Always say less than necessary.
Robert Greene
I'm Beginning to Lose My Patience:
YES, Sen. Marco Rubio is a US Citizen By Birth
Political Potpourri
I haven't watched Fox News in weeks; I have a subscription to one of the prime-time podcasts, which explains how I ended up blasting Laura Ingraham in a recent post. My patience has been wearing thin. No wonder a clearly delusional, overconfident Obama was recently quoted telling Univision that he has another 5 years to resolve immigration. If the Tea Party puts together a million-man march on Washington to personally hand Obama an eviction notice after he loses this November, I'm in. There is no possible way Obama can win this fall unless Republican voters nominate an old school career politician like Santorum or Gingrich--it's baked in. I don't care if we get to 5% unemployment (which we aren't) by this November: Obama is done. The American people are not about to return the Democrats to power this fall, which means Obama's only argument for reelection is trying to block long overdue fiscal reform (with the nation's debt already at the credit limit) and protect unsustainable ObamaCare from the Republicans.
If Latinos want immigration reform, their best hope is to elect a GOP Senate and President: Obama couldn't even get the Dream Act passed with a supermajority--and he will never have a supermajority again. I am intrigued with Marco Rubio as a potential VP pick, not simply because he's a Latino, but because he is articulate and a Tea Party favorite whom would fire up Romney's base. And don't underestimate the fact that mostly Catholic Latinos are not happy with the Obama Administration playing hardball politics against the Catholic Church on the birth control kerfuffle.
[Let me also point out that Romney could do worse than select Ron Paul, whom does very well with young voters and has significant crossover appeal. It would absolutely drive the neocons crazy (it would be worth it just to see their reaction)--but Romney-Paul would actually allow an attack on Obama as a higher-spending, higher-regulating Bush third and fourth term. I don't care if Obama has a billion dollar war chest: he's not prepared for this type of a challenge. Romney and Paul could wage a change election/outsider campaign unlike anything we've ever seen. Romney, by making that one decision, would instantly show that this is no longer your grandfather's GOP. Oh, I know: Paul's age and unconventional stances on drug prohibition and against Big Defense contrast with Romney's own positions, but Paul is no Sarah Palin: he can wipe the floor with Biden. We know that the neocons will fall behind Romney, but Paul consistently draws 10-25% of voters no one else is reaching--and that can make all the difference. The unusual thing is not only is Ron Paul seen as the most legitimate conservative in the race by nearly everybody--he also draws some liberal and moderate supporters If Romney selects Paul, he instantly shuts up all the activists complaining that Romney is not a "true" conservative. A "severe" conservative just might select Ron Paul.]
I"m concerned that the birthers could sidetrack our best opportunity of knocking off the incompetent incumbent. Regardless of the VP pick I don't see any way possible Obama retains the 53% of the vote he got in 2008: that hope-change thing is gone forever: moderates and independents have seen Barack Obama constantly bang his head against the wall with tax-and-spend class warfare rhetoric going on 4 years: they know that he's stubborn and has shown absolutely no trace of legitimate compromise: it took an historic mid-term landslide and a Senate GOP filibuster to get Obama to back off a class warfare extension of the Bush tax cuts less than a month before their expiration: the only reason he did it was that he knew that it was political suicide for him not to get at least the middle class tax cuts that he needed more than the progressives' obsession with punishing the upper 1%.
Moderates and independents were fooled the last time Obama posed as a centrist during the last general election campaign: they aren't likely to be fooled again by election season Obama's gimmicky populist attempts to co-opt the GOP agenda: they know that a reelected lame duck Obama, who had promised to cut the deficit in half, will have nothing to restrain his bureaucratic ambitions to expand government micromanagement of their lives, short of impeachment. All Romney needs to do is convince 3 to 4 jaded Obama voters out of each hundred voters. A lame duck Obama, no longer needing to worry about pandering to the middle class or disguising his far-left agenda, doesn't even need to convince a GOP Congress to enact new legislation. He can create hundreds of birth control kerfuffles on his own initiative across the wide expanse of the federal government, using his veto power to stave off Congressional attempts to rein him in: he can run a GOP Congress ragged simply by jerking their chains at will. It's a lot easier to vote Obama out of office than to impeach him.
Yes, the polls aren't looking good right now in a number of battleground states, but Gallup/USA Today just came out with a national poll today showing Romney with 50% of the vote, beating Obama by more than the margin of error. This is after all the pundits arguing that Romney has turned off moderates and independents with his recent campaign attacks against partisan opponents, fueled by a relentless anti-Romney campaign over the past year where one candidate after another has assumed the mantle of the chosen non-Romney one. (Take my word for it: if and when the Obama campaign turns negative against Romney, it will be a double-edged sword. The biggest thing Obama has going for him is that the American people like him, even though they despise his policies: if and when a desperate Obama goes negative, his unfavorables will skyrocket.)
