let's do whatever the hell we want, start another war, and send other people's children to uphold the stupidity of your decisions. Quite presidential.
Huckabee says: “I think a no-fly zone would be absolute – yeah a no fly zone very important”
Yeah, Huck,
Palin adds: ”NATO and our allies should look at establishing a no-fly zone” (at least she is not calling for unilateral intervention like the others)
How, and why?
Romney, Cain, Trump, Bachmann, Daniels, Huntsman, Barbour, Johnson, have all remained silent on the issue (as far as I could find).
Cain? Silence is golden, especially when one doesn't know squat about a topic.
Then, a breath of fresh air, someone who doesn’t think plunging our nation into yet another war is a great idea. That man, Ron Paul.
”It is my opinion that we should NOT…. go into Libya and impose a No Fly Zone. You have to remember, a No Fly Zone is an act of war. What moral right do we have to participate in war activity against Libya? …. There’s no constitutional authority for a President to willie nillie go and start placing No Fly Zones over countries around the world.”
John Quincy Adams said during an Independence day address (note: she=America):
“Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own”
Yes Gadhafi is a monster, but if we run around looking for monsters to destroy, we will never stop running. You see, monsters are everywhere, kill one, and another surfaces. We can no longer afford to search for monsters, to police the world. Adam’s had great advice, Ron Paul listens, will you?
Even though this blogger transforms Adams to Adam, it is still a valid point.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Nwet breaks out of the gate
Hardly two hours old, the nascent 2012 campaign of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has already been hit by its first embarrassment: It used of a stock photo for its website that first appeared on the website of the late Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy, a liberal icon of the Democratic Party. The photo, of a multicultural crowd of smiling faces staring at the sky and waving flags, was meant to leave the impression that a huge and diverse group of Americans were lining up to support Mr. Gingrich and his wife, Callista, whose faces were superimposed over the crowd.
Callista, is that his third wife?
Go, Newt!
Callista, is that his third wife?
Go, Newt!
Can a fat man get elected president?
Our heaviest president was William Howard Taft, who, a hair shy of 6 feet tall, weighed well north of 300 pounds and won his single term before television or even newsreels. Since then, presidents have ranged from thin to hefty, but none could be described as fat.
Ours is an age when movie stars are admired for being thin (women) or well-toned (men), and, say some, set the standard for public appearance.
At 5 feet and 9-1/2 inches, Jimmy Carter was our shortest president since Harry Truman, who was 5-foot-9. Abraham Lincoln was the tallest president ever at 6-4, and James Madison the shortest at 5-4 (and lightest, at 100 pounds or less).
Ours is an age when movie stars are admired for being thin (women) or well-toned (men), and, say some, set the standard for public appearance.
At 5 feet and 9-1/2 inches, Jimmy Carter was our shortest president since Harry Truman, who was 5-foot-9. Abraham Lincoln was the tallest president ever at 6-4, and James Madison the shortest at 5-4 (and lightest, at 100 pounds or less).
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Presidential timber, or balsa wood?
Heilemann: Huckabee’s Obama-From-Kenya Statement Either ‘Sketch Comedy’ or ‘Grotesque Pandering’
His spokesman apologized, sort of,but he accomplished what he wanted: tell the right wing base that he agrees with their hate of Obama. Wink, wink, nod, nod.
Michael Dale Huckabee is the Rodney Dangerfield of the Republican Party: He don’t get no respect. In poll after poll, the former Arkansas governor turned Fox News pundit rates as the most popular conservative public figure in the country. In December, a national Reuters Ipsos survey ranked him ahead, in ascending order, of Rush Limbaugh, Tim Pawlenty, Glenn Beck, Haley Barbour, and Mitt Romney—as well as Barack Obama and David Petraeus—in terms of his net favorability rating. (The only person ahead of Huckabee? Hillary Clinton.) More recently, an array of polls of Republican voters have put him at or near the top of the heap among potential GOP presidential candidates. Privately, several of Obama’s top political advisers believe Huckabee would be the toughest opponent for their boss. And yet most professional Republicans dismiss him, deride him, or, most damning of all, simply ignore him.
Perhaps he is not hard-core enough, though by making the Kenya remark he seems to be trying to tack hard right.
The truth is, there are good reasons to believe that Huckabee, in the end, will decline to run—and in so doing will shape the Republican race almost as much as if he gets in. What interests me more than the implications of his decision, however, is the reasoning behind it, the factors he is weighing, and what his thinking says about the state of the GOP heading into 2012.
