Gov. Pat Quinn hasn't fired anyone in his administration over the flawed early release of prisoners, but he is the only one facing the voters this fall.
The Meritorious Good Time Push program was ill-conceived. The Department (of Corrections) exhibited institutional myopia: While pursuing cost-saving measures, it neglected the most important consideration — the potential impact on public safety."
— report of retired Appellate Judge David Erickson, Aug. 13, 2010
We keep wondering if the early-release debacle that freed 1,754 Illinois prisoners — some of them violent offenders — will cost a high-ranking state official his job in the administration of Gov. Pat Quinn. No, we're not talking about Department of Corrections Director Michael Randle or people in his agency who allegedly tried to undermine him. We're talking about Quinn himself, who has correctly acknowledged that the buck stops with him.
This scandal has been nothing but bad news for the governor since it broke in December. His Democratic challenger, state Comptroller Dan Hynes, nearly rode it to victory in the Feb. 2 Illinois primary. And an autopsy of the scandal issued Friday — a report from former Judge David Erickson — probably threatens Quinn's prospects in the Nov. 2 general election as well.
One of Quinn's initial responses in December was to ask Erickson to lead a committee review of early release in Illinois. The report issued Friday is Erickson's response. He said at a news conference that while early release can be a valuable corrections tool, Illinois' program had devolved into "a dismal failure" over three decades: Governors weren't on top of it, and some legislators kept urging more early releases. Erickson said the Quinn administration's accelerated 2009 program of granting early release, the so-called MGT Push, "took a broken system and made it worse."
The report documents how, last Aug. 31, the Department of Corrections inaugurated MGT Push, "replacing the 60-day minimum stay policy with an 11-day minimum stay policy" for offenders who had been sentenced to short prison terms. Over the next three-months-plus, 1,754 inmates were released under MGT Push; on average they served 36 fewer days than they otherwise would have. The report says the agency "failed to adequately notify local jurisdictions of inmates' impending releases" and concludes that the program "failed to accomplish the overriding goals of the State's Code of Corrections: protecting the public's safety and restoring inmates to useful citizenship."
The Alumni Notes from MGT Push: 685 parolees are free and compliant, 498 have been discharged, and 13 have died. But 390 have been returned to Illinois prisons, some for committing violent offenses; another 36 are incarcerated elsewhere; 32 have outstanding warrants but haven't yet been arrested; and 100 are the subjects of federal immigration enforcement.
Quinn's chief of staff, Jerry Stermer, said Friday he was present last summer and fall when the governor told Randle he was not to release violent offenders under MGT Push. Randle took responsibility for not supervising his subordinates closely enough to make sure they followed that dictum. As a result, he said, "It happened."
These kinds of government failures usually produce internecine back-stabbing, and this episode is no different. We can't say with certainty whether Quinn is too protective of Randle, or whether agency rivals who were gunning for Randle couldn't quite make him the fall guy. What we do know is that only one person tied to this mess has to stand for re-election: the boss.
Stermer would rather talk about Quinn's quick elimination of MGT Push when the scandal broke, the ongoing suspension of a similar program, and the numerous improvements that should make for a better early-release culture in Illinois. He said Quinn needs legislative cooperation to fund a $30 million overhaul of the Corrections computer systems. And, echoing Erickson's report, he said the governor wants to narrow the universe of offenders eligible for early release.
At first read, Erickson's report is an excellent map to reforming early release in Illinois. You can find the full document at chicagotribune.com/prisoners.
But tomorrow's reforms may not insulate Quinn from yesterday's failure to have such a potentially dangerous program under better management
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-earlyrelease-20100816,0,5191318.story
Monday, August 16, 2010
Israel's Netanyahu Poised to Take Out Iran's Nuclear Sites
Monday, 16 Aug 2010 09:43 AM Article Font Size
By: George Will
When Israel declared independence in 1948, it had to use mostly small arms to repel attacks by six Arab armies. Today, however, Israel feels, and is, more menaced than it was then, or has been since. Hence the potentially world-shaking decision that will be made here, probably within two years.
To understand the man who will make it, begin with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's belief that stopping Iran's nuclear weapons program is integral to stopping the worldwide campaign to reverse 1948. It is, he says, a campaign to "put the Jew back to the status of a being that couldn't defend himself — a perfect victim."
Today's Middle East, he says, reflects two developments. One is the rise of Iran and militant Islam since the 1979 revolution, which led to al-Qaida, Hamas, and Hezbollah. The other development is the multiplying threat of missile warfare.
Now Israel faces a third threat, the campaign to delegitimize it in order to extinguish its capacity for self-defense.
After two uniquely perilous millennia for Jews, the creation of Israel meant, Netanyahu says, "the capacity for self-defense restored to the Jewish people." But note, he says, the reflexive worldwide chorus of condemnation when Israel responded with force to rocket barrages from Gaza and from southern Lebanon. There is, he believes, a crystallizing consensus that "Israel is not allowed to exercise self-defense."
From 1948 through 1973, he says, enemies tried to "eliminate Israel by conventional warfare." Having failed, they tried to demoralize and paralyze Israel with suicide bombers and other terrorism. "We put up a fence," Netanyahu says. "Now they have rockets that go over the fence." Israel's military, which has stressed offense as a solution to the nation's lack of strategic depth, now stresses missile defense.
That, however, cannot cope with Hamas' tens of thousands of rockets in Gaza and Hezbollah's 60,000 in southern Lebanon. There, U.N. resolution 1701, promulgated after the 2006 war, has been predictably farcical. This was supposed to inhibit the arming of Hezbollah and prevent its operations south of the Litani River.
Since 2006, Hezbollah's rocket arsenal has tripled and its operations mock resolution 1701. Hezbollah, learning from Hamas, now places rockets near schools and hospitals, certain that Israel's next response to indiscriminate aggression will turn the world media into a force multiplier for the aggressors.
Any Israeli self-defense anywhere is automatically judged "disproportionate." Israel knows this as it watches Iran.
Last year was Barack Obama's wasted year of "engaging" Iran. This led to sanctions that are unlikely to ever become sufficiently potent. With Russia, China, and Turkey being uncooperative, Iran is hardly "isolated." The Iranian democracy movement probably cannot quickly achieve regime change. It took Solidarity 10 years to do so against a Polish regime less brutally repressive than Iran's.
Hillary Clinton's words about extending a "defense umbrella over the region" imply, to Israelis, fatalism about a nuclear Iran. As for deterrence working against a nuclear-armed regime steeped in an ideology of martyrdom, remember: In 1980, Ayatollah Khomeini said: "We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world."
You say, that was long ago? Israel says, this is now:
Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, says Israel is the "enemy of God." Tehran, proclaiming that the Holocaust never happened and vowing to complete it, sent an ambassador to Poland who in 2006 wanted to measure the ovens at Auschwitz to prove them inadequate for genocide. Iran's former president, Hashemi Rafsanjani, who is considered a "moderate" by people for whom believing is seeing, calls Israel a "one-bomb country."
If Iran were to "wipe the Zionist entity off the map," as it vows to do, it would, Netanyahu believes, achieve a regional "dominance not seen since Alexander." Netanyahu does not say Israel will, if necessary, act alone to prevent this. Or does he?
He says CIA Director Leon Panetta is "about right" in saying Iran can be a nuclear power in two years. He says 1948 meant this: "For the first time in 2,000 years, a sovereign Jewish people could defend itself against attack." And he says: "The tragic history of the powerlessness of our people explains why the Jewish people need a sovereign power of self-defense." If Israel strikes Iran, the world will not be able to say it was not warned.
George Will's e-mail address is georgewill@washpost.com.
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
http://www.newsmax.com/GeorgeWill/Will--Iran--nuclear--Netanyahu--Israel--war--strike/2010/08/16/id/367558
By: George Will
When Israel declared independence in 1948, it had to use mostly small arms to repel attacks by six Arab armies. Today, however, Israel feels, and is, more menaced than it was then, or has been since. Hence the potentially world-shaking decision that will be made here, probably within two years.
To understand the man who will make it, begin with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's belief that stopping Iran's nuclear weapons program is integral to stopping the worldwide campaign to reverse 1948. It is, he says, a campaign to "put the Jew back to the status of a being that couldn't defend himself — a perfect victim."
Today's Middle East, he says, reflects two developments. One is the rise of Iran and militant Islam since the 1979 revolution, which led to al-Qaida, Hamas, and Hezbollah. The other development is the multiplying threat of missile warfare.
Now Israel faces a third threat, the campaign to delegitimize it in order to extinguish its capacity for self-defense.
After two uniquely perilous millennia for Jews, the creation of Israel meant, Netanyahu says, "the capacity for self-defense restored to the Jewish people." But note, he says, the reflexive worldwide chorus of condemnation when Israel responded with force to rocket barrages from Gaza and from southern Lebanon. There is, he believes, a crystallizing consensus that "Israel is not allowed to exercise self-defense."
From 1948 through 1973, he says, enemies tried to "eliminate Israel by conventional warfare." Having failed, they tried to demoralize and paralyze Israel with suicide bombers and other terrorism. "We put up a fence," Netanyahu says. "Now they have rockets that go over the fence." Israel's military, which has stressed offense as a solution to the nation's lack of strategic depth, now stresses missile defense.
That, however, cannot cope with Hamas' tens of thousands of rockets in Gaza and Hezbollah's 60,000 in southern Lebanon. There, U.N. resolution 1701, promulgated after the 2006 war, has been predictably farcical. This was supposed to inhibit the arming of Hezbollah and prevent its operations south of the Litani River.
Since 2006, Hezbollah's rocket arsenal has tripled and its operations mock resolution 1701. Hezbollah, learning from Hamas, now places rockets near schools and hospitals, certain that Israel's next response to indiscriminate aggression will turn the world media into a force multiplier for the aggressors.
Any Israeli self-defense anywhere is automatically judged "disproportionate." Israel knows this as it watches Iran.
Last year was Barack Obama's wasted year of "engaging" Iran. This led to sanctions that are unlikely to ever become sufficiently potent. With Russia, China, and Turkey being uncooperative, Iran is hardly "isolated." The Iranian democracy movement probably cannot quickly achieve regime change. It took Solidarity 10 years to do so against a Polish regime less brutally repressive than Iran's.