I will say that right now Obama has some positive momentum in several battleground states, probably a combination of better economic news and GOP infighting. There are some weird polls out there--I see Georgia polls all over the map with Romney showing from a close to a distant third. I'm not forecasting a Romney victory in Georgia but I think Gingrich with a favorite son status competes with Santorum for the same type of voters. I've been seeing recent Michigan polls alternating between Romney and Santorum with Romney trying to stave off a late charge from Santorum in Arizona. I did not watch this week's debate, but it appeared that Santorum was on the defensive; over the past week he steadily marched up to about a 10% lead in the Gallup daily tracking poll and I saw that dip today to a 7-point lead. If my read of the situation is correct, we should see an erosion of that lead over the weekend. Right now Intrade has Romney at a 73% favorite to win Michigan and a 92% favorite to win Arizona.
You have to say that the non-Romney folks certainly engage in wishful thinking, ominously arguing it's make or break for Romney in Michigan, Romney's home state. Um, earth to media conservatives: right now, according to Wikipedia, Romney has an aggregate of 41% of the overall vote to date, a third more than runner up Gingrich, not to mention nearly 3 times the delegates, and Santorum has only about 16%. Santorum has won only one primary--a beauty contest with no delegates at stake and without Gingrich on the ballot, and two of his caucus wins were narrow over Romney, one of them a photo finish in a state that Romney did not expect to win. I will say I've seen polls in Super Tuesday/later states where Romney presently is in a difficult position--he was polling close to Santorum in Pennsylvania before Santorum's recent hat trick. I think if Romney pulls out Michigan and Arizona next Tuesday, he'll be in good position heading into Super Tuesday. On Super Tuesday, Romney is all but certain to take Virginia, Vermont, and Massachusetts and Socialmatica also predicts Romney will take 4 of the other 7 races (Oklahoma, Alaska, Tennessee, and Ohio) with Ron Paul possibly topping Romney in caucus states of Idaho and North Dakota. Santorum has a lead in recent Ohio and Washington state polls, but if Santorum's support starts breaking down, which I believe we may now be seeing, it's very difficult to see how he goes on if he loses both primaries next Tuesday and then gets shut out on Super Tuesday. On the other hand, Gingrich has only one victory to date, and his late surge South Carolina victory is not enough--even if he pulls out Georgia, it's difficult to see a path for victory. He is on the record as saying he sees Texas as a decider in his campaign, and it's possible that all 3 opponents may pull what I call a "Huckabee", meaning to stay on the ballot until Romney mathematically clinches the nomination.
Okay, let's now briefly talk about the Senate races: Jeff Flake, who I endorsed several weeks back, looks to be in a strong position to retain Jon Kyl's Senate seat in Arizona, Texas looks in great shape to retain the open GOP seat and I've seen Sen. Scott Brown with a recent strong poll defending against progressive icon Elizabeth Warren. Former Senator Allen is even or just ahead from a takeaway win in Virginia, Mack is battling Florida's Senator Nelson in a virtual tie, the GOP contenders are battling Missouri's Senator McCaskill again in a tie, Nebraska and North Dakota look good for takeaways, Tester is in trouble in Montana, Wilson is virtually tied to take over an open Dem seat in New Mexico, and former Governor Thompson has a great shot at taking over an open seat in Wisconsin. There are now another 2 or 3 seats which could be in play (Washington, New Jersey, and Ohio).
Moreover, I've seen a couple of generic ballots putting the GOP over the Dems in Congress. This is Obama's worst nightmare. What I can tell you is that Santorum or Gingrich as the nominee probably kills each and every tossup race I've mentioned here (Missouri, New Mexico, Virginia, and Florida, just to mention a few). So a Santorum or Gingrich probably not only throws the Presidency to Obama, but may be enough to keep Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader--Reid had blocked nearly every reform voted on by the House. It is just as important to defeat Reid as it is to defeat Obama.
Now about the birther stuff: it seems every time I write a piece on immigration, I take a hit on readership. I support immigration reform, but I differ from the Democrats' approach on a number of aspects: I want to overhaul and expand the quota system (particularly beyond the Western Hemisphere), making it more merit-based and ending chained immigration, I want to see a functional temporary worker program reinstated (currently opposed vehemently by the unions), and I'm willing to consider permanent residency (versus citizenship) options for unauthorized residents in good standing (especially if one or more children are American born) after certain penalty fees are assessed. I would be willing to allow these residents to get in line to qualify for citizenship here (from their home country).
