National

Interesting column by Patrick Caddell and Douglas Schoen in today’s WSJ about The Hillary Moment:

When Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson accepted the reality that they could not effectively govern the nation if they sought re-election to the White House, both men took the moral high ground and decided against running for a new term as president. President Obama is facing a similar reality—and he must reach the same conclusion.

He should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more important, of governing effectively and in a way that preserves the most important of the president’s accomplishments. He should step aside for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Never before has there been such an obvious potential successor—one who has been a loyal and effective member of the president’s administration, who has the stature to take on the office, and who is the only leader capable of uniting the country around a bipartisan economic and foreign policy.

Certainly, Mr. Obama could still win re-election in 2012. Even with his all-time low job approval ratings (and even worse ratings on handling the economy) the president could eke out a victory in November. But the kind of campaign required for the president’s political survival would make it almost impossible for him to govern—not only during the campaign, but throughout a second term.

More polling suggests the inevitability of a Romney nomination, according to today’s Political Diary:

Republicans might not particularly like Mitt Romney, but they may have to learn to live with him if they want to take the White House next year. So suggests a poll released today by Purple Strategies, which surveys voters in 12 swing states: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.

President Obama’s approval rating in the swing states is in peril — just 41% overall and 37% among independents — but his saving grace seems to be that voters there are even more sour on the Republican candidates. This critical block of voters gave all of the top GOP contenders lower marks than the president, which may be due in part to the barrage of negative media that Republicans have been facing as the race heats up. The scrutiny, however, will only intensify after the party settles on a nominee, so Republicans may want to choose a candidate who can withstand criticism.

Mr. Romney has the lowest negatives of the field, with 45% of voters giving him the thumbs down. Those numbers aren’t great, but compare them to Herman Cain’s. Fifty-two percent rate Herman Cain negatively and 22% say they definitely wouldn’t vote for him. Just 10% say the same of Mitt Romney. Mr. Romney also fares the best of all the candidates in a head-to-head match-up against the president, running even with him at 45.

“Based on traditional metrics, Obama remains in perilous position,” conclude the pollsters. “He is overperforming his approval rating by 4 points (he gets 45% of the vote against Romney, while 41% offer him a positive job rating), and still remains well below 50%. In recent re-election campaigns, no president has out-performed his job ratings by more than a couple of points.”

The survey also found that Newt Gingrich doesn’t poll much worse than Mr. Romney. The former House speaker trails the president by just two points and has been ruled out by 16% of voters. However, the poll was taken early last week, just before he came under fire for his ties to Freddie Mac and his prior support for cap and trade and the individual mandate for health insurance. Such issues are likely to be more important in the primary contests than in the general election, but whether he can deflect or sidestep the attacks as adroitly as Mr. Romney will determine the strength of his candidacy.

Meanwhile, Steve Chapman asks, Why Not Huntsman?

He’s a responsible, well-spoken adult with a good record in office, a soothing style, bipartisan appeal, and ample knowledge of the world beyond our shores. But Jon Huntsman, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, somehow imagines he can overcome those handicaps.

He’s running at 2 percent in the polls, but working in his favor is that his rivals have defined themselves mostly by their lapses, failures, and gaffes. At the moment, Republicans seem doomed to choose between the fraudulent (Mitt Romney) and the incompetent (almost everyone else). One contender after another has risen to challenge Romney, only to self-destruct in the most mortifying possible way.

That leaves an opportunity for someone who can avoid the exploding cigar, as Huntsman has. Besides being a telegenic master of the complete sentence, he was the highly popular governor of the most Republican state in the country, Utah.

And Peter Suderman discusses the “inevitable” rise of Newt:

The inevitability of Newt Gingrich’s moment in the sun was itself inevitable. Like finicky department store shoppers trying on an endless series of not-quite-right outfits, Republican voters have been indecisively trying out candidates looking for someone, anyone who is both a perfect fit—or at least a decent Not Mitt. And if the GOP base had not stopped to browse Newt’s offerings, enterprising members of the campaign media, always desperate for a newer, more interesting story, would have dropped the Newtron bomb anyway—if only to keep themselves interested.

But the risen Newt is neither as interesting nor as compelling a candidate as he clearly wants people to think he is. The new Newt thing is the same as the old one—frivolous, flighty, flip-flopping, mildly corrupt, and tremendously self-important.