Hillary Clinton's words about extending a "defense umbrella over the region" imply, to Israelis, fatalism about a nuclear Iran. As for deterrence working against a nuclear-armed regime steeped in an ideology of martyrdom, remember: In 1980, Ayatollah Khomeini said: "We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world."
You say, that was long ago? Israel says, this is now:
Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, says Israel is the "enemy of God." Tehran, proclaiming that the Holocaust never happened and vowing to complete it, sent an ambassador to Poland who in 2006 wanted to measure the ovens at Auschwitz to prove them inadequate for genocide. Iran's former president, Hashemi Rafsanjani, who is considered a "moderate" by people for whom believing is seeing, calls Israel a "one-bomb country."
If Iran were to "wipe the Zionist entity off the map," as it vows to do, it would, Netanyahu believes, achieve a regional "dominance not seen since Alexander." Netanyahu does not say Israel will, if necessary, act alone to prevent this. Or does he?
He says CIA Director Leon Panetta is "about right" in saying Iran can be a nuclear power in two years. He says 1948 meant this: "For the first time in 2,000 years, a sovereign Jewish people could defend itself against attack." And he says: "The tragic history of the powerlessness of our people explains why the Jewish people need a sovereign power of self-defense." If Israel strikes Iran, the world will not be able to say it was not warned.
George Will's e-mail address is georgewill@washpost.com.
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
http://www.newsmax.com/GeorgeWill/Will--Iran--nuclear--Netanyahu--Israel--war--strike/2010/08/16/id/367558
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Panel's report slams Quinn's prison-release program
BY ABDON M. PALLASCH Political Reporter apallasch@suntimes.com
Gov. Quinn made public his long-delayed report on his administration’s embarrassing prison-release program Friday.
A panel led by former Judge Dave Erickson confirmed what everyone has already said: Allowing violent prisoners out of prison early was a dumb idea.
About 500 of the 1,754 prisoners released under the “Meritorious Good Time” plan had violent histories, the report said.
The “Meritorious good time” program will remain on ice until it is reformed, Quinn said.
Erickson said if the program is ever brought back, “good time” — trouble-free periods that can lead to early release — should be revocable if prisoners misbehave.
“The department had taken the position that it was not revocable,” Erickson said. “That’s the carrot-and-stick approach without the stick. That doesn't make any sense. From this point forward, it will be revocable.”
Quinn’s Republican opponent for governor, Bill Brady, dismissed the report as “too little, too late.”
“The report fails to provide citizens with basic answers to questions about the approval and responsibly for this program,” Brady said.
Both Quinn and Corrections Director Michael Randle re-iterated that Quinn told Randle not to release violent prisoners, but that Randle did anyway.
Quinn said he thought about firing Randle but decided that Randle’s one mistake should not outweigh an otherwise well-regarded career.
“I told him I was very disappointed in the fact that he made a mistake,” Quinn said. “He was clearly told that no violent prisoners would be able to be released early, period. ”
Quinn said he’d like Brady’s help getting legislative approval to spend $30 million from the state’s capital budget upgrading the prison computer system as Erickson recommends.
“He went around getting people to vote ‘No” on that,” Quinn said.
“We found out, shockingly, that 39 computer systems within the Department of Corrections exist and they don't talk to each other,” Erickson said.
Asked how he’d get money to pay for some of Erickson’s recommended reforms, Quinn said he hired 700 new guards this year and will hire 800 more next year.
How will that help save money? It will cut the overtime hours current guards work, he said.
http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=3078437581805316374
Gov. Quinn made public his long-delayed report on his administration’s embarrassing prison-release program Friday.
A panel led by former Judge Dave Erickson confirmed what everyone has already said: Allowing violent prisoners out of prison early was a dumb idea.
About 500 of the 1,754 prisoners released under the “Meritorious Good Time” plan had violent histories, the report said.
The “Meritorious good time” program will remain on ice until it is reformed, Quinn said.
Erickson said if the program is ever brought back, “good time” — trouble-free periods that can lead to early release — should be revocable if prisoners misbehave.
“The department had taken the position that it was not revocable,” Erickson said. “That’s the carrot-and-stick approach without the stick. That doesn't make any sense. From this point forward, it will be revocable.”
Quinn’s Republican opponent for governor, Bill Brady, dismissed the report as “too little, too late.”
“The report fails to provide citizens with basic answers to questions about the approval and responsibly for this program,” Brady said.
Both Quinn and Corrections Director Michael Randle re-iterated that Quinn told Randle not to release violent prisoners, but that Randle did anyway.
Quinn said he thought about firing Randle but decided that Randle’s one mistake should not outweigh an otherwise well-regarded career.
“I told him I was very disappointed in the fact that he made a mistake,” Quinn said. “He was clearly told that no violent prisoners would be able to be released early, period. ”
Quinn said he’d like Brady’s help getting legislative approval to spend $30 million from the state’s capital budget upgrading the prison computer system as Erickson recommends.
“He went around getting people to vote ‘No” on that,” Quinn said.
“We found out, shockingly, that 39 computer systems within the Department of Corrections exist and they don't talk to each other,” Erickson said.
Asked how he’d get money to pay for some of Erickson’s recommended reforms, Quinn said he hired 700 new guards this year and will hire 800 more next year.
How will that help save money? It will cut the overtime hours current guards work, he said.
http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=3078437581805316374
Obama defends Ground Zero mosque
By ABBY PHILLIP | 8/13/10 8:37 PM EDT Updated: 8/14/10 11:28 AM EDT
President Barack Obama on Friday endorsed a controversial plan to build a mosque and Islamic center just blocks from Ground Zero in Manhattan, despite the strong objections of conservatives, the ADL and those who lost loved ones in the September 11 attacks.
“Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground,” Obama said at a White House dinner celebrating the Muslim holiday of Ramadan. “But let me be clear: as a citizen and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.”
Having steered clear of the controversy for weeks, Obama took on opposition to the mosque directly — a move that many other Democratic lawmakers had been hesitant to do in the face of highly emotional appeals against its construction.
But polls indicate the issue could be a high-voltage third rail for politicians who support the project: a recent CNN poll found that 68 percent of those surveyed did not approve of building a mosque so close to where the World Trade Center towers fell, killing more than 2,000 people.
As perhaps the White House had anticipated, the reaction from conservatives and at least one 9/11 rescue worker was swift and angry. Most echoed Rick Lazio, the Republican gubernatorial hopeful who helped draw national attention back to the Ground Zero-area mosque by using it against his Democratic rival, Andrew Cuomo,
"President Obama and Attorney General Cuomo still are not listening to New Yorkers," Lazio said in a statement, suggesting that the backers of the project have obscured their true motives and funding.
There has been "a deliberate attempt to avoid transparency and a deliberate attempt to build the mosque at this location," Lazio said. "Why?"
In recent weeks, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs had deflected questions on the issue, insisting it is “a matter for New York City and the local community to decide.” But Obama had been criticized for being slow to weigh in on the controversy, especially in light of his past statements in support of religious freedom and tolerance for Muslims in the United States.
In his speech Friday, Obama called for sensitivity with respect to developing in lower Manhattan but cautioned against drawing comparisons between mainstream Islam and the ruthlessly violent ideology of Al Queda, which he said is a “gross distortion” of the faith.
“Our capacity to show not merely tolerance, but respect to those who are different from us — a way of life that stands in stark contrast to the nihilism of those who attacked us on that September morning, and who continue to plot against us today,” he said.
Obama spoke before a group of about 90 people, including Muslim community leaders, ambassadors, dignitaries and Rep. Andre Carson (D-Ind.), one of two Muslim members of Congress. After his statement, a number of individuals reportedly rushed to the stage to shake Obama’s hands following his unexpectedly direct endorsement of the mosque.
Earlier this week, in a statement recognizing the onset of the Muslim holy month, Obama said that the rituals of Ramadan “remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings.”
The event is this White House’s second recognition of Ramadan, the Islamic month of fasting, with a traditional iftar dinner—a communal event that traditionally marks the breaking of the fast at sundown.
The project, spearheaded by the Cordoba Institute, an organization that works to improve the relationship between Muslims and the West, proposes that a 152-year-old building be demolished two blocks away from Ground Zero to make way for the new Muslim community center and mosque.
Opponents have argued that, if constructed, the mosque would be a painful insult to survivors, rescue workers and families of those who died on 9/11. Proponents counter that the presence of a mosque so close to the center of the attacks would be a powerful signal of American religious tolerance — a counterweight to the terrorist attack. At the same time, they argue, blocking its construction violates the Constitutional right to freedom of religion.
A number of prominent conservatives, including GOP presidential hopefuls Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, and moderate Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), decried plans for the mosque.
“There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia,” Gingrich wrote on his website. “The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over.”
Earlier this mornth, the ADL came out against the mosque. This week, prominent conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer even compared the proposed mosque to construction of German heritage center at the Auschwitz concentration camp.
By contrast, Michael Bloomberg, New York's mayor, hailed Obama's endorsement.
The mayor called the project "as important a test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetime, and I applaud President Obama’s clarion defense of the freedom of religion tonight.”
Still, some Democratic lawmakers from New York have been reluctant to address the issue.
A spokesman for Sen. Chuck Schumer has said only that the New York senator is “not opposed” to the controversial proposal.
Rep. Anthony Weiner — who is said to have mayoral ambitions and who gained notoriety last month for railing against Republican opposition to a bill supporting medical funds for 9/11 first responders — has declined to talk specifically about the mosque.
Already, New York’s conservative politicians are doubling down on their opposition to the proposal. POLITICO reports that the New York State Conservative Party will launch statewide ads asking Con Edison, the utility company that owns part of the land, to halt the project.
Rather than tackle the issue head-on, most on the left have preferred to deal with a more concrete issue: whether the government can lawfully stop the project.
“I feel strongly that the constitutional protection of freedom of religion from the overreach of government means that elected officials should endeavor to stay out of the business of deciding where houses of worship may or may not be,” Weiner said in a letter to Bloomberg that praised the mayor's defense of religious freedom in a speech about the project last week.
But Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) said Obama is “wrong” to endorse an “insensitive and uncaring” project.
“While the Muslim community has the right to build the mosque they are abusing that right by needlessly offending so many people who have suffered so much,” he said in a statement Friday. “The right and moral thing for President Obama to have done was to urge Muslim leaders to respect the families of those who died and move their mosque away from Ground Zero. Unfortunately, the president caved in to political correctness."
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the religious leader for the mosque and head of the Cordoba Institute, has been sent by the Bush and Obama administrations to parts of the Muslim world to speak about religious tolerance in the United States.
The New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission voted unanimously to allow the project to move forward. But that vote is likely to only spark further litigation.
A group affiliated with conservative religious leader Pat Robertson, American Center for Law and Justice, said that it would challenge the vote by the Landmarks Preservation Commission in court.
Tim Brown, a New York City firefighter and the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed recently aimed at stopping the mosque based on the argument that the city failed to follow its own landmark policies, said, "I really think he was not speaking to us, I think he was speaking to the Muslim world."
"It's hurtful," he said. "Our own president, the president of the United States, has abandoned the families who gave too much already. It's insensitive what he did, it's hurtful what he did, and he couches it in religious freedom except (the Imam building the mosque)" doesn't feel that way."
"I think he's also trying to do damage control — he's trying to turn the polls back a bit." Brown said.
Maggie Haberman contributed to this report.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41060_Page3.html#ixzz0wbE5GdpQ
President Barack Obama on Friday endorsed a controversial plan to build a mosque and Islamic center just blocks from Ground Zero in Manhattan, despite the strong objections of conservatives, the ADL and those who lost loved ones in the September 11 attacks.
“Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground,” Obama said at a White House dinner celebrating the Muslim holiday of Ramadan. “But let me be clear: as a citizen and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.”
Having steered clear of the controversy for weeks, Obama took on opposition to the mosque directly — a move that many other Democratic lawmakers had been hesitant to do in the face of highly emotional appeals against its construction.
But polls indicate the issue could be a high-voltage third rail for politicians who support the project: a recent CNN poll found that 68 percent of those surveyed did not approve of building a mosque so close to where the World Trade Center towers fell, killing more than 2,000 people.
As perhaps the White House had anticipated, the reaction from conservatives and at least one 9/11 rescue worker was swift and angry. Most echoed Rick Lazio, the Republican gubernatorial hopeful who helped draw national attention back to the Ground Zero-area mosque by using it against his Democratic rival, Andrew Cuomo,
"President Obama and Attorney General Cuomo still are not listening to New Yorkers," Lazio said in a statement, suggesting that the backers of the project have obscured their true motives and funding.
There has been "a deliberate attempt to avoid transparency and a deliberate attempt to build the mosque at this location," Lazio said. "Why?"
In recent weeks, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs had deflected questions on the issue, insisting it is “a matter for New York City and the local community to decide.” But Obama had been criticized for being slow to weigh in on the controversy, especially in light of his past statements in support of religious freedom and tolerance for Muslims in the United States.
In his speech Friday, Obama called for sensitivity with respect to developing in lower Manhattan but cautioned against drawing comparisons between mainstream Islam and the ruthlessly violent ideology of Al Queda, which he said is a “gross distortion” of the faith.
“Our capacity to show not merely tolerance, but respect to those who are different from us — a way of life that stands in stark contrast to the nihilism of those who attacked us on that September morning, and who continue to plot against us today,” he said.
Obama spoke before a group of about 90 people, including Muslim community leaders, ambassadors, dignitaries and Rep. Andre Carson (D-Ind.), one of two Muslim members of Congress. After his statement, a number of individuals reportedly rushed to the stage to shake Obama’s hands following his unexpectedly direct endorsement of the mosque.
Earlier this week, in a statement recognizing the onset of the Muslim holy month, Obama said that the rituals of Ramadan “remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings.”
The event is this White House’s second recognition of Ramadan, the Islamic month of fasting, with a traditional iftar dinner—a communal event that traditionally marks the breaking of the fast at sundown.
The project, spearheaded by the Cordoba Institute, an organization that works to improve the relationship between Muslims and the West, proposes that a 152-year-old building be demolished two blocks away from Ground Zero to make way for the new Muslim community center and mosque.
Opponents have argued that, if constructed, the mosque would be a painful insult to survivors, rescue workers and families of those who died on 9/11. Proponents counter that the presence of a mosque so close to the center of the attacks would be a powerful signal of American religious tolerance — a counterweight to the terrorist attack. At the same time, they argue, blocking its construction violates the Constitutional right to freedom of religion.
A number of prominent conservatives, including GOP presidential hopefuls Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, and moderate Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), decried plans for the mosque.
“There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia,” Gingrich wrote on his website. “The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over.”
Earlier this mornth, the ADL came out against the mosque. This week, prominent conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer even compared the proposed mosque to construction of German heritage center at the Auschwitz concentration camp.
By contrast, Michael Bloomberg, New York's mayor, hailed Obama's endorsement.
The mayor called the project "as important a test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetime, and I applaud President Obama’s clarion defense of the freedom of religion tonight.”
Still, some Democratic lawmakers from New York have been reluctant to address the issue.
A spokesman for Sen. Chuck Schumer has said only that the New York senator is “not opposed” to the controversial proposal.
Rep. Anthony Weiner — who is said to have mayoral ambitions and who gained notoriety last month for railing against Republican opposition to a bill supporting medical funds for 9/11 first responders — has declined to talk specifically about the mosque.
Already, New York’s conservative politicians are doubling down on their opposition to the proposal. POLITICO reports that the New York State Conservative Party will launch statewide ads asking Con Edison, the utility company that owns part of the land, to halt the project.
Rather than tackle the issue head-on, most on the left have preferred to deal with a more concrete issue: whether the government can lawfully stop the project.
“I feel strongly that the constitutional protection of freedom of religion from the overreach of government means that elected officials should endeavor to stay out of the business of deciding where houses of worship may or may not be,” Weiner said in a letter to Bloomberg that praised the mayor's defense of religious freedom in a speech about the project last week.
But Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) said Obama is “wrong” to endorse an “insensitive and uncaring” project.
“While the Muslim community has the right to build the mosque they are abusing that right by needlessly offending so many people who have suffered so much,” he said in a statement Friday. “The right and moral thing for President Obama to have done was to urge Muslim leaders to respect the families of those who died and move their mosque away from Ground Zero. Unfortunately, the president caved in to political correctness."
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the religious leader for the mosque and head of the Cordoba Institute, has been sent by the Bush and Obama administrations to parts of the Muslim world to speak about religious tolerance in the United States.
The New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission voted unanimously to allow the project to move forward. But that vote is likely to only spark further litigation.
A group affiliated with conservative religious leader Pat Robertson, American Center for Law and Justice, said that it would challenge the vote by the Landmarks Preservation Commission in court.
Tim Brown, a New York City firefighter and the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed recently aimed at stopping the mosque based on the argument that the city failed to follow its own landmark policies, said, "I really think he was not speaking to us, I think he was speaking to the Muslim world."
"It's hurtful," he said. "Our own president, the president of the United States, has abandoned the families who gave too much already. It's insensitive what he did, it's hurtful what he did, and he couches it in religious freedom except (the Imam building the mosque)" doesn't feel that way."
"I think he's also trying to do damage control — he's trying to turn the polls back a bit." Brown said.
Maggie Haberman contributed to this report.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41060_Page3.html#ixzz0wbE5GdpQ
Rostenkowski Reflects: His Thoughts on Kennedy, Daley, Obama, and More
By Carol Felsenthal
Last March, I met Dan Rostenkowski for lunch at Mitchell’s on Clybourn Avenue. The former chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, a self-described “kingpin” of Congress who died yesterday at his home in Wisconsin, went to prison in 1996 on fraud charges including taking vouchers for stamps, exchanging them for cash at the House Post Office and pocketing the proceeds. He was later pardoned by Bill Clinton, but not before losing his chairmanship, his seat in Congress, and his reputation—all over relatively petty crimes.
When we met, he had made a kind of comeback—giving speeches, lecturing at Loyola, and preparing to write his memoirs. Born and bred in Chicago, Rosty was also suffering from the lung cancer that eventually claimed his life at age 82. A hulking man—6’2” with a beefy, open face—he was dressed that day in a Special Olympics sweatshirt and wore a star sapphire pinky ring. He insisted on paying for lunch and left a hefty tip. If anyone recognized the man who had been among the top powerbrokers in Chicago and nationally, no one approached him as we talked for 90 minutes.
Here, some highlights of our conversation, which covered more than 50 years of local and national politics and included his thoughts on Mayor Daley, John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and more:
On the late Richard J. Daley and his son, Mayor Richard M. Daley: I liked Dick Daley, and I liked the way that he was running the city. We had what was then called an organization; you call it a machine. [Richard M.] surprises me. I didn’t think he’d be good [as mayor] at all. I didn’t think that he had the ability. Richie Daley is a very physical mayor. He wants you to see his mayorship—the flowers [on Michigan Avenue], et cetera.
On former Commerce Secretary Bill Daley: Billy Daley started to come to Washington and, of course, he’d come to see me and I was very helpful to Billy Daley. He’s clever. A palm tree, not an oak, but good at what he does. Very self-centered; he’s busy being Billy Daley, trying to get elected to something. He wants to be a public official.
On John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson: Jack was kind of an upstart. Lyndon Johnson was the Majority Leader of the Senate. Lyndon Johnson was doing things that Jack Kennedy could never get accomplished. Kennedy was a suntanned, handsome young guy. You gotta remember, too, that, for eight years, [Kennedy’s predecessor, Dwight D.] Eisenhower was just a monotone—nothing exciting. Kennedy was young, and Jackie was a great asset to him, and the press loved him.