On the writing of a new book, Huckabee says, “I felt maybe there was a need to present some of them in a way that was not written for academics. This book was not designed so it would be a textbook at Harvard.” Perhaps he flatters himself a bit too much.
though Huckabee asserts in his introduction that he doesn’t “doubt for a minute that Barack Obama loves our country and wants to make it better,” this ostensible graciousness evaporates in the chapters that follow. “Among nations that are traditionally anti-American, President Obama still enjoys high approval ratings,” Huckabee writes at one point. “Why am I not surprised?”
What kind of logic is that?
for all the grassroots energy that the tea party is providing to the GOP right now, the party Establishment still reigns when it comes to the raising of campaign cash—and little that Huckabee has done since 2008 has improved his standing there.
Beyond questions of money, this last consideration—the dynamics that will be in play in the Republican nomination contest—is what is weighing most heavily on Huckabee’s mind. “I think I would have the best chance in the general election, because I offer the most distinct but not rancorous contrast against Obama,” he says. “But the Republican primary, I’m trying to figure out where it goes this time. If it’s going to be a search for a problem-solving pragmatist communicating kind of guy, that’s one thing. But if it’s going to be a purity contest of who’s the most gun-loving, the most anti-immigrant, the most pro-life, the most everything, it gets ridiculous.”
One can only hope that Republicans slash one another savagely, and make their primaries a test of ideological purity. I'm rooting for Bachman and Palin to get in; Romney will run against himself in trying to gain his right wing purity badge, as will Newt. O, the prospects almost make me salivate.
His spokesman apologized, sort of,but he accomplished what he wanted: tell the right wing base that he agrees with their hate of Obama. Wink, wink, nod, nod.
Michael Dale Huckabee is the Rodney Dangerfield of the Republican Party: He don’t get no respect. In poll after poll, the former Arkansas governor turned Fox News pundit rates as the most popular conservative public figure in the country. In December, a national Reuters Ipsos survey ranked him ahead, in ascending order, of Rush Limbaugh, Tim Pawlenty, Glenn Beck, Haley Barbour, and Mitt Romney—as well as Barack Obama and David Petraeus—in terms of his net favorability rating. (The only person ahead of Huckabee? Hillary Clinton.) More recently, an array of polls of Republican voters have put him at or near the top of the heap among potential GOP presidential candidates. Privately, several of Obama’s top political advisers believe Huckabee would be the toughest opponent for their boss. And yet most professional Republicans dismiss him, deride him, or, most damning of all, simply ignore him.
Perhaps he is not hard-core enough, though by making the Kenya remark he seems to be trying to tack hard right.
The truth is, there are good reasons to believe that Huckabee, in the end, will decline to run—and in so doing will shape the Republican race almost as much as if he gets in. What interests me more than the implications of his decision, however, is the reasoning behind it, the factors he is weighing, and what his thinking says about the state of the GOP heading into 2012.
On the writing of a new book, Huckabee says, “I felt maybe there was a need to present some of them in a way that was not written for academics. This book was not designed so it would be a textbook at Harvard.” Perhaps he flatters himself a bit too much.
though Huckabee asserts in his introduction that he doesn’t “doubt for a minute that Barack Obama loves our country and wants to make it better,” this ostensible graciousness evaporates in the chapters that follow. “Among nations that are traditionally anti-American, President Obama still enjoys high approval ratings,” Huckabee writes at one point. “Why am I not surprised?”
What kind of logic is that?
for all the grassroots energy that the tea party is providing to the GOP right now, the party Establishment still reigns when it comes to the raising of campaign cash—and little that Huckabee has done since 2008 has improved his standing there.
Beyond questions of money, this last consideration—the dynamics that will be in play in the Republican nomination contest—is what is weighing most heavily on Huckabee’s mind. “I think I would have the best chance in the general election, because I offer the most distinct but not rancorous contrast against Obama,” he says. “But the Republican primary, I’m trying to figure out where it goes this time. If it’s going to be a search for a problem-solving pragmatist communicating kind of guy, that’s one thing. But if it’s going to be a purity contest of who’s the most gun-loving, the most anti-immigrant, the most pro-life, the most everything, it gets ridiculous.”
One can only hope that Republicans slash one another savagely, and make their primaries a test of ideological purity. I'm rooting for Bachman and Palin to get in; Romney will run against himself in trying to gain his right wing purity badge, as will Newt. O, the prospects almost make me salivate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
