SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Carolyn who wrote (69013)2/4/2014 5:59:36 PM
From: Peter Dierks  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
Taking the Senate is a good idea. It would give Republicans additional leverage in dealing with an obstinate partisan in the Whitehouse.

Of course the leftwing media would continue to side exclusively with Obama. Also Senate leadership would have to change to have any expectation of trying to change anything. Changing House leadership would help too.



To: Carolyn who wrote (69013)2/6/2014 9:40:08 AM
From: Peter Dierks  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
The Numbers That Scare Senate Democrats
By Karl Rove
February 6, 2014

Voting with Obama 97% of the time is going to end some careers.

Three sets of numbers have emerged in recent weeks that bode ill for Democrat hopes to keep the U.S. Senate. The first came from new Federal Election Commission filings and news reports on campaign fundraising for the fourth quarter of 2013, and cash-on-hand on Dec. 31.

Seven states carried by Mitt Romney have Democrat senators whose seats are up in November. Overall in these states, the leading Republican candidates raised $6.5 million while their Democrat opponents—including four incumbents—raised $6.7 million during the last quarter. Five Republicans outraised their Democrat opponents, including in all three states (Montana, South Dakota and West Virginia) where the Democrat senators are leaving and in two of the four states (Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana and North Carolina) where Democrat incumbents are trying to hold on.

Republicans also whittled away at the Democrat cash-on-hand advantage in these states. Democrats had an $18.5 million to $11.5 million cash advantage at the end of September. By the end of December, Democrats had roughly $21 million, Republicans $15.5 million.

The second troubling number for Democrats is Gallup's presidential job-approval rating, which was 42% the week ending last Sunday. The president's average approval in these seven Senate states is roughly 36%. If that's the case on Election Day, he will likely sink his party's candidates, who probably cannot run more than five points ahead of Mr. Obama's rating.

Then there is the nonpartisan Congressional Quarterly's summary of last year's legislative voting patterns. The four red state Democrat senators running for re-election gave Mr. Obama's policies almost perfect support, led by Louisiana's Mary Landrieu and Alaska's Mark Begich at 97%, followed by North Carolina's Kay Hagan at 96% and Arkansas's Mike Pryor at 90%.

They are now trying to distance themselves from the president. Mr. Begich says he's "disappointed" in the State of the Union address and promises to "push back" if Mr. Obama signs objectionable executive orders. But Dan Sullivan, the former Alaska Natural Resources Commissioner and the likely Republican candidate, can make hay all day long with the senator's voting record.

Ms. Hagan refused to appear with Mr. Obama when he visited North Carolina Jan. 15. Her likely GOP opponent, state House Speaker Thom Tillis, can cite this to show that she was rock-solid reliable when it came to advancing the Obama agenda but now that she has to face voters, she's ashamed.

These problems—a diminishing fundraising edge, low presidential approval, and support for Mr. Obama's policies—could cause problems for Democrat senators in purple states as well. In 2010 Republicans picked up six Senate seats (the number they need this year to win control). Five were in states Mr. Obama carried in 2008, namely Florida, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Four purple states already appear promising for Republicans. In Michigan, Republican Terri Lynn Land has outraised Rep. Gary Peters, her Democrat opponent, the last two quarters. Despite his five-year head start in building a war chest, Ms. Lynn now has more cash ($3.3 million versus $2.9 million). Mr. Peters also supported Mr. Obama's policies 90% of the time in 2012, the most recent year available for House members.

In New Hampshire, Democrat Sen. Jeanne Shaheen supported Mr. Obama's policies 99% of the time in 2013. While she has $3.4 million, what happens if former Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown —a New Hampshire native who now lives in the Granite State—runs? He raised $28.2 million for his last campaign.

Minnesota Sen. Al Franken supported Mr. Obama's policies 100% of the time last year and Virginia Sen. Mark Warner backed them 97% of the time. Both could face Republican challengers—businessman Mike McFadden in Minnesota and former GOP National Chairman Ed Gillespie in Virginia—who can raise money and could take advantage of Mr. Obama's unpopularity in their states. Other purple possibilities that could develop are Oregon, New Mexico, Colorado and Iowa.

Today the GOP has seven Democrat seats clearly in play and several more shaping up. If Republicans can increase that to 10 Democrat seats, their chances of regaining Senate control and providing an important institutional check on Mr. Obama's agenda during his last two years go up dramatically.