On Kennedy’s selection of LBJ as vice president in 1960 and Bobby Kennedy’s attempt to stop the appointment: Lyndon really hated Bobby; Bobby hated Lyndon. I was sitting with Dick Daley when Jack Kennedy called and he said, “What do you think about Lyndon Johnson?” Daley says, “Listen, you’re the nominee, if you put Snow White on the back end of that ticket, I’ll be for it. But this is your call.” Johnson called Daley, he says “Goddamn it. Bobby Kennedy’s running around here [the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles]. Jack’s telling me I’m the choice, and Bobby’s running all over the goddamned city of Los Angeles condemning the crap out of me.”
On how the Kennedys treated Johnson, the VP: They would ignore him, they would make fun of him. Lyndon Johnson would go into see Jack Kennedy and say, “Goddamn it, you’re asking [Speaker of the House] Sam Rayburn for appointments to the judiciary. I’m the vice president. You don’t even ask me?” As VP, Johnson was not doing much of anything. He was frustrated.
On John Kennedy’s re-election chances in 1964 and his short presidency: I think he would have had a problem. Jack Kennedy took his wife to Dallas [on November 22, 1963 when he was assassinated] because they were having a problem with support. College campuses were really turning conservative. I don’t think Illinois would have gone for Jack Kennedy the second time…. Aside from Camelot and a wonderfully delicate, beautiful wife, tell me what else he did.
On LBJ taking over as president after Kennedy’s assassination: What Kennedy did is he laid out a program that he knew he couldn’t pass because he had southern Democrats in all the chairmanships except two. Johnson did it because he was a southerner and Johnson felt, “I’ll show you, I’ll pass everyone of those goddamned programs,” and he did.
On Lyndon Johnson’s earmarks: Lyndon Johnson would say, “Could you help me out on this? I’d really appreciate it.” “I don’t know, Mr. President, I just don’t think that I can do that.” “Well, I’ll tell you what. You’re worried about getting that Highway 93 coming through your area. I don’t think you’re gonna see that Highway 93. The federal building you were supposed to get, that’s gone, too.” “You know, Mr. President, I think I can help you.” They criticized LBJ for twisting arms, breaking bones, but… the country was moving like gangbusters. If Lyndon Johnson didn’t sign a bill every day of his presidency, he thought the day was a total failure.
On Lyndon Johnson calling Rostenkowski about the funds to build the CTA line to O’Hare:
LBJ said, “Well Danny Boy, you did it. Got that money for the trolley train to go out to O’Hare.” I said, “Jesus Christ, that is wonderful! Oh, man, I can’t wait until I tell Richard Daley.” [Rostenkowski called Daley, who then called LBJ.] Next day I get a call from the President, “Danny, I made a mistake. I didn’t mean that the trolley was going to go out to O’Hare. It’s going out the Dan Ryan.” I said, “Lyndon, did you talk to Richard Daley?” He says, “Danny, the goddamned thing’s going out the Dan Ryan. That’s the end of it, you understand?” I said, “You son of a gun, you. You screwed me, you gave it to Daley for the South Side.” [The CTA to O’Hare was built later.]
On Johnson’s reaction to Rostenkowski’s decision to oppose the war in Vietnam:
When I went against the Vietnam War, he said, “Danny, what did you do to me? You stabbed me in my heart.” I told him, “I can’t do this any longer.” I [gave] a commencement address to the Gordon Technical High School. I sat there, and I looked into the faces of those kids. I just couldn’t do it because those kids were the ones who were going to go—not the ones at Yale and at Harvard.
On former Mayor Jane Byrne: I can’t stand her because she’s the dumbest broad I ever met in my life. If that girl had patience she could have been the vice presidential nominee, but you know what she wanted to do? Hire and fire garbage workers. Nutty.
On Bill Clinton pardoning him in 2000: I didn’t ask him for it. Bill Clinton said to [then-advisor] Paul Begala, “Hey, aren’t we going to take care of Rostenkowski? Get the papers. Don’t be bothering getting affidavits.” [The pardon did not go through the normal Justice Department vetting.] I learned about it when [journalist] Andrea Mitchell called to ask me for my reaction.
On how he rates Clinton as president: I think he did a very good job. I think the only other time we were in the black was Eisenhower. [Clinton] was the brightest president that I’ve ever served under. Of all the presidents, the best president was Lyndon Johnson. The smartest president—Bill Clinton, no question about it.
On Rod Blagojevich: How can you ask me about Blagojevich? Who can you ask about Blagojevich except Blagojevich? Blagojevich is off-balance.
On Roland Burris: I feel sorry for Burris. He’s a basket case, and listen, if they didn’t need his vote, they’d throw him out of the Senate.
On Dick Durbin: I like Durbin, but Durbin is so goddamned liberal, and this state is not that liberal.
On Governor Pat Quinn: I can’t stand Pat Quinn. I admire him. He’s totally honest about what he’s saying. He’s a gadfly.
On Hillary Clinton: I was for Hillary [for the Democratic nomination for president]. I think she would have been a great president. She would have been Margaret Thatcher. She lost because people just hate her. [In private] she’s a delightful girl.
On Barack Obama: It’s terrible that we have to have an Obama saying one thing to get elected and do another thing as President. What kind of politician and public service is this where you’ve got to lie to get the office? I don’t agree with his policies—this idea of this money that they’re spending [in stimulus programs]. You know when you’re bankrupt. You can’t keep throwing money at problems without throwing some vinegar [cutting spending] into the mix.
On whether he voted for Obama or John McCain in 2008: That’s none of your business
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/Felsenthal-Files/August-2010/Dan-Rostenkowski-Reflects-His-Thoughts-on-Kennedy-Daley-Obama-and-More/
Last March, I met Dan Rostenkowski for lunch at Mitchell’s on Clybourn Avenue. The former chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, a self-described “kingpin” of Congress who died yesterday at his home in Wisconsin, went to prison in 1996 on fraud charges including taking vouchers for stamps, exchanging them for cash at the House Post Office and pocketing the proceeds. He was later pardoned by Bill Clinton, but not before losing his chairmanship, his seat in Congress, and his reputation—all over relatively petty crimes.
When we met, he had made a kind of comeback—giving speeches, lecturing at Loyola, and preparing to write his memoirs. Born and bred in Chicago, Rosty was also suffering from the lung cancer that eventually claimed his life at age 82. A hulking man—6’2” with a beefy, open face—he was dressed that day in a Special Olympics sweatshirt and wore a star sapphire pinky ring. He insisted on paying for lunch and left a hefty tip. If anyone recognized the man who had been among the top powerbrokers in Chicago and nationally, no one approached him as we talked for 90 minutes.
Here, some highlights of our conversation, which covered more than 50 years of local and national politics and included his thoughts on Mayor Daley, John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and more:
On the late Richard J. Daley and his son, Mayor Richard M. Daley: I liked Dick Daley, and I liked the way that he was running the city. We had what was then called an organization; you call it a machine. [Richard M.] surprises me. I didn’t think he’d be good [as mayor] at all. I didn’t think that he had the ability. Richie Daley is a very physical mayor. He wants you to see his mayorship—the flowers [on Michigan Avenue], et cetera.
On former Commerce Secretary Bill Daley: Billy Daley started to come to Washington and, of course, he’d come to see me and I was very helpful to Billy Daley. He’s clever. A palm tree, not an oak, but good at what he does. Very self-centered; he’s busy being Billy Daley, trying to get elected to something. He wants to be a public official.
On John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson: Jack was kind of an upstart. Lyndon Johnson was the Majority Leader of the Senate. Lyndon Johnson was doing things that Jack Kennedy could never get accomplished. Kennedy was a suntanned, handsome young guy. You gotta remember, too, that, for eight years, [Kennedy’s predecessor, Dwight D.] Eisenhower was just a monotone—nothing exciting. Kennedy was young, and Jackie was a great asset to him, and the press loved him.
On Kennedy’s selection of LBJ as vice president in 1960 and Bobby Kennedy’s attempt to stop the appointment: Lyndon really hated Bobby; Bobby hated Lyndon. I was sitting with Dick Daley when Jack Kennedy called and he said, “What do you think about Lyndon Johnson?” Daley says, “Listen, you’re the nominee, if you put Snow White on the back end of that ticket, I’ll be for it. But this is your call.” Johnson called Daley, he says “Goddamn it. Bobby Kennedy’s running around here [the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles]. Jack’s telling me I’m the choice, and Bobby’s running all over the goddamned city of Los Angeles condemning the crap out of me.”
On how the Kennedys treated Johnson, the VP: They would ignore him, they would make fun of him. Lyndon Johnson would go into see Jack Kennedy and say, “Goddamn it, you’re asking [Speaker of the House] Sam Rayburn for appointments to the judiciary. I’m the vice president. You don’t even ask me?” As VP, Johnson was not doing much of anything. He was frustrated.
On John Kennedy’s re-election chances in 1964 and his short presidency: I think he would have had a problem. Jack Kennedy took his wife to Dallas [on November 22, 1963 when he was assassinated] because they were having a problem with support. College campuses were really turning conservative. I don’t think Illinois would have gone for Jack Kennedy the second time…. Aside from Camelot and a wonderfully delicate, beautiful wife, tell me what else he did.
On LBJ taking over as president after Kennedy’s assassination: What Kennedy did is he laid out a program that he knew he couldn’t pass because he had southern Democrats in all the chairmanships except two. Johnson did it because he was a southerner and Johnson felt, “I’ll show you, I’ll pass everyone of those goddamned programs,” and he did.
On Lyndon Johnson’s earmarks: Lyndon Johnson would say, “Could you help me out on this? I’d really appreciate it.” “I don’t know, Mr. President, I just don’t think that I can do that.” “Well, I’ll tell you what. You’re worried about getting that Highway 93 coming through your area. I don’t think you’re gonna see that Highway 93. The federal building you were supposed to get, that’s gone, too.” “You know, Mr. President, I think I can help you.” They criticized LBJ for twisting arms, breaking bones, but… the country was moving like gangbusters. If Lyndon Johnson didn’t sign a bill every day of his presidency, he thought the day was a total failure.