Now on the birther kerfuffle: this is just so politically toxic and offensive to immigrants across the board (especially legal ones), it's a guarantee that very large numbers of immigrant voters will vote for Obama just to spite the birthers, whom the immigrants think the GOP condones. This is a completely phony issue: Obama never planted his birth announcement in old Hawaiian newspapers with the idea he would be elected as the first African American President! The varying qualification time periods have shifted arbitrarily over time by the Congress. As far as I'm concerned, whoever wins a clear majority of electoral votes deserves to be President, even if he is a little green dwarf from Mars; to try to deny the mandate of the American people over some obscure, arbitrary legal nuance is fundamentally anti-democratic. I am strongly opposed to Obama's policies, but I recognize the legitimacy of his election.
I don't know why most of the "Reagan conservatives" don't get why Reagan got elected; it wasn't just because of his policies. A lot of it had to do with his characteristic good nature and his willingness to negotiate with the opposition. Barry Goldwater was just as ideologically pure as Ronald Reagan, but he got crushed in the 1964 election. Both Santorum and Gingrich come across more like Goldwater than Reagan. They come across as thin-skinned and strident. I have strong points of view, but I think I have a good sense of humor, and I don't take myself too seriously. That's what I think Romney needs to work on. When Ford was President, he came across like your next door neighbor, a refreshing change from the rather aloof, paranoid Nixon. Chevy Chase made a career over imitating his falls, and as a born Texan, I'll never forget that wonderfully endearing, goofy occasion that he tried to eat a tamale for the first time--with the husk still on.
The indisputable fact is that Marco Rubio was born in the United States (Miami). That made him a US citizen by the Constitution; the status of his parents, which the birthers focus on (Rubio's parents weren't naturalized citizens at the time of his birth), is not relevant. The birthers take a position that Rubio cannot be selected as a potential VP, given a Constitutional requirement of a natural-born citizen and their take on the wording of the fourteenth amendment which basically references the US-born children of foreign diplomats (and doesn't apply in this context). I've written past posts on this and pointed out that SCOTUS has made its position clear.
And Now For Obama's Next Budget Trick:
Over $2T In the Hat: A Few Crony Promises,
Then Poof! Spending Cuts Have Disappeared
All That Remains is Smoke and an IOU
I'm not sure that the Obama Administration can tell you where the money is being spent. After all, the last time INS saw Carmen, she was somewhere in San Diego... What do we know?
- Obama raises spending by nearly $200B--this is over and beyond naturally lower expenditures for our winding down activities in Iraq and Afghanistan and lower recession spending (unemployment insurance)
- Obama is disingenuously dressing up naturally lowered expenditures as a sustainable source of spending cuts and taking credit for spending constraints initially opposed by the Administration
- Obama is radically increasing dividend taxes (up to 3-fold in rate depending on tax bracket): note that dividends are a source of income for many senior citizens; older Americans account for a large percentage of dividend recipients. (For those who don't understand investments, part of what goes into the price of certain blue-chip stocks is the prospect for sustained or increased dividend payouts. For all practical purposes, the market, if it thinks the dividend tax increases will happen, will likely treat a tax increase like the dividend has been cut--not good for people holding the stock. This is stunningly bad, anti-growth tax policy; keep in mind that taxing dividends is a double dip by a greedy federal government, because business income has already been taxed.)
Once again, after preaching a simpler tax system, Obama is proposing a number of new tax breaks which adds more floors to the status quo house of cards: no serious attempt whatsoever to rein in domestic expenditures or entitlements. It exposes the reality and hypocrisy behind Obama's empty rhetoric in streamlining business tax policy while lowering the corporate tax rate. (Of course, Obama's tax loopholes are "more equal".)
This budget is basically a joke and as far as I'm concerned--dead on arrival.
This budget is basically a joke and as far as I'm concerned--dead on arrival.
Chris Edwards/CATO, Thumbs UP!
"Obama Budget Raises Tax Rates, Expands Loopholes"
Political Humor
"Today [Ash Wednesday] Mitt Romney had some ashes on his head. He's not Catholic. It was soot from his campaign blowing up in his face." - Jay Leno
[The evangelicals backing Santorum agreed that it was proof that not only was Satan out to get America, but he would start with the Mormons...]
A new study found that 16 percent of Americans under the age of 24 don’t have a job. There’s even a name for that group: Art History majors." - Jimmy Fallon
[They are former White House interns whom used to work for Obama's economic advisers.]
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
Paul McCartney & Wings, "Jet"