A version of this article appeared February 6, 2014, in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline The Numbers That Scare Senate Democrats and online at WSJ.com.

rove.com



To: Carolyn who wrote (69013)3/16/2014 11:16:10 PM
From: greatplains_guy  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
How Hard Will We Be on the Post-Obama President?
March 4, 2014 11:25 am
by Victor Davis Hanson

Imagine if a hard-right-wing president were to follow Barack Obama and embrace the new precedents that Obama himself has established for the presidency. Would he then be seen as an unusually polarizing figure, who abused the power of his office? Let’s call him Bucky

Brewster, the new Republican President from Montana.

Settled law?

President Bucky Brewster announces that he finds most of the Affordable Care Act patently unconstitutional. So he suspends all its timetables of implementation, stops the employer and individual mandates, and gives exemptions to big corporations, Tea Party groups, and the NRA. Brewster goes on to throw out Obama’s recently passed “comprehensive immigration reform” act, deporting at once four million illegal aliens and cancelling the Dream Act, remarking: “It contradicts prior law. The federal immigration law is the law.”

Brewster worries about the EPA a lot. So he decides that the Endangered Species Act is unconstitutional and a threat to property rights. He suspends enforcement of it indefinitely. Brewster also orders a regulatory raid on liberal Solaris, alleging that its solar panels will cause too much glare for private aviation pilots and are made of rare imported silica, and so shuts the company down. Brewster also advises Boeing that, if it were smart, it should leave Washington and go to a right-to-work state like Mississippi. Brewster also reminds that the Defense of Marriage Act has never been repealed and thus he outlaws all gay marriages “in accordance with settled law.”

What will MSNBC say? The abuse of power? Unconstitutional? Impeachment?

Appointments?

President Bucky Brewster wants to fundamentally transform America and so his appointments must reflect his conservative ideology. So he taps as green jobs czar an ad man for the oil companies who, we learn, is a “birther.” His new NASA director gives an interview pledging that the chief aim of the space agency is now to reach out to Christians abroad.

One of his communications directors praises the efficiency of Mussolini, who, she says, has always been her role model. His EPA director, who is a big Keystone pipeline booster, opens a fake email account to take the pulse of the pipeline debate — and has the EPA give an award to her alias! He appoints as Treasury secretary Donald Trump, who confesses that he wrote off his kids’ camp fees as tax deductions and pocketed his FICA allotments. His new energy secretary, Billy Bob Fella, who drives a Hummer, announces: “We want gas prices to get down to around 70 cents a gallon, right down there to those Saudi or Kuwaiti levels. What a great way to save the planet by returning a little cash to the poor driver’s pocket.”

President Brewster also appoints an insider CEO as OMB director, lectures on the revolving door, and then ushers him back out to Halliburton. The attorney general, the returning John Ashcroft, is cited with contempt for overseeing a failed gunrunning sting in Mexico. Ashcroft also inadvertently refers to some white activists as “my people,” after calling the country “cowards” for not wanting to end affirmative action. For some reason, he drops the near-certain prosecution of a bunch of Wyoming Minutemen who appeared at Cody voting polls with lassos and wearing spurs. Finally, Brewster appoints as the head of the Civil Rights Division a pro bono lawyer, Karl von Hoffman, famous among anti-abortion zealots, who in the past defended the killer of an abortionist.

The reaction from the New York Times?

Politicization?

Bucky Brewster also, we learn, has a problem with the IRS. You see, many of the top IRS appointees either resigned, retired, or took the Fifth Amendment when it was disclosed that the IRS had targeted non-profit groups with names like “progress,” “equality,” and “fairness” in their titles, especially those connected with Hollywood actors, the People for the American Way, and the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Oddly, prominent leftist activists from filmmaker Michael Moore to Oprah and Beyoncé suddenly have their taxes audited, after sharp political speeches chiding Brewster. Brewster’s FCC appointees — the director is the daughter of Jim DeMint — also dream up an idea to monitor the news to ensure that ideas like patriotism, Western culture, the Founding Fathers, traditional values, marriage between a man and a woman, and pro-development policies are given a fair hearing by federally licensed radio and TV stations. “MSNBC,” Brewster reminds the nation, “has done a lot to scare people unduly about my agenda.” In that regard, he has called out by name Rachel Maddow five times since assuming office.

What would NPR intone?

Blaming Obama?

President Brewster cannot seem to let go of Barack Obama. Chided for his chronic 7% unemployment rate and a “jobless recovery,” he fires back with: “At least it is better than that of the previous administration!” About his serial $400 billion annual deficits, he reminds, “Obama’s were $1 billion for his entire first term, so there!”

On the increasing tensions in the world, Brewster exclaims: “Do you have any idea of what I inherited from my predecessor — slashed defense forces, a broke treasury, allies estranged, enemies emboldened, chaos in Iraq, Syria, and Libya, appeasement with a now nuclear Iran, and Putin playing Stalin?”

On America’s stature abroad, Brewster gives a strident speech to Christians in Jordan: “Recently, the U.S. has had a pretty bad record, coddling murderers like Castro and Chavez, calling jihad a personal journey, declaring the Muslim Brotherhood secular, forsaking the Green Revolution in Iran, selling out our Democrat friends in Israel. It’s about time we come to grips with some of the damage that the Obama administration has caused others. I think an apology from the U.S. is in order.” “Obama did it” has become the Brewster anthem.

As for the ongoing health care mess, Brewster fires back: “Do you have any idea of the ruin that the previous administration caused our medical profession? It will take me years to undo the damage. So we have some more things to apologize for.”

Will Politico object?

The Bully Pulpit?

President Brewster proved unafraid to wade in on contemporary controversies. “I see OJ is back in the news; and I thought, wow, had I a second daughter, she would have looked just like Nicole.” The gun-owning Brewster even weighed in on the verdict of the Trayvon Martin case: “Zimmerman could have been me 35 years ago.” And as far the hype and hysteria, Brewster speculated that had the shooter been a black male teen, the media might not have noticed that “both the outcome and aftermath might have been different.”

When a close friend was stopped by campus security, Brewster again sounded off on law enforcement: “They act stupidly. They stereotype. What I think we know — separate and apart from this incident — is that there is a recent history in this country of white males being bothered disproportionately on campus and wrongly charged, from Duke to Dartmouth, and that’s just a fact.” The provocative Brewster went down to the Arizona border and reminded ranchers worried about illegal immigration that at the next election they had to “punish” their shared “enemies.” Many were bothered that Ted Nugent was a frequent White House guest, and that Brewster thought Tammy Wynette was a good role model for his daughter.

Brewster seemed perpetually angry at those on food stamps, and state and federal welfare programs: “We have fat cats, but you guys are skinny cats.” And: “At some point, I think you better decide to start making some money.” And: “It is past time for you guys to profit.” And: “Why do these Medicaid scams always seem to involve lopped limbs and yanked-out tonsils?” And: “You didn’t build anything for that retirement check, you had help.” And: “We need more trickle down to spread the wealth.” And: “The public sector is doing just fine.”

Bucky Brewster had a hard time communicating sometimes. He called the Marines “zombie-men,” and seemed to think there were 57 states. “I just got back from Canada and spoke Canadian really well.” Fortunately, ex-Rodeo man, Rocky Granite, serves as Brewster’s body man, keeping him going day-to-day: “We played 15 hands of canasta all during that Bashar Assad raid; Bucky is a cool boss.”

Critics also complained that President Brewster had gone to 160 NASCAR races, and seemed to vacation only in tony places like Jackson Hole. His wife, Bunny Brewster, was chastised for flying to Nashville with a two-jet entourage of over 100 helpers. “It’s a downright nice country, and I’ve never been more proud of it,” Bunny laughed.

What would PBS say?

Scandals

President Brewster also got himself into a lot of jams. His NSA was caught spying on foreign leaders like French President Hollande, as well as gathering data on everyday Americans. His administration even monitored the phone records of reporters like Chris Matthews — and his parents, no less!

Why did UN Ambassador John Bolton insist five times on national television shows that the recently planned al-Qaeda attack on the American embassy in Tunis was due to a far-left video that made fun of Arab gay-bashing? Why was the leftwing filmmaker jailed for a year? And why was Bolton then made national security advisor? Then it was learned that Republican crony insiders of a new start-up company, Coalyndra, promising to use new technology to reduce oil imports, have defaulted on a $500 million Department of Energy loan designed to promote coal liquefaction.

Will Time magazine say: “Enough with this bunch already”?

Deficits?

President Brewster promised to cut the deficits in half, but suddenly they exploded and are back over $1 trillion a year. He pleads with the media: “We didn’t expect a tsunami in Japan. There was an earthquake, remember, in Washington. Do you have any idea of the effect ATM machines are having on the economy? Who knew oil prices would spike due to world tensions? The Democrat House has repeatedly shot down every deficit reduction plan I’ve offered. It is not as if I inherited a balanced budget. Have you forgotten that Barack Obama ran up more red ink than all previous administrations combined?”

What would the New Republic write?

2017 should be interesting.

victorhanson.com



To: Carolyn who wrote (69013)3/20/2014 12:19:30 AM
From: greatplains_guy  Respond to of 71588
 
March Economic Polls Bode Ill For Democrats
Mediocre ratings in the third month of a midterm year sunk Republicans in 1986 and again in 2006.
by Karl Rove

Public support for President Obama is tanking on multiple fronts, dragging down his party.

Foreign policy was a relative strength for much of Mr. Obama's first term. No more. According to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, Mr. Obama's disapproval rating on handling foreign affairs is 53%, the highest of his presidency. That number is likely to have grown since the poll was conducted 11 days ago—before Vladimir Putin's very public humiliation of Mr. Obama's weak reaction to his takeover of Crimea.

No modern American president has been exposed as this feckless and impotent, except for perhaps Jimmy Carter. Mr. Obama will discover that as his image as a strong leader crumbles, it's nearly impossible to reconstruct. That will mean bad things for his party. Once a president is seen as weak in foreign affairs, it colors perceptions of his leadership at home.

Not that the news at home is good. In a March 9 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, Mr. Obama had a 41% approval rating, 56% disapproval rating for his handling of the economy. His approval number is lower than all but eight of the 47 soundings this poll has taken since Mr. Obama's first inaugural—and his disapproval rating is worse than all but seven others since January 2009.

For context, consider that when Ronald Reagan was president in March 1986, 44% of Americans rated the economy "excellent" or "good" while 16% called it "poor," according to a Money Magazine survey conducted by ABC News. Just over seven months later, Republicans lost eight Senate seats and five House seats in the midterms.

In March 2006, when George W. Bush was president, 41% rated the economy "excellent" or "good" while 24% called it "poor" in an ABC News/Washington Post poll. Yet in that year's midterms, Republicans lost six Senate seats and 30 House seats.

The situation facing Democrats is more ominous. The March 2 ABC News/Washington Post survey reported a mere 28% rated the economy "excellent" or "good" while 28% called it "poor." Unless the Obama economy dramatically improves, it will be politically toxic for Democrats.

Democrats no longer have health care as a strength. The dreadful rollout of ObamaCare left the president with a 36% approval rating and a 59% disapproval rating for his handling of health care in a March 6 Fox News poll.

Congressional Democrats will continue to be vulnerable on ObamaCare. They are floundering, uncertain whether to (a) embrace the law with enthusiasm, as counseled by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi ; or (b) advocate a "mend it, don't end it" approach, as pushed by the White House and practiced by their candidate in the recent Florida special congressional election and by every red state Democratic incumbent senator.

These appear to be a pick-your-poison choice. Neither approach really mitigates the damage caused by ObamaCare. The only thing that could rescue Democrats is for Republican candidates to appear as advocates for the pre-ObamaCare status quo. Hopefully, there's not much of a chance of that.

Republicans also rightly sense great opportunity on the economy, believing Mr. Obama has run out of ideas that move voters. Advocating a minimum-wage increase polls well but doesn't have much traction. As for the president's focus on income inequality, it has accelerated on his watch and shorn of substantive proposals sounds like class-warfare rhetoric.

The Senate GOP, spurred in part by Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, has wisely developed a seven-point "Jobs for America" plan that includes market-based health-care reforms, attacks on bureaucracy and regulations that hinder job creation, tax simplification to generate more jobs and growth, a balanced-budget amendment, an "all-of-the-above" energy strategy, increased access to overseas markets, and modernized jobs training. The House Republican Conference has developed a similar "Plan for Economic Growth and Jobs" that also includes fostering innovation and reforming immigration.

Both plans are preliminary sketches but can be turned into legislative proposals to provide a unifying message that candidates can dramatize and personalize. Good Republican candidates will tackle the economy with similar forward-looking agendas if they want to win.

Americans will hire a party to run things when its ideas are fresh and new and fire it when they believe it's run out of ideas and has an agenda they don't like. The latter is where Democrats find themselves today.

A version of this article appeared March 20, 2014, in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline March Economic Polls Bode Ill for Democrats and online at WSJ.com.

rove.com