Speaking of Newt, does anyone remember Newt’s commercial with Pelosi back in 2008? We do (click here to view in YouTube):

New Mexico

Paul Gessing’s latest post at Errors of Enchantment takes on the “Supercommittee”:

The so-called “Supercommittee” is done. Failed, kaput. The gulf between Democrats and Republicans was simply too great. Let the finger-pointing ensue. But who is to blame?

The left would point to anti-tax activist Grover Norquist and his “no new taxes” pledge for preventing Republicans from going along with Democratic demands to raise taxes. I agree that Grover has been very effective in fighting tax hikes and for this he should be celebrated, not derided.

After all, the $1.2 trillion in spending cuts that was supposed to be the target of the Supercommittee was less than this year’s deficit! And, as I’ve noted before, the size of the federal government has doubled (from $1.9 trillion to $3.7 trillion) since Clinton left office. Clearly, the “Supercommittee” needed to focus on spending cuts and, if Congress was allowed to further increase spending (absent Grover’s pledge) it would have done so.

So, thanks Grover for keeping tax hikes at bay. Now, we need to force Congress to allow the supposedly “automatic” cuts to happen.

Our friend at The Westerner notes that the Land of Enchantment has now been connected to the Fast & Furious operation by the Department of Justice:

The congressional report showed a major link between Fast and Furious and the arms trafficking ring in Columbus[, NM]. According to the congressional report, New Mexico border patrol agents pulled over Blas Gutierrez, a village trustee and the mastermind behind the Columbus gun-running ring in January of last year. Inside the car, agents said they found a stash of weapons, including AK-47s and pistols known as “cop killers.” According to the report, a number of the guns had been purchased by the main suspects in Operation Fast and Furious just days before. But instead of running the serial numbers while the guns were in their hands, border patrol agents said they handed the weapons back and let Gutierrez go. The guns were then smuggled across the border, and police said one wound up at a murder scene in Mexico.

More here.

Michael Swickard has an interesting column up at NMPolitics.net arguing that Now is the Best Time Ever for Young Workers:

At a fast food style restaurant, I had a nodding relationship with the young fellow behind the counter. We would each say, “Howdy.” Last week he ventured an observation, “You sure were lucky to be young when it was still possible to become wealthy.”

He said it like, “Nice weather… how about those Aggies… whatcha want?” I was startled by the notion that I grew up in a better time. Truth is, I only went to school because I was physically placed on a school bus with instructions to not hit anyone. For the record, I only hit back, but the second kid is usually the one caught, so I was typecast. I was also typecast as a kid who could not wait to get away from school. This they got right.

I was born in 1950, and this fellow behind the counter was born in 1990. Without a doubt they were different societies. In school I practiced the “Atomic bomb attack drill,” while he has to worry about getting a bad case of “Texting thumb.”

Growing up, there were no seat belts in our cars. Also, my father smoked all the time and we did not think about second-hand smoke. We kids did not wear bicycle helmets, and my school lunch was usually a potted meat sandwich I brought from home wrapped in waxed paper.

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

National

Here’s another way to look at the Debt Ceiling Issue:

Let’s say, You come home from work and find there has been a sewer backup in your neighborhood….and your home has sewage all the way up to your ceilings.

What do you think you should do ……

Raise the ceilings, or pump out the sh**?

Your choice is coming Nov. 2012

Speaking of our November 2012 choice, Mitt Romney finds himself in the hot zone at the moment. Commentator George Will calls him the “pretzel candidate” for his many twists and turns (more here by Ken Danagger). Steve Chapman noted yesterday that Romney is doing his best to lose the GOP nomination at the moment:

Republican candidates for president have been busy for weeks now, laboring strenuously to give the 2012 nomination to Mitt Romney. And he keeps trying to give it back.

The former Massachusetts governor could walk to next year’s GOP convention without touching the ground, treading exclusively on the bodies of rivals who have fallen on their faces. He’s the equivalent of the Alabama Crimson Tide, playing a schedule heavy on Southeastern Louisiana and Middle Tennessee State.

He should be running up the score every week. Instead, he keeps finding ways to keep his opponents in the game.

Read the full article here. Also yesterday, Erick Erickson at Red State called Romney The Magically Malleable Man of Mystery:

Let me say that if Mitt Romney were the Republican nominee, every Republican would be wise to support him. Beating Barack Obama is the paramount goal of 2012. But for almost eight years, a number of prominent conservatives and conservative groups became all encompassing cheerleaders for Team Bush, even after Team Bush clearly showed it wasn’t all that conservative. Before hopping in bed with another candidate, conservatives should be sure he is the real deal.