On Lyndon Johnson calling Rostenkowski about the funds to build the CTA line to O’Hare:
LBJ said, “Well Danny Boy, you did it. Got that money for the trolley train to go out to O’Hare.” I said, “Jesus Christ, that is wonderful! Oh, man, I can’t wait until I tell Richard Daley.” [Rostenkowski called Daley, who then called LBJ.] Next day I get a call from the President, “Danny, I made a mistake. I didn’t mean that the trolley was going to go out to O’Hare. It’s going out the Dan Ryan.” I said, “Lyndon, did you talk to Richard Daley?” He says, “Danny, the goddamned thing’s going out the Dan Ryan. That’s the end of it, you understand?” I said, “You son of a gun, you. You screwed me, you gave it to Daley for the South Side.” [The CTA to O’Hare was built later.]
On Johnson’s reaction to Rostenkowski’s decision to oppose the war in Vietnam:
When I went against the Vietnam War, he said, “Danny, what did you do to me? You stabbed me in my heart.” I told him, “I can’t do this any longer.” I [gave] a commencement address to the Gordon Technical High School. I sat there, and I looked into the faces of those kids. I just couldn’t do it because those kids were the ones who were going to go—not the ones at Yale and at Harvard.
On former Mayor Jane Byrne: I can’t stand her because she’s the dumbest broad I ever met in my life. If that girl had patience she could have been the vice presidential nominee, but you know what she wanted to do? Hire and fire garbage workers. Nutty.
On Bill Clinton pardoning him in 2000: I didn’t ask him for it. Bill Clinton said to [then-advisor] Paul Begala, “Hey, aren’t we going to take care of Rostenkowski? Get the papers. Don’t be bothering getting affidavits.” [The pardon did not go through the normal Justice Department vetting.] I learned about it when [journalist] Andrea Mitchell called to ask me for my reaction.
On how he rates Clinton as president: I think he did a very good job. I think the only other time we were in the black was Eisenhower. [Clinton] was the brightest president that I’ve ever served under. Of all the presidents, the best president was Lyndon Johnson. The smartest president—Bill Clinton, no question about it.
On Rod Blagojevich: How can you ask me about Blagojevich? Who can you ask about Blagojevich except Blagojevich? Blagojevich is off-balance.
On Roland Burris: I feel sorry for Burris. He’s a basket case, and listen, if they didn’t need his vote, they’d throw him out of the Senate.
On Dick Durbin: I like Durbin, but Durbin is so goddamned liberal, and this state is not that liberal.
On Governor Pat Quinn: I can’t stand Pat Quinn. I admire him. He’s totally honest about what he’s saying. He’s a gadfly.
On Hillary Clinton: I was for Hillary [for the Democratic nomination for president]. I think she would have been a great president. She would have been Margaret Thatcher. She lost because people just hate her. [In private] she’s a delightful girl.
On Barack Obama: It’s terrible that we have to have an Obama saying one thing to get elected and do another thing as President. What kind of politician and public service is this where you’ve got to lie to get the office? I don’t agree with his policies—this idea of this money that they’re spending [in stimulus programs]. You know when you’re bankrupt. You can’t keep throwing money at problems without throwing some vinegar [cutting spending] into the mix.
On whether he voted for Obama or John McCain in 2008: That’s none of your business
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/Felsenthal-Files/August-2010/Dan-Rostenkowski-Reflects-His-Thoughts-on-Kennedy-Daley-Obama-and-More/
Friday, August 13, 2010
The stunning decline of Barack Obama:
10 key reasons why the Obama presidency is in meltdown
By Nile Gardiner
The last few weeks have been a nightmare for President Obama, in a summer of discontent in the United States which has deeply unsettled the ruling liberal elites, so much so that even the Left has begun to turn against the White House. While the anti-establishment Tea Party movement has gained significant ground and is now a rising and powerful political force to be reckoned with, many of the president’s own supporters as well as independents are rapidly losing faith in Barack Obama, with open warfare breaking out between the White House and the left-wing of the Democratic Party. While conservatism in America grows stronger by the day, the forces of liberalism are growing increasingly weaker and divided.
Against this backdrop, the president’s approval ratings have been sliding dramatically all summer, with the latest Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll of US voters dropping to minus 22 points, the lowest point so far for Barack Obama since taking office. While just 24 per cent of American voters strongly approve of the president’s job performance, almost twice that number, 46 per cent, strongly disapprove. According to Rasmussen, 65 per cent of voters believe the United States is going down the wrong track, including 70 per cent of independents.
The RealClearPolitics average of polls now has President Obama at over 50 per cent disapproval, a remarkably high figure for a president just 18 months into his first term. Strikingly, the latest USA Today/Gallup survey has the President on just 41 per cent approval, with 53 per cent disapproving.
There are an array of reasons behind the stunning decline and political fall of President Obama, chief among them fears over the current state of the US economy, with widespread concern over high levels of unemployment, the unstable housing market, and above all the towering budget deficit. Americans are increasingly rejecting President Obama’s big government solutions to America’s economic woes, which many fear will lead to the United States sharing the same fate as Greece.
Growing disillusionment with the Obama administration’s handling of the economy as well as health care and immigration has gone hand in hand with mounting unhappiness with the President’s aloof and imperial style of leadership, and a growing perception that he is out of touch with ordinary Americans, especially at a time of significant economic pain. Barack Obama’s striking absence of natural leadership ability (and blatant lack of experience) has played a big part in undermining his credibility with the US public, with his lacklustre handling of the Gulf oil spill coming under particularly intense fire.
On the national security and foreign policy front, President Obama has not fared any better. His leadership on the war in Afghanistan has been confused and at times lacking in conviction, and seemingly dictated by domestic political priorities rather than military and strategic goals. His overall foreign policy has been an appalling mess, with his flawed strategy of engagement of hostile regimes spectacularly backfiring. And as for the War on Terror, his administration has not even acknowledged it is fighting one.
Can it get any worse for President Obama? Undoubtedly yes. Here are 10 key reasons why the Obama presidency is in serious trouble, and why its prospects are unlikely to improve between now and the November mid-terms.
1. The Obama presidency is out of touch with the American people
In a previous post I noted how the Obama presidency increasingly resembles a modern-day Ancien Régime, extravagant, decaying and out of touch with ordinary Americans. The First Lady’s ill-conceived trip to Spain at a time of widespread economic hardship was symbolic of a White House that barely gives a second thought to public opinion on many issues, and frequently projects a distinctly elitist image. The “let them eat cake” approach didn’t play well over two centuries ago, and it won’t succeed today.
2. Most Americans don’t have confidence in the president’s leadership
This deficit of trust in Obama’s leadership is central to his decline. According to a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, “nearly six in ten voters say they lack faith in the president to make the right decisions for the country”, and two thirds “say they are disillusioned with or angry about the way the federal government is working.” The poll showed that a staggering 58 per cent of Americans say they do not have confidence in the president’s decision-making, with just 42 per cent saying they do.
3. Obama fails to inspire
In contrast to the soaring rhetoric of his 2004 Convention speech in Boston which succeeded in impressing millions of television viewers at the time, America is no longer inspired by Barack Obama’s flat, monotonous and often dull presidential speeches and statements delivered via teleprompter. From his extraordinarily uninspiring Afghanistan speech at West Point to his flat State of the Union address, President Obama has failed to touch the heart of America. Even Jimmy Carter was more moving.
4. The United States is drowning in debt
The Congressional Budget Office Long-Term Budget Outlook offers a frightening picture of the scale of America’s national debt. Under its alternative fiscal scenario, the CBO projects that US debt could rise to 87 percent of GDP by 2020, 109 percent by 2025, and 185 percent in 2035. While much of Europe, led by Britain and Germany, are aggressively cutting their deficits, the Obama administration is actively growing America’s debt, and has no plan in place to avert a looming Greek-style financial crisis.
5. Obama’s Big Government message is falling flat
The relentless emphasis on bailouts and stimulus spending has done little to spur economic growth or create jobs, but has greatly advanced the power of the federal government in America. This is not an approach that is proving popular with the American public, and even most European governments have long ditched this tax and spend approach to saving their own economies.
6. Obama’s support for socialised health care is a huge political mistake
In an extraordinary act of political Harakiri, President Obama leant his full support to the hugely controversial, unpopular and divisive health care reform bill, with a monstrous price tag of $940 billion, whose repeal is now supported by 55 per cent of likely US voters. As I wrote at the time of its passing, the legislation is “a great leap forward by the United States towards a European-style vision of universal health care, which will only lead to soaring costs, higher taxes, and a surge in red tape for small businesses. This reckless legislation dramatically expands the power of the state over the lives of individuals, and could not be further from the vision of America’s founding fathers.”
7. Obama’s handling of the Gulf oil spill has been weak-kneed and indecisive
While much of the spilled oil in the Gulf has now been thankfully cleared up, the political damage for the White House will be long-lasting. Instead of showing real leadership on the matter by acing decisively and drawing upon offers of international support, the Obama administration settled on a more convenient strategy of relentlessly bashing an Anglo-American company while largely sitting on its hands. Significantly, a poll of Louisiana voters gave George W. Bush higher marks for his handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, with 62 percent disapproving of Obama’s performance on the Gulf oil spill.
8. US foreign policy is an embarrassing mess under the Obama administration
It is hard to think of a single foreign policy success for the Obama administration, but there have been plenty of missteps which have weakened American global power as well as the standing of the United States. The surrender to Moscow on Third Site missile defence, the failure to aggressively stand up to Iran’s nuclear programme, the decision to side with ousted Marxists in Honduras, the slap in the face for Great Britain over the Falklands, have all contributed to the image of a US administration completely out of its depth in international affairs. The Obama administration’s high risk strategy of appeasing America’s enemies while kicking traditional US allies has only succeeded in weakening the United States while strengthening her adversaries.
9. President Obama is muddled and confused on national security
From the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to the War on Terror, President Obama’s leadership has often been muddled and confused. On Afghanistan he rightly sent tens of thousands of additional troops to the battlefield. At the same time however he bizarrely announced a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces beginning in July 2011, handing the initiative to the Taliban. On Iraq he has announced an end to combat operations and the withdrawal of all but 50,000 troops despite a recent upsurge in terrorist violence and political instability, and without the Iraqi military and police ready to take over. In addition he has ditched the concept of a War on Terror, replacing it with an Overseas Contingency Operation, hardly the right message to send in the midst of a long-war against Al-Qaeda.
10. Obama doesn’t believe in American greatness
Barack Obama has made it clear that he doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism, and has made apologising for his country into an art form. In a speech to the United Nations last September he stated that “no one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold.” It is difficult to see how a US president who holds these views and does not even accept America’s greatness in history can actually lead the world’s only superpower with force and conviction.
There is a distinctly Titanic-like feel to the Obama presidency and it’s not hard to see why. The most left-wing president in modern American history has tried to force a highly interventionist, government-driven agenda that runs counter to the principles of free enterprise, individual freedom, and limited government that have made the United States the greatest power in the world, and the freest nation on earth.
This, combined with weak leadership both at home and abroad against the backdrop of tremendous economic uncertainty in an increasingly dangerous world, has contributed to a spectacular political collapse for a president once thought to be invincible. America at its core remains a deeply conservative nation, which cherishes its traditions and founding principles. President Obama is increasingly out of step with the American people, by advancing policies that undermine the United States as a global power, while undercutting America’s deep-seated love for freedom.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100050412/the-stunning-decline-of-barack-obama-10-key-reasons-why-the-obama-presidency-is-in-meltdown/
By Nile Gardiner
The last few weeks have been a nightmare for President Obama, in a summer of discontent in the United States which has deeply unsettled the ruling liberal elites, so much so that even the Left has begun to turn against the White House. While the anti-establishment Tea Party movement has gained significant ground and is now a rising and powerful political force to be reckoned with, many of the president’s own supporters as well as independents are rapidly losing faith in Barack Obama, with open warfare breaking out between the White House and the left-wing of the Democratic Party. While conservatism in America grows stronger by the day, the forces of liberalism are growing increasingly weaker and divided.
Against this backdrop, the president’s approval ratings have been sliding dramatically all summer, with the latest Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll of US voters dropping to minus 22 points, the lowest point so far for Barack Obama since taking office. While just 24 per cent of American voters strongly approve of the president’s job performance, almost twice that number, 46 per cent, strongly disapprove. According to Rasmussen, 65 per cent of voters believe the United States is going down the wrong track, including 70 per cent of independents.
The RealClearPolitics average of polls now has President Obama at over 50 per cent disapproval, a remarkably high figure for a president just 18 months into his first term. Strikingly, the latest USA Today/Gallup survey has the President on just 41 per cent approval, with 53 per cent disapproving.
There are an array of reasons behind the stunning decline and political fall of President Obama, chief among them fears over the current state of the US economy, with widespread concern over high levels of unemployment, the unstable housing market, and above all the towering budget deficit. Americans are increasingly rejecting President Obama’s big government solutions to America’s economic woes, which many fear will lead to the United States sharing the same fate as Greece.
Growing disillusionment with the Obama administration’s handling of the economy as well as health care and immigration has gone hand in hand with mounting unhappiness with the President’s aloof and imperial style of leadership, and a growing perception that he is out of touch with ordinary Americans, especially at a time of significant economic pain. Barack Obama’s striking absence of natural leadership ability (and blatant lack of experience) has played a big part in undermining his credibility with the US public, with his lacklustre handling of the Gulf oil spill coming under particularly intense fire.
On the national security and foreign policy front, President Obama has not fared any better. His leadership on the war in Afghanistan has been confused and at times lacking in conviction, and seemingly dictated by domestic political priorities rather than military and strategic goals. His overall foreign policy has been an appalling mess, with his flawed strategy of engagement of hostile regimes spectacularly backfiring. And as for the War on Terror, his administration has not even acknowledged it is fighting one.
Can it get any worse for President Obama? Undoubtedly yes. Here are 10 key reasons why the Obama presidency is in serious trouble, and why its prospects are unlikely to improve between now and the November mid-terms.
1. The Obama presidency is out of touch with the American people
In a previous post I noted how the Obama presidency increasingly resembles a modern-day Ancien Régime, extravagant, decaying and out of touch with ordinary Americans. The First Lady’s ill-conceived trip to Spain at a time of widespread economic hardship was symbolic of a White House that barely gives a second thought to public opinion on many issues, and frequently projects a distinctly elitist image. The “let them eat cake” approach didn’t play well over two centuries ago, and it won’t succeed today.
2. Most Americans don’t have confidence in the president’s leadership
This deficit of trust in Obama’s leadership is central to his decline. According to a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, “nearly six in ten voters say they lack faith in the president to make the right decisions for the country”, and two thirds “say they are disillusioned with or angry about the way the federal government is working.” The poll showed that a staggering 58 per cent of Americans say they do not have confidence in the president’s decision-making, with just 42 per cent saying they do.
3. Obama fails to inspire
In contrast to the soaring rhetoric of his 2004 Convention speech in Boston which succeeded in impressing millions of television viewers at the time, America is no longer inspired by Barack Obama’s flat, monotonous and often dull presidential speeches and statements delivered via teleprompter. From his extraordinarily uninspiring Afghanistan speech at West Point to his flat State of the Union address, President Obama has failed to touch the heart of America. Even Jimmy Carter was more moving.
4. The United States is drowning in debt
The Congressional Budget Office Long-Term Budget Outlook offers a frightening picture of the scale of America’s national debt. Under its alternative fiscal scenario, the CBO projects that US debt could rise to 87 percent of GDP by 2020, 109 percent by 2025, and 185 percent in 2035. While much of Europe, led by Britain and Germany, are aggressively cutting their deficits, the Obama administration is actively growing America’s debt, and has no plan in place to avert a looming Greek-style financial crisis.
5. Obama’s Big Government message is falling flat
The relentless emphasis on bailouts and stimulus spending has done little to spur economic growth or create jobs, but has greatly advanced the power of the federal government in America. This is not an approach that is proving popular with the American public, and even most European governments have long ditched this tax and spend approach to saving their own economies.
6. Obama’s support for socialised health care is a huge political mistake
In an extraordinary act of political Harakiri, President Obama leant his full support to the hugely controversial, unpopular and divisive health care reform bill, with a monstrous price tag of $940 billion, whose repeal is now supported by 55 per cent of likely US voters. As I wrote at the time of its passing, the legislation is “a great leap forward by the United States towards a European-style vision of universal health care, which will only lead to soaring costs, higher taxes, and a surge in red tape for small businesses. This reckless legislation dramatically expands the power of the state over the lives of individuals, and could not be further from the vision of America’s founding fathers.”
7. Obama’s handling of the Gulf oil spill has been weak-kneed and indecisive
While much of the spilled oil in the Gulf has now been thankfully cleared up, the political damage for the White House will be long-lasting. Instead of showing real leadership on the matter by acing decisively and drawing upon offers of international support, the Obama administration settled on a more convenient strategy of relentlessly bashing an Anglo-American company while largely sitting on its hands. Significantly, a poll of Louisiana voters gave George W. Bush higher marks for his handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, with 62 percent disapproving of Obama’s performance on the Gulf oil spill.
8. US foreign policy is an embarrassing mess under the Obama administration
It is hard to think of a single foreign policy success for the Obama administration, but there have been plenty of missteps which have weakened American global power as well as the standing of the United States. The surrender to Moscow on Third Site missile defence, the failure to aggressively stand up to Iran’s nuclear programme, the decision to side with ousted Marxists in Honduras, the slap in the face for Great Britain over the Falklands, have all contributed to the image of a US administration completely out of its depth in international affairs. The Obama administration’s high risk strategy of appeasing America’s enemies while kicking traditional US allies has only succeeded in weakening the United States while strengthening her adversaries.
9. President Obama is muddled and confused on national security
From the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to the War on Terror, President Obama’s leadership has often been muddled and confused. On Afghanistan he rightly sent tens of thousands of additional troops to the battlefield. At the same time however he bizarrely announced a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces beginning in July 2011, handing the initiative to the Taliban. On Iraq he has announced an end to combat operations and the withdrawal of all but 50,000 troops despite a recent upsurge in terrorist violence and political instability, and without the Iraqi military and police ready to take over. In addition he has ditched the concept of a War on Terror, replacing it with an Overseas Contingency Operation, hardly the right message to send in the midst of a long-war against Al-Qaeda.
10. Obama doesn’t believe in American greatness
Barack Obama has made it clear that he doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism, and has made apologising for his country into an art form. In a speech to the United Nations last September he stated that “no one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold.” It is difficult to see how a US president who holds these views and does not even accept America’s greatness in history can actually lead the world’s only superpower with force and conviction.
There is a distinctly Titanic-like feel to the Obama presidency and it’s not hard to see why. The most left-wing president in modern American history has tried to force a highly interventionist, government-driven agenda that runs counter to the principles of free enterprise, individual freedom, and limited government that have made the United States the greatest power in the world, and the freest nation on earth.
This, combined with weak leadership both at home and abroad against the backdrop of tremendous economic uncertainty in an increasingly dangerous world, has contributed to a spectacular political collapse for a president once thought to be invincible. America at its core remains a deeply conservative nation, which cherishes its traditions and founding principles. President Obama is increasingly out of step with the American people, by advancing policies that undermine the United States as a global power, while undercutting America’s deep-seated love for freedom.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100050412/the-stunning-decline-of-barack-obama-10-key-reasons-why-the-obama-presidency-is-in-meltdown/
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Democrats Sinking with Demographics, Will Republicans Bail them Out?
Thomas F. Roeser 9 August 2010
As the Democratic ship Titanic takes on water, the good ship Republican is proceeding apace to score a signal victory in the mid-term elections of November before pulling into port with a new captain for the nation in 2012. I tip my hat to from Mark McKinnon, an astute analyst writing in The Daily Beast.
Things look almost too good for the Republicans. Looking at the map where red states are Republican and blue Democratic, it’s evident that the red eight states in the South and West (Republican) will gain one or more House seats with the biggest gainer Texas. Ten blue states (Democratic), centered in the Northwest, will lose one or more. Texas which is spurting in economic growth due to a tough, pro-enterprise governor, will surely fill its extra seat with a Republican.
GOP Likely to Pick up the House.