Beating Obama is grand. But doing so without selling out key principles or putting conservatism in the hands of someone else who would kill the free market to save it should not be done if it can be helped.

Very few conservatives dislike Mitt Romney. The problem, as George Will alludes to, is that few actually trust him. The McCain opposition book, written by a guy who’d go on to be Mitt Romney’s head of research, shows why.

“After studying Presidential nominations for 30 years, I’ve never seen somebody who has so completely renounced his past record when he decided to run for President, said Northeaster University Professor William Mayer to the Chicago Tribune’s Jill Zuckman on May 22, 2007. That’s how page 168 in the McCain opposition book began. The heading on that page is “Flip-Flops”. The next ten pages contain every reason why conservatives are suspicious of Romney.

More here. Alas, Romney is not the only major candidate facing scrutiny. The WSJ Law Blog notes that he is a “mixed bag” on criminal justice:

If you were to extrapolate on Rick Perry’s criminal-justice record based solely on his tough stance on capital punishment, you’d probably miss a few bullet points.

Yes, Perry aggressively defends the 236 executions in Texas over his terms as governor, but as The New York Times reported in this A1 story, he has also presided over a series of reforms that benefit the accused.

For instance, he has signed bills to create a life-without-parole alternative to the death penalty, punish hate crimes more harshly, improve criminal defense for the poor, guarantee a right to post-conviction DNA testing, upgrade the use of eyewitness identifications and award generous compensation to exonerated prisoners.

With a bit more of a harsh perspective, Reason’s A. Barton Hinkle declares Perry’s flat tax proposal is nothing but a snake oil pitch:

Rick Perry lies like a rug.

Last week he floated a flat-tax proposal that, he says, would make life simpler for taxpayers. That’s a snake-oil pitch if ever there was one.

When he unveiled his scheme, Perry took a postcard out of his pocket and called it the “best representation” of his plan. “Taxpayers will be able to fill this out and file their taxes on that,” he said. Under Perry’s plan, the flat rate for everyone would be 20 percent—unless you want to stick with the current tax plan, which he would allow. That’s a pretty big complication right there. To find out which system you’re better off using, you would have to calculate not one set of tax returns but two. Only then would you be in a position to choose which way to file.

But that’s a side issue. Here’s the real problem. Taxes are not complicated because it’s hard to multiply your taxable income by X percent. (Heck, the IRS even does the math for you.) Taxes are complicated because of everything leading up to that final calculation.

More here. Political Diary today takes a closer look at, of all candidates, Newt Gingrich:

The College Board and News Corp. sponsored a forum on education with four GOP presidential candidates last week, and the runaway winner was Newt Gingrich. (Truth in advertising: I moderated the session along with Joel Klein, the former New York schools chancellor who now runs an educational unit for our employer, News Corp. Each candidate received 30 minutes, which was refreshing after the 30-second trivial pursuits of the debates.)

Michele Bachmann (local control), Rick Santorum (moral values) and Herman Cain (business principles) stuck mainly to their talking points, but Mr. Gingrich kept the crowd of 1,000 or so engaged and entertained with a wide-ranging tutorial on everything from the failures of “L.A. Unified” to Jeb Bush’s Florida “virtual school.” The session was a reminder of Mr. Gingrich’s knowledge of government and rhetorical skills, which were overwhelmed by his early campaign missteps.

This is an unusual primary season, however, and the question is whether voters will now give Mr. Gingrich another look. The former House speaker’s allies think so. They say Ms. Bachmann and Rick Perry can’t come back, Herman Cain will fade as his national sales tax gets broader scrutiny, and neither Mr. Santorum nor Jon Huntsman has attracted much voter support. That leaves Mr. Gingrich to emerge from Iowa as the main challenger to Mitt Romney. Even if Mr. Romney wins New Hampshire, the campaign then becomes a two-man race heading into South Carolina and Florida, where Mr. Gingrich’s debating talents and conservative agenda will contrast with Mr. Romney’s poll-driven caution.

That scenario may be a long-shot, but no one should rule it out. After Thursday’s education session, Mr. Gingrich mentioned that in a conventional year he might not get that second look. But this year, voters are worried enough about the condition and direction of the country that they are willing to consider someone with proposals that are bolder than the political norm. Mr. Gingrich must still overcome the perception that he’s been around too long, as well as his habit of talking himself into trouble (recall his criticism of Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan). He’ll need more money too. But in a year when GOP voters are still searching for someone who can go head-to-head with President Obama, don’t be surprised if Mr. Gingrich gets another turn in the spotlight.