Across the country, the GOP is distinctly ahead in the run for control of the House where 39 pickups are needed for the derrick to come and uproot Madam Pelosi from the Speaker’s podium.
The generic question which asks Americans “which party’s candidate will you vote for in elections for the U. S. House?” has Republicans winning 45 percent to 41. For many years—at least as long as I’ve been seriously watching elections as journalist and campaign strategist—the polls have almost always shown incumbents ahead of challengers…for many simple reasons: incumbents have had years earlier to get publicity, staffs to do favors for constituents etc.
Another maxim I learned early: an incumbent who’s running at 50 percent approval or lower is in trouble and an incumbent running behind a challenger is in big trouble. Today lots of Dem incumbents are running behind their challengers: one each from Arizona, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio; two from Virginia, three from Pennsylvania. And none of the Democrats have personal or ethical scandals.
In my own dark blue Illinois, home of The Squid, Republicans are favored in three Dem districts: the 11th south of Chicago, whose blue-collar and socially conservative area represented by pro-abort, pro-gay rights Dem feminist Debbie Halvorson is a natural for young, pro-life Air Force National Guard pilot, 32-year-old Protestant Adam Kinzinger…the 14th, the generally conservative district where downstate begins, at least in the westerly direction from Chicago—the district which boasted Denny Hastert as Speaker until he kissed it off by resigning to become a rich, full-time lobbyist—with pro-lifer evangelical Protestant State Sen. Randy Hultgren favored over pro-abort multi-millionaire liberal non-religiously affiliated Dem Bill Foster…
…And a distinct surprise, the 17th consisting of the west central sector of the state including the Illinois portion of the Quad Cities (Rock Island, Moline and East Moline) now represented by liberal Dem Catholic Phil Hare but likely to fall to conservative Catholic Bobby Schilling who captured attention by vowing not to take a fat congressional pension but keep his own private sector one, to observe term limits and “not to vote for any piece of legislation I haven’t read.”
Republicans thus far are distinctly ahead in national Senate contests. The party is leading in eight seats now held by Dems and is ahead in defending all GOP seats.
In addition, Illinois voters have finally…finally…become sufficiently sickened with Squid corruption and unelected, Blago-appointed Sen. Roland Burris to see Republican Congregationalist Cong. Mark Kirk, albeit a liberal who has been accused of stretching his resume and military record out of proportion, running neck-and-neck with Dem State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias (Greek Orthodox and Obama’s pick-up basketball buddy) who as chief loan officer of a family bank staked mobster and one-time bordello owner Michael (Jaws) Giorango to a $20 million loan.
Republican capture of the Senate at this point looks unrealistic, experts say it can be done after the second election cycle.
Dem Governorships are Teetering
Nationally, Republicans are ahead in key governorship races. This includes Illinois where conservative Catholic, pro-lifer Bill Brady is running seven-points ahead of Quinn for governor. In addition, the following non-incumbent held governorships are veering to Republican control: Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Tennessee.
In addition, the GOP is scoring far ahead of the Dems on key issues. Polls show likely voters trusting Republicans more than Democrats in nine out of ten issues including managing the economy. Voters who list taxes as the highest issue score the highest ratings in U. S. political history. Republicans are winning on trust—53 to 36 percent. Moreover 55 percent of likely voters in 12 swing states, including 57 percent of independents, tell pollsters they are not likely to vote for Democrats if the Bush tax cuts are ended.
Moreover Democrats are falling way behind on state legislative races across the country. Up for grabs this November are 83 percent of all legislative seats.
Spectacularly to my mind, given the fact that Obama has governed almost entirely from the Left, only 43 percent of Hispanics polled—a major Dem voting bloc—are satisfied with his performance, listing the sagging economy as reason…with 32 percent undecided and a shocking 21 percent who say he rates unsatisfactory. Gallup shows his support at 85 percent among blacks in contrast to the 94 percent he received on election day, 2008 but I don’t believe that figure given the indentured nature of African Americans to the Democratic party…although some may stay home on election day.
These Republican numbers are even more revelatory when you consider that in 2008 Obama won by 53 percent—more than any other Democrat except historic winners Andrew Jackson, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson. But if today’s numbers hold, the Dems in 2010 and Obama in 2012 are in for a seething voter revolution. Yet there’s more.
Demographics Favor the GOP.
Every poll I’ve seen recently shows that Democrats are hemorrhaging whites, men, women and independents. White support dropped from 51 percent in July, 2009 to 37 percent a year later. The party popularity among independents has shrunk from 52 percent to 38. Numbers of male supporters have evaporated, from 54 percent to 39. Women: down 14 percent from last year to 45 percent. Young people who turned 18 in 2008 and voted for the first time supported Obama 2 to 1 with his popularity standing at 73 percent shortly before Inauguration Day. Now it stands at 57 percent and when paired against any unnamed RepublicanObama trails with voters 18 to 34.
With these kinds of numbers, you’d say the Republicans are sure winners in 2012, wouldn’t you? Nope. Don’t forget: Republicans are famous for goofing up, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. All you have to do is say over and over to yourself: President Thomas E. Dewey.
Much will depend on the identity of the person who runs for president against Obama in 2012. Thus endeth the analysis, most of the numbers from McKinnon.
Handicapping the GOP Presidential Race.
Here they are in terms of today’s popularity, with my comments added thereto.
Understand that as of today at least one poll has found that Obama would lose to any Republican. Quinnipiac University’s highly rated survey shows that Americans would rather vote for an unnamed Republican than Obama in 2012 by a 39 percent to 36 margin. But let’s assume this will change. Here are my highly subjective impressions of the logical Republican presidential candidates. They’re all pro-life and anti-gay rights.
Newt Gingrich. A brilliant guy, resourceful speaker and debater, recent Catholic convert. But Henry Hyde who knew him very well told me that he’s 50 percent genius and 50 percent nuts. I have to agree. Who else would on becoming the first Republican Speaker in more than 40 years, launch a for profit program to sell his books, a for profit sale of DVDs of him teaching politics…get rebuked by the House Ethics committee for it and engage in an extra-marital affair with the woman who became his third wife, whom he met while cheating on his second?
Mitt Romney. Another well-spoken guy, a masterful organizer who took the Salt Lake Olympics which was floundering in debt and put it in the black. A masterful speaker and spectacular analyst of world economic and military affairs: lawyer and businessman extraordinaire. But as governor of Massachusetts he devised Romney-Care which hangs around his neck like an albatross. Unless he can explain away the charges that he earlier devised what is unpopular in Massachusetts and is known as Obama-Care lite, he’ll be a loser. Well-financed but a loser.
Sarah Palin. She has made wondrous strides since her vice presidential foray in 2008. She has a fan club that embraces not just the Tea Party people but millions in the Republican party. She’s improved her understanding of the issues but at least in my estimation she’s too slangy like Ethel Merman playing Calamity Jane in “Annie Get Your Gun.” Much of her slang (“you betcha!”) is not presidential, as per her rough-edged vulgar comment (however true) that
Arizona Governor Brewer has more masculine qualities in dealing with illegal immigration than Obama. If she can start sounding like a president, she’d vastly improve. But I still expect she’ll be No. 1 or 2 on the GOP ticket. A good omen: Daughter Bristol’s decision to break her engagement to Levi Johnson has spared us a recurring soap opera sure to happen if she married the guy.
Mitch Daniels. I favored the brilliant governor of Indiana who has matchless experience—a success in the private sector, strong force as head of the federal budget office under Bush II and courageous in the Indianapolis state house in bringing a state with budget in the red to where it’s finances are solidly in the black. But recently he declared that there should be a “moratorium” on social issues like pro-life, gay-rights. He’s a social conservative all right but that statement left me cold. Besides, how can any president rule off social issues which are so key in this secular cultural climate? I don’t think he’ll ever recover from that gaffe.
Haley Barbour. The governor of Mississippi has been a greatly underestimated force. He was a Washington lobbyist who learned early how to ameliorate hard feelings and get things done. He took that skill to the Republican National committee and was by all odds its most effective chairman since Mark Hanna, contributing powerfully to the GOP takeover of Congress in 1994. As governor he has been among the nation’s best, mobilizing the state early so that when Katrina hit the resources were already there. Again with the Gulf oil spill, he was calm, magnetic—better so than Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal, too gaunt, looking like an advance man for a famine. . Barbour’s a dark horse candidate but a very skilled one. Probably his only electoral disadvantage is a broad Mississippi accent.
Mike Huckabee. Polls notwithstanding, anyone who runs against Obama had better be an orator and on top of his game. Remember when the only thing John McCain could say about rescuing the economy was to end appropriation earmarks? Huckabee’s communications skills are at least equal to Reagan’s. Since his run in 2008, he’s hosted a Fox News TV program which further honed his already sharpened talents. He’s been a successful governor and is a Baptist preacher so his pro-life, anti-gay rights credentials are in fine order. He’s a little cornpone and however it happened he freed too many penitentiary inmates early with some disastrous consequences. But when I hear him make a speech I am struck with how eloquent he is. At this point I like him best. Barbour a close second.
Tim Pawlenty. A good governor of Minnesota, showed guts in dealing with a liberal legislature but he’s got stiff opposition from those above.
John Thune. As a junior senator from South Dakota he’s just running for exercise—and the future.
Ron Paul. By 2012 he will be seventy-seven, one year younger than Ronald Reagan was when he retired after his second term. Mass discontent with big government, bailouts and over-involvement in foreign-military affairs have ratified Paul’s early predictions. Who could carry his libertarian banner? No one appears in sight for 2012 but in the future his son, Rand, if elected Senator from Kentucky, might.
I tip my hat to from Mark McKinnon, an astute analyst writing in The Daily Beast, for the background on this column.
http://www.cdobs.com/archive/featured/democrats-sinking-with-demographics-will-republicans-bail-them-out/
As the Democratic ship Titanic takes on water, the good ship Republican is proceeding apace to score a signal victory in the mid-term elections of November before pulling into port with a new captain for the nation in 2012. I tip my hat to from Mark McKinnon, an astute analyst writing in The Daily Beast.
Things look almost too good for the Republicans. Looking at the map where red states are Republican and blue Democratic, it’s evident that the red eight states in the South and West (Republican) will gain one or more House seats with the biggest gainer Texas. Ten blue states (Democratic), centered in the Northwest, will lose one or more. Texas which is spurting in economic growth due to a tough, pro-enterprise governor, will surely fill its extra seat with a Republican.
GOP Likely to Pick up the House.
Across the country, the GOP is distinctly ahead in the run for control of the House where 39 pickups are needed for the derrick to come and uproot Madam Pelosi from the Speaker’s podium.
The generic question which asks Americans “which party’s candidate will you vote for in elections for the U. S. House?” has Republicans winning 45 percent to 41. For many years—at least as long as I’ve been seriously watching elections as journalist and campaign strategist—the polls have almost always shown incumbents ahead of challengers…for many simple reasons: incumbents have had years earlier to get publicity, staffs to do favors for constituents etc.
Another maxim I learned early: an incumbent who’s running at 50 percent approval or lower is in trouble and an incumbent running behind a challenger is in big trouble. Today lots of Dem incumbents are running behind their challengers: one each from Arizona, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio; two from Virginia, three from Pennsylvania. And none of the Democrats have personal or ethical scandals.
In my own dark blue Illinois, home of The Squid, Republicans are favored in three Dem districts: the 11th south of Chicago, whose blue-collar and socially conservative area represented by pro-abort, pro-gay rights Dem feminist Debbie Halvorson is a natural for young, pro-life Air Force National Guard pilot, 32-year-old Protestant Adam Kinzinger…the 14th, the generally conservative district where downstate begins, at least in the westerly direction from Chicago—the district which boasted Denny Hastert as Speaker until he kissed it off by resigning to become a rich, full-time lobbyist—with pro-lifer evangelical Protestant State Sen. Randy Hultgren favored over pro-abort multi-millionaire liberal non-religiously affiliated Dem Bill Foster…
…And a distinct surprise, the 17th consisting of the west central sector of the state including the Illinois portion of the Quad Cities (Rock Island, Moline and East Moline) now represented by liberal Dem Catholic Phil Hare but likely to fall to conservative Catholic Bobby Schilling who captured attention by vowing not to take a fat congressional pension but keep his own private sector one, to observe term limits and “not to vote for any piece of legislation I haven’t read.”
Republicans thus far are distinctly ahead in national Senate contests. The party is leading in eight seats now held by Dems and is ahead in defending all GOP seats.
In addition, Illinois voters have finally…finally…become sufficiently sickened with Squid corruption and unelected, Blago-appointed Sen. Roland Burris to see Republican Congregationalist Cong. Mark Kirk, albeit a liberal who has been accused of stretching his resume and military record out of proportion, running neck-and-neck with Dem State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias (Greek Orthodox and Obama’s pick-up basketball buddy) who as chief loan officer of a family bank staked mobster and one-time bordello owner Michael (Jaws) Giorango to a $20 million loan.
Republican capture of the Senate at this point looks unrealistic, experts say it can be done after the second election cycle.
Dem Governorships are Teetering
Nationally, Republicans are ahead in key governorship races. This includes Illinois where conservative Catholic, pro-lifer Bill Brady is running seven-points ahead of Quinn for governor. In addition, the following non-incumbent held governorships are veering to Republican control: Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Tennessee.
In addition, the GOP is scoring far ahead of the Dems on key issues. Polls show likely voters trusting Republicans more than Democrats in nine out of ten issues including managing the economy. Voters who list taxes as the highest issue score the highest ratings in U. S. political history. Republicans are winning on trust—53 to 36 percent. Moreover 55 percent of likely voters in 12 swing states, including 57 percent of independents, tell pollsters they are not likely to vote for Democrats if the Bush tax cuts are ended.
Moreover Democrats are falling way behind on state legislative races across the country. Up for grabs this November are 83 percent of all legislative seats.
Spectacularly to my mind, given the fact that Obama has governed almost entirely from the Left, only 43 percent of Hispanics polled—a major Dem voting bloc—are satisfied with his performance, listing the sagging economy as reason…with 32 percent undecided and a shocking 21 percent who say he rates unsatisfactory. Gallup shows his support at 85 percent among blacks in contrast to the 94 percent he received on election day, 2008 but I don’t believe that figure given the indentured nature of African Americans to the Democratic party…although some may stay home on election day.
These Republican numbers are even more revelatory when you consider that in 2008 Obama won by 53 percent—more than any other Democrat except historic winners Andrew Jackson, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson. But if today’s numbers hold, the Dems in 2010 and Obama in 2012 are in for a seething voter revolution. Yet there’s more.
Demographics Favor the GOP.
Every poll I’ve seen recently shows that Democrats are hemorrhaging whites, men, women and independents. White support dropped from 51 percent in July, 2009 to 37 percent a year later. The party popularity among independents has shrunk from 52 percent to 38. Numbers of male supporters have evaporated, from 54 percent to 39. Women: down 14 percent from last year to 45 percent. Young people who turned 18 in 2008 and voted for the first time supported Obama 2 to 1 with his popularity standing at 73 percent shortly before Inauguration Day. Now it stands at 57 percent and when paired against any unnamed RepublicanObama trails with voters 18 to 34.
With these kinds of numbers, you’d say the Republicans are sure winners in 2012, wouldn’t you? Nope. Don’t forget: Republicans are famous for goofing up, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. All you have to do is say over and over to yourself: President Thomas E. Dewey.
Much will depend on the identity of the person who runs for president against Obama in 2012. Thus endeth the analysis, most of the numbers from McKinnon.
Handicapping the GOP Presidential Race.
Here they are in terms of today’s popularity, with my comments added thereto.
Understand that as of today at least one poll has found that Obama would lose to any Republican. Quinnipiac University’s highly rated survey shows that Americans would rather vote for an unnamed Republican than Obama in 2012 by a 39 percent to 36 margin. But let’s assume this will change. Here are my highly subjective impressions of the logical Republican presidential candidates. They’re all pro-life and anti-gay rights.
Newt Gingrich. A brilliant guy, resourceful speaker and debater, recent Catholic convert. But Henry Hyde who knew him very well told me that he’s 50 percent genius and 50 percent nuts. I have to agree. Who else would on becoming the first Republican Speaker in more than 40 years, launch a for profit program to sell his books, a for profit sale of DVDs of him teaching politics…get rebuked by the House Ethics committee for it and engage in an extra-marital affair with the woman who became his third wife, whom he met while cheating on his second?
Mitt Romney. Another well-spoken guy, a masterful organizer who took the Salt Lake Olympics which was floundering in debt and put it in the black. A masterful speaker and spectacular analyst of world economic and military affairs: lawyer and businessman extraordinaire. But as governor of Massachusetts he devised Romney-Care which hangs around his neck like an albatross. Unless he can explain away the charges that he earlier devised what is unpopular in Massachusetts and is known as Obama-Care lite, he’ll be a loser. Well-financed but a loser.
Sarah Palin. She has made wondrous strides since her vice presidential foray in 2008. She has a fan club that embraces not just the Tea Party people but millions in the Republican party. She’s improved her understanding of the issues but at least in my estimation she’s too slangy like Ethel Merman playing Calamity Jane in “Annie Get Your Gun.” Much of her slang (“you betcha!”) is not presidential, as per her rough-edged vulgar comment (however true) that
Arizona Governor Brewer has more masculine qualities in dealing with illegal immigration than Obama. If she can start sounding like a president, she’d vastly improve. But I still expect she’ll be No. 1 or 2 on the GOP ticket. A good omen: Daughter Bristol’s decision to break her engagement to Levi Johnson has spared us a recurring soap opera sure to happen if she married the guy.
Mitch Daniels. I favored the brilliant governor of Indiana who has matchless experience—a success in the private sector, strong force as head of the federal budget office under Bush II and courageous in the Indianapolis state house in bringing a state with budget in the red to where it’s finances are solidly in the black. But recently he declared that there should be a “moratorium” on social issues like pro-life, gay-rights. He’s a social conservative all right but that statement left me cold. Besides, how can any president rule off social issues which are so key in this secular cultural climate? I don’t think he’ll ever recover from that gaffe.
Haley Barbour. The governor of Mississippi has been a greatly underestimated force. He was a Washington lobbyist who learned early how to ameliorate hard feelings and get things done. He took that skill to the Republican National committee and was by all odds its most effective chairman since Mark Hanna, contributing powerfully to the GOP takeover of Congress in 1994. As governor he has been among the nation’s best, mobilizing the state early so that when Katrina hit the resources were already there. Again with the Gulf oil spill, he was calm, magnetic—better so than Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal, too gaunt, looking like an advance man for a famine. . Barbour’s a dark horse candidate but a very skilled one. Probably his only electoral disadvantage is a broad Mississippi accent.
Mike Huckabee. Polls notwithstanding, anyone who runs against Obama had better be an orator and on top of his game. Remember when the only thing John McCain could say about rescuing the economy was to end appropriation earmarks? Huckabee’s communications skills are at least equal to Reagan’s. Since his run in 2008, he’s hosted a Fox News TV program which further honed his already sharpened talents. He’s been a successful governor and is a Baptist preacher so his pro-life, anti-gay rights credentials are in fine order. He’s a little cornpone and however it happened he freed too many penitentiary inmates early with some disastrous consequences. But when I hear him make a speech I am struck with how eloquent he is. At this point I like him best. Barbour a close second.
Tim Pawlenty. A good governor of Minnesota, showed guts in dealing with a liberal legislature but he’s got stiff opposition from those above.
John Thune. As a junior senator from South Dakota he’s just running for exercise—and the future.
Ron Paul. By 2012 he will be seventy-seven, one year younger than Ronald Reagan was when he retired after his second term. Mass discontent with big government, bailouts and over-involvement in foreign-military affairs have ratified Paul’s early predictions. Who could carry his libertarian banner? No one appears in sight for 2012 but in the future his son, Rand, if elected Senator from Kentucky, might.
I tip my hat to from Mark McKinnon, an astute analyst writing in The Daily Beast, for the background on this column.
http://www.cdobs.com/archive/featured/democrats-sinking-with-demographics-will-republicans-bail-them-out/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)