Changing gears a bit, Reason has a couple of great pieces on the Occupy Wall Street mentality. First, check out the “Deuling 10-point programs”:

Remember the Tea Party’s Contract From America? This is the whole document, and here’s a quick list of its 10 bullet points:

1) Protect the Constitution
2) Reject Cap & Trade
3) Demand a Balanced Budget
4) Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
5) Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government
6) End Runaway Government Spending
7) Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above’ Energy Policy
9) Stop the Pork
10) Stop the Tax Hikes

Fans of numerical symmetry can rejoice that the old-skool Frisco webzine Salon has produced its own list of 10 recommendations, in a “New Declaration of Independence” for the 99 percent generation.

1. Debt relief
2. A substantial jobs program
3. A healthcare public option
4. Reregulate Wall Street
5. End the Global War on Terror and rein in the defense budget
6. Repeal the Patriot Act
7. Tackle climate change
8. Stop locking everyone up for everything and end the drug war
9. Full equality for the queer community
10. Fix the tax system

 

Read the full article for additional details on the Declaration of Independence points. Matt Welch also takes on the new Declaration noting that the only thing missing is “Any Sense That Adults Are Responsible For Their Choices”:

Cradle-to-grave employment (at least outside the public sector) has been dead since at least the end of the Cold War. Undergraduate degrees in English and Film and Sociology and Philosophy (and a thousand other subjects) have had debatable workplace utility for as long as I’ve been alive. There have even been previous housing bubbles and busts in Alex Pareene’s lifetime.

I don’t recall anything like the promises so cruelly unkept in Salon‘s list. I do remember my father warning me that an engineering degree would be much more useful in the workplace than English, to which I uttered a phrase available to 18-year-olds everywhere: Thanks, Dad; not your call. Ditto for the legions of well-meaning adults urging me to finish my undergraduate degree, to sign up for the Selective Service, and even (when I finally attained a decent living in the second half of my 30s) to pay a mortgage instead of paying rent. One of the best perks about being a grown-up is that you get to make your own choices, and to own the results, good and ill.

Which is why phrases like “wage slaves,” “inescapable debt,” and “force” “force” “force” leave me feeling like a brother from another planet. Adult human beings have agency, the ability (even responsibility!) to run their own cost/benefit analyses and choose accordingly. You could go to a state school (or community college) instead of an over-inflated prestige mill. You could pay for a 10-year-old car in cash, instead of a new one on installments. You could try to make it in Minneapolis beforeliving the dream in Williamsburg. You could stare into the face of a no-money-down, adjustable rate 30-year mortgage at the tail end of a housing-price run-up and conclude “Maybe that one’s not for me.” You could even choose to turn down a bad if high-paying job when you’re living below the poverty line. If we indeed live in a “candid world,” let us state bluntly that offloading 100% of the blame for your own mountain of debt on a group of Greedy McBanksters who “forced” you to “play by the rules” is more than a little pathetic.

For our video today, we turn to Peter Schiff’s latest turn on Fox Business Network, talking about “phony” growth (click here to view in YouTube):

New Mexico

Jon Barela and Jeff Steinborn are the latest to signal interest in running for Congress:

Jon Barela, the Republican Party’s 2010 nominee for the Albuquerque-area 1st Congressional District seat, confirmed Friday that he’s still considering making another attempt at winning the seat next year.

And former State Rep. Jeff Steinborn, D-Las Cruces, confirmed Friday that he’s seriously considering running against U.S. Rep. Steve Pearce, the Republican who represents the Southern New Mexico 2nd Congressional District. Steinborn said that’s not the only race he’s looking at.

The entrance of either into a congressional race would reshape that contest.

More from Heath Haussamen here. Haussamen is also keeping us up to date on the many Murphy controversies, the latest over his comments about gay people.

With embattled District Judge Mike Murphy’s secretly recorded comments about gay people eliciting a statewide outcry, Murphy’s lawyer said Monday that his client has been and will continue to be supportive of the gay community.

* * *

The judge, who is facing bribery charges and is on suspension without pay, has been under fire for his comments about gay people since KOB-TV in Albuquerque reported last week on the audio recording, which was secretly made by District Judge Lisa Schultz in December 2010.

As always, don’t forget to keep up with Errors of Enchantment as well as other posts here at Publius, such as the latest on Tom Udall.

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts