Today has been, and the few remaining hours of the setting sun will prove it to be, one of the most important in American history. Today is about the increasingly diverse Republican Party and the battle for the Latino vote.
The Obama Dimocrat Party is well aware of the threat today poses. That is why today was the day that a Latino man who sends out his twin brother to deceive the public by posing as him was selected to be the keynote speaker at the Bank of America Obama convention.
The terror of Vice President Marco Rubio is what drives all the Obama tactics. The terror of Ted Cruz also drives that desperate Obama strategy.
Many people, with some justification, will say this Ted Cruz for U.S. Senate election is about the Tea Party versus the Republican establishment. If Cruz gets the nomination the Tea Party will have achieved another major victory this time in a really big state. The Republican establishment did all it could to help David Dewhurst but the Tea Party rank and file have propelled Ted Cruz to probably win the Republican nomination. But big yawn. This is somewhat about the Tea Party but the story is much, much bigger.
Recently Barack Obama bragged that because of demographics Texas would soon be a swing state at the very least. It is the same booshwah that idiots on the left employed to gift Obama the Democratic Party nomination in 2008. It is the same nonsense that has captured the Dimocratic Party “intelligencia” into believing they could snub the white working class with impunity because they could still win by stitching together a “coalition of the ascendant” that since May 2008 we call the Obama “situation comedy” demographic strategy.
“The obvious mistake that the massive “creative class” brains made when they created the Obama monster in a Chicago laboratory was that Republicans would remain static in their strategies and candidates. The stupidity was to think that Republicans would go to sleep and stick to an outdated playbook. Strategists such as Teixeira managed to persuade the gullible “leadership” that even though White Americans would remain a potent electoral force these White Americans could be ignored if they were “lunch bucket Joe and Jane”. In other words, the White Working Class would be ignored and instead wealthy white liberals and their kids would be the only ones invited to participate in the New America. [snip]
First Marco Rubio:
Marco Rubio poses the greatest threat to Obama Dimocrats in this and future election cycles. If current polling is to be believed Marco Rubio is well on his way to be the next senator from Florida. The only question unanswered regarding Rubio is when he will be part of a national Republican ticket. Will Rubio be the Republican presidential or vice presidential nominee in 2012 or in 2016, or later?
At 39 years of age, Marco Rubio already has more experience than Barack Obama when he inflicted himself on the nation. Rubio was elected to the Florida House of Representatives and eventually became the Speaker of the Florida House. If Obama Dimocrats want to play identity politics, Republicans will play with gusto and with a candidate who is actually qualified for higher office.
Latinos comprise a large minority and a rapidly growing minority – already larger than African-Americans in population. Marco Rubio can appeal, in Spanish if necessary, to Latino voters. To say that Obama Dimocrats lack a Latino superstar is an understatement. The last supposed Latino “superstar” was Bill Richardson who is a faded star at best. Other than Marco Rubio there is no Latino political superstar. [Representative Luis Gutierrez, a candidate along with Rahm Emanuel for Chicago mayor, cannot by any stretch be called a Latino “superstar” although he is the best known Obama Latino Dimocrat and a big annoyance for Rahm Emanuel.]
That Obama Dimocrats and Obama chose to make Latinos a marquee issue even though the only Latino superstar is a Republican speaks to a level of stupidity among the “creative class” hard to quantify. Politico states the obvious:
“The prospect of this ad on a national Republican campaign has to scare Democrats, who depended heavily on a Hispanic swing-vote in 2008.”
Unwritten by Politico is the prospect and impact of that advertisement broadcast on various Spanish language media in support of Presidential or Vice Presidential nominee Marco Rubio. How would Obama Dimocrats counter such a candidacy – with low level Latino functionaries at the OD DNC or with Latino movie or singing stars? Certainly Obama Dimocrats could not produce a powerhouse Latino Dimocrat to counter Rubio because there is no powerhouse Latino Dimocrat. [snip]
Marco Rubio’s candidacy is the most important election this cycle because it repudiates the entire “demographic destiny” strategy of Obama and his Keystone Kops Dimocratic “strategists”.
It isn’t just Latinos that have no nationally known representatives in the Obama Dimocratic Party. In Rubio, Palin, Bachman, Brown – The Damage Done we detailed how there are no prominent and popular women or Latinos or even East Asians (Indians from India) in the Obama Dimocratic Party.
The maniacs blew up the Democratic Party of FDR. Quick, can you name an East South-West Asian Obama Dimocrat with the stature/name ID of young Nikki Haley, governor of South Carolina or Bobby Jindal, governor of Louisiana? Can you name a woman (not named Hillary Clinton) that has a future in the Obama Dimocratic Party as a national figure with stature/popularity? Diane Feinstein is well known and popular but she is not a future leader, she is a past leader. Pelousy, er, Pelosi? Fuggedeboutit! Gilibrand? Maybe but hardly a leader in the national discourse.
As we wrote back then the slimy Luis Gutierrez is at best going nowhere. Judas Richardson is a goner. The mayor of L.A. has a wife he divorced waiting to torpedo him (ask Rudy Giuliani the damage an angry wife can do). Enter Castro.
The phony from San Antonio explained why he was “present” “not present” by saying he had a “scheduling conflict when he intentionally deceived the voters by having his brother take his exams for him play pretend Mayor.
The pretender Mayor who is so busy he uses his brother as a deceiver of the public certainly reminds us of phony Barack Obama. “Joaquín and I got into Stanford because of affirmative action. I scored 1,210 on my SATs, which was lower than the median matriculating student. But I did fine in college and in law school.” Hopefully we will be spared stories of how brilliant and self made Castro is. You didn’t build that Castro. Oh, and like Barack Obama he went to Harvard.
If anyone thinks this is all happenstance please recall that Castro sat in Michelle Obama’s box during the 2012 snooze-fest called the State of the Union. This is not happenstance. This is a well thought out plan to minimize Marco Rubio and the increasingly diverse Republican Party. Already the bull is starting. Enter Obama endorser and Dimocrat Mark McKinnon:
“Mark McKinnon is prepared to be more explicit about the long-term stakes. An early member of George W. Bush’s inner circle in Austin, he knows Texas political talent when he sees it. “Julián Castro has a very good chance of becoming the first Hispanic president of the United States,” he says flatly.
Julián Castro is the son of Rosie Castro, a well-known ’70s firebrand who was among the leaders of La Raza Unida, the radical movement in Texas that was dedicated to defending the civil rights of Mexican-Americans and promoting a strong “Chicano” identity.”
“Although he pronounces his name “HOO-lee-un,” he doesn’t really speak Spanish — a fact he isn’t eager to advertise. La Raza put a high premium on the mother tongue, but Rosie Castro spoke English to her sons, and Julián studied Latin and Japanese in school, while Joaquín studied Latin and German. A lack of Spanish fluency isn’t unusual in San Antonio, especially among Castro’s generation, but in the immigrant barrios of Houston and the colonias south of Interstate 10 down to the border, Spanish is the first and often only language. A Mexican-American with statewide political aspirations needs to be able to do more than pronounce his name correctly. Early in his administration, Castro assigned his chief of staff, Robbie Greenblum — a Jewish lawyer from the border town of Laredo whose own Spanish is impeccable — to discreetly find him a tutor. Rosie Castro’s son is now being taught Spanish by a woman named Marta Bronstein. Greenblum met her in shul.
IT’S NOT CLEAR what Castro can accomplish as mayor. His executive clout is limited. The daily business of San Antonio is conducted by a professional city manager.”
Which is why Ted Cruz is so important. A Senator Ted Cruz could easily keep Texas in the Republican column. It is a sign of how the Republican Party is repositioning itself for the demographic future whatever it is. It’s not just about keeping Texas, it’s about expanding the map.
A Republican Party convention in Tampa Florida with Marco Rubio as the Vice Presidential nominee, put into nomination by Governor Martinez, Governor Sandoval, and next Senator from Texas Ted Cruz will shock the Obama Dimocrat strategists. A stage filled with Governor Nikki Haley, Governor Sarah Palin, Representative Michelle Bachman, Representative West, Representative Tim Scott will do more to smash the Obama strategy than all the words the Romney campaign can ever publish.
* * * * * *
As we finish this article, the news has broken: Open thread: Texas; Update: AP calls it for Cruz.
The long ago rusted gates screeched wide open today. Past the red dust hinges, in marched capitalist Mitt Romney – into the once upon a time workers paradise. The man who greeted him was a world historical hero so unlikely a Hobbit ring-bearer approaching Mount Doom would seem pedestrian by comparison.
The two hugged and recalled when capitalism was banished from those shores. Today the capitalist and the hero worker that destroyed one world and created another stood together and remembered the past and prepared for the future.
They remembered that when the end came, the workers paradise was undone by the workers. The workers, well, “YOU DIDN’T BUILD THAT” is really true. The workers did not build that state monstrosity of oppression and evil that once was. It was the workers who destroyed the lie of the workers paradise and brought freedom to the gulag rosary of states held together by fear and terror.
“Today, Walesa — an anti-Communist freedom fighter — got political. “Gov. Romney, get your success, be successful!” Walesa said in Poland during a meeting with the former governor. “Poland and many other countries will certainly do their best for the United States to restore its leadership position. And after our conversation, I’m quite confident that you will be successful in doing that,” The Washington Post quoted him as saying.
The endorsement comes two months after Obama refused to host Walesa at the White House. The Polish government had requested that Walesa receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom that was posthumously awarded to Jan Karski, who served in the Polish Underground during World War II.
The Obama team refused. Former Polish Foreign Minister Adam Rotfeld received the award instead. “The likelihood is that President Obama didn’t want Walesa in the White House because Walesa has made critical remarks toward the president’s policies and in 2010 warned that the United States was slipping toward socialism,” the Heritage Foundation’s Rory Cooper suggested at National Review Online.”
If we lived in a world of Star Trek, Klingon operas would be sung about the man from Gdansk. In Narnia, Hogwarts, Middle Earth, or a galaxy far far away, Lech Walesa, the electrician, would be a hero amongst heroes.
Walesa was not alone. A newly elected American president, from the White House and at the borders of the Empire of Evil, shouted down the oppressive walls constructed to force the workers to remain in the workers paradise. A most unlikely Pope prepared to lay down his duties and once again become a freedom fighter in the streets of his beloved country. But it was Walesa who climbed the fence. It was Walesa.
Inside the Iron Curtain prison Walesa continued to struggle. On his chest, like a talisman, like an amulet from wizards purposed to protect the young electrician, lay a golden Nobel Peace Prize. Back then it was an award earned with blood and suffering which in turn offered protective prestige.
All the combined wizards of fantasy, Hollywood, and science fiction could not have made it up. A young electrician climbs a fence and the entire world changes as quickly as Alice falling through a rabbit hole, walking through a looking glass.
“It pretended to be the people’s system.” “We set about using truth to conquer untruth.” The workers organized. The “Solidarity” labor union was formed by the workers, not self interested paid organizers craving to dine with the masters, but by the workers. The workers did not build the workers paradise but the workers built Solidarity. Through government lies and unrelenting oppressions the workers finally freed themselves of the workers paradise.
So how odd that at this moment in history with capitalism under attack because of corrupt crony capitalism – the hero of the workers today politically hugged the capitalist. The capitalist Romney who carried his own Olympian gold medal to the meeting with the man who climbed the fence and freed the peoples of an Evil Empire.
It will be for Mitt Romney to make the case for capitalism and not a state apparatus that deadens then dictates. It’s going to take the right kind of leadership and Mitt Romney needs to make the case not only against the corruptions and treacheries of Barack Obama but of the value of freedom and a capitalist system even with all its faults.
Of Obama’s crony capitalism system of corruption and treachery Mitt Romney must say: “It pretended to be the people’s system.” The road to victory for Romney was laid out by Walesa decades ago – “We set about using truth to conquer untruth.”
Lech Walesa knows it’s time for Americans to climb the fence, not straddle it. His fellow Polish-American citizens, in crucial swing states will listen to the great hero.
It’s time for all Americans to stand in Solidarity with the man who freed a world.
Barack Obama is worried Jews and supporters of Israel will abandon him with less regard than his father abandoned him. This fear leads Obama enablers to say the irrational – Pelosi: Republican Jews are “being exploited”. Whatever.
Obama made it worse. In his “Cairo II” speech Obama back-stabbed Israel with a new demand to national suicide. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu fortunately knew how to fight thugs and rammed the 1967 borders down Obama’s throat.
Jews and supporters of Israel must always remember:
“Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.”
JERUSALEM — Mitt Romney’s visit here this weekend was scheduled around the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games, not the Jewish calendar. But the timing, on the solemn fast day of Tisha B’av, has turned out to be both auspicious and fraught.
The holiday on Saturday evening to Sunday evening commemorating the destruction of the First and Second Jewish Temples of Jerusalem, is somewhat out of tone with campaign events, but provides a compelling backdrop for Mr. Romney’s message about the threats facing Israel. And while some thought he should mine the occasion on Sunday to give a speech at the Western Wall, a crowd magnet during the fast, he instead plans to speak at a conference center overlooking the Old City and probably visit the wall after the fast ends.”
It is Mitt Romney’s fourth visit to Israel. It likely will not be his last. Romney has already promised to make Israel his first overseas trip as president. While in Israel Mitt Romney will not undermine the sleazy Obama but just being in Israel is a sharp critique:
“Officials inside the campaign said Mr. Romney, who has pledged to “do the opposite” of Mr. Obama on all things Israel, would not critique the administration’s policies while here, as he did this week in a fiery speech in Reno, Nev., at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention. Instead, he plans to speak broadly about the “shared threats, challenges and opportunities” that Israel and the United States face.
“The Tisha B’av holiday is about remembrance,” noted Dan Senor, the Romney adviser who is the architect of the trip. “In reflecting on and remembering the tragedies that the Jewish people and Israel went through, we’re reminded of the challenges and the threats that Israel faces today.” [snip]
“Part of the job in being prime minister in Israel is being able to manage your relationship with the U.S., that’s probably job No. 2,” said Stanley Greenberg, a Democratic pollster who has worked on many left-leaning Israeli campaigns. “His good relationship with Romney probably helps him domestically, probably gives him some leverage in dealing with Obama.”
The itinerary for the overseas trip that Mitt Romney is taking — Britain, Poland and Israel — is brilliantly chosen. These countries contrast greatly with candidate Barack Obama’s 2008 foreign tour, which included stops in Afghanistan and Jordan. That journey aimed to show that he would strengthen America’s bonds with countries that aren’t always our staunchest allies — and that Obama was the opposite of President George W. Bush. Huge crowds swooned over Obama in Paris and Berlin, a reception that was a boon to his campaign at home.
The former Massachusetts governor, however, neither seeks nor generates this sort of delirium. He is a sober man who promises reliable management and a foreign policy that recognizes that the world is beset with dangers to America’s welfare and liberty.
Thanks to Romney’s speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Reno, Nev., on Tuesday, we now have the broad outlines of how his foreign policy would differ from Obama’s. There would be a break, the Republican candidate indicated, from policies that have “exposed the military to cuts that no one can justify, compromised our national security secrets and, in dealings with other nations, given trust where it is not earned, insult where it is not deserved and apology where it is not due.”
Romney is an old-fashioned, unstylish man whose views hark back to a time when America was confident in itself and less worried about the judgments of other nations. We have grown anxious in the past decade or so, seeing our country in the mirror held up beyond our shores. There is a yearning for that self-confidence. And Romney promises to call back those older, simpler American verities.
Just as Obama sought to distance himself from Bush’s legacy, Romney’s overseas itinerary is meant to draw a contrast with the current president. Israel, Poland and Britain are resolutely pro-American societies, choices that play it safe politically and suggest that a Romney presidency would as well.
The “special relationship” with Britain calls for no commentary; this is the Anglo-Saxon world, as it was once unapologetically called. [snip]
Israel is of the West but not in it, a besieged democracy. Obama has not visited there since his 2008 trip, and Israelis have wondered about his fidelity to their country.
Poland, too, imparts meaning: Its people have paid dearly for their liberty, daring to defy the Soviet Union and casting their fate with the West. Poland still stands sentry against Russia. And Romney’s previous characterization of Russia as the United States’ “number one geopolitical foe” is music to Polish ears.
And Poland has had its own disappointment with Obama: Bush proposed a missile-defense system to be based in Poland and the Czech Republic. Obama has reconfigured it, proposing a system more acceptable to Russia and, he contends, more effective in warding off potential missile attacks from Iran and North Korea.”
“In the same vein, candidate Obama vowed to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, repair “brand America” abroad, drain anti-Americanism from the Islamic world and build trust between Pakistan and the United States.
But these promises have been largely forgotten in the exercise of power. Guantanamo is still open, and anti-Americanism in the Islamic world did not dissipate when Bush left the White House. In a supreme note of irony, the Pew Global Attitudes Project, which was once held up as proof of Bush’s poor standing in foreign lands, recently bore bad tidings for Obama:
“In a number of strategically important Muslim nations,” the June report says, “America’s image has not improved during the Obama presidency. In fact, America’s already low 2008 ratings have slipped even further in Jordan and Pakistan.”
The Romney campaign is not out to win hearts and minds in Karachi and Cairo; that sort of public diplomacy is of no interest to the candidate and his bid for the presidency.
“I do not view America as just one more point on the strategic map, one more power to be balanced,” Romney said Tuesday, emphasizing American exceptionalism — probably because Obama has often equivocated about it.
“I believe in American exceptionalism,” the president said in France in 2009, “just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”
The most generous interpretation is that Barack Obama has not a clue about what the term “American exceptionalism” is about. But more likely Obama simply has contempt for the concept and believes himself so much better than to defend American national interests.
“Under Romney, would there be a difference on the “peace process” between Israel and the Palestinians? The tone might improve, as the bonds between Romney and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are strong; in contrast, there is an obvious estrangement between Obama and the Israeli leader. But that conflict will not yield to an American president’s power. From Harry Truman till the present, that primordial struggle has frustrated U.S. leaders. No matter how close the U.S.-Israeli relationship is, the United States cannot dictate the terms of an Israeli-Palestinian settlement. Any grand historical accommodation must be the work of the protagonists themselves.
The late Harvard political scientist Samuel P. Huntington once sketched three visions of the United States’ place in the world: nationalist, cosmopolitan and imperial. In the nationalist view, America defends her interests in the world and marks ideological borders and differences with other nations. In the cosmopolitan view, the foreign world and globalization reshape America, erasing the differences that separate it from other countries. In the imperial vision, America remakes the world by remaking foreign lands.
An imperial push can’t be sustained; the United States lacks the resources and the drive for such grand ambitions. So we are down to a more realistic distinction. Obama embodies the cosmopolitan aspiration, and Romney the nationalist idea. We have already seen Obama’s worldview at work; it probably wouldn’t change in a second term. Romney’s stewardship would dawn without trumpets and drums. It would have the sobriety of Gerald Ford’s and George H.W. Bush’s leadership. But there would be an ideological edge, illustrated in Romney’s VFW address: “Like a watchman in the night, we must remain at our post — and keep guard of the freedom that defines and ennobles us and our friends.”
This is not only good prose. Compared with Obama’s ideas, it is a different view of America.
We are loathe to use the term cosmopolitan as it has an historic association with anti-semitism. But we will take it in the spirit in which it is offered. Of more interest to us is the quote from Romney: “Like a watchman in the night, we must remain at our post — and keep guard of the freedom that defines and ennobles us and our friends.”
“One of my favorite speeches is one that talks about our role in the world. It was the speech President Kennedy was set to give, had he lived just one more day. It would have closed with these words:
“We in this country, in this generation, are- by destiny rather than by choice- the watchmen on the walls of world freedom. We ask, therefore, that we may be worthy of our power and responsibility, that we may exercise our strength with wisdom and restraint, and that we may achieve in our time and for all time the ancient vision of ‘peace on earth, good will toward men.’ That must always be our goal, and the righteousness of our cause must always underlie our strength. For as was written long ago “except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.”
Almost half a century later America is still the only watchman on that wall of world freedom. And there is still no one else to take our place.
What will the world look like if America declines? Well, today all over the world, people are being forced to accept a familiar lie, that the price for their security is their liberty.
If America declines, who will serve as living proof that liberty, security and prosperity are all possible together? Today, radical political Islam abuses and oppresses women, has no tolerance for other faiths and seeks to impose its views on the whole world. If America declines, who will lead the fight to confront and defeat them?
Today, children are used as soldiers and trafficked as slaves. Dissidents are routinely imprisoned without trial, and subjected to torture, forced confessions and forced labor.
If America declines, who will take these causes as their own? What will the world look like if America declines? Well, who will create the innovations of the 21st century? Who will stretch the limits of human potential and explore the new frontiers?
If America declines, who will do all this, and ask for nothing in return?
Motivated solely by the desire to make the world a better place?
The answer is no one will. There is still no nation or institution in the world willing or able to do what we have done.
Ronald Reagan described America as a shining city on a hill. Now, some say that we can no longer afford the price we must pay to keep America’s light shining. Others say that there are new shining cities that will soon replace us. I say they are both wrong. Yes, the price we will pay to keep America’s light shining is high, but the price we will pay if it stops shining will be even higher.
Yes, there are new nations now emerging with prosperity and influence. And that is what we always wanted. America never wanted to be the only shining city. We wanted our example to inspire the people of the world to build one of their own. You see, these nations, these new shining cities, they can join us, but they can never replace us. Because the light coming from them is but a reflection of our own. It is the light of an American century that now spreads throughout the world. A world that still needs America. A world that still needs our light. A world that still needs another American century.”
On the very first weekend after his election in 2010 Marco Rubio went to Israel. Marco Rubio continued to respect Israel with speech after speech in defense of Israel:
Mitt Romney is in Jerusalem this weekend. Marco Rubio has been campaigning on behalf of Mitt Romney this weekend. Marco Rubio has not only survived an emergency landing of his airplane today. Marco Rubio has also closed the book on bogus ethics charges – Florida to Rubio: About that ethics thing… nevermind
For those speculating about Mitt Romney’s choice for Vice President this weekend the eyes should turn not turn solely to Jerusalem. It’s very possible that Mitt Romney has found a fellow watchman. Next year it just might be Romney/Rubio. Next year might be MR/MR. Next year there might be hope in Israel.
Silvia Woods died last week. She was called by many who visited her Harlem restaurant “the queen of soul food.”
In 1962 Harlem was not the increasingly gentrified somewhat chic neighborhood it is today. In Harlem 1962 Malcolm X walked the streets of 7th Avenue and 125th streets. There was no Harlem Boys Choir yet. There was no Dance Theater Of Harlem yet. That was all in the future.
“Statistics from 1940 show about 100 murders per year in Harlem, “but rape is very rare.” By 1950, essentially all of the whites had left Harlem and by 1960, much of the black middle class had departed. At the same time, control of organized crime shifted from Jewish and Italian syndicates to local black, Puerto Rican, and Cuban groups that were somewhat less formally organized. At the time of the 1964 riots, the drug addiction rate in Harlem was ten times higher than the New York City average, and twelve times higher than the United States as a whole. Of the 30,000 drug addicts then estimated to live in New York City, 15,000 to 20,000 lived in Harlem. Property crime was pervasive, and the murder rate was six times higher than New York’s average. Half of the children in Harlem grew up with one parent, or none, and lack of supervision contributed to juvenile delinquency; between 1953 and 1962, the crime rate among young people increased throughout New York City, but was consistently 50% higher in Harlem than in New York City as a whole.”
In 1962, in Harlem, Silvia Woods opened her restaurant. Silvia Woods’ restaurant was hampered by a city government that did not work, an infrastructure that did not function much of the time, streets clogged with crime. But through it all, Silvia Woods kept her restaurant:
“She built something out of nothing,” said one person. “She kept her family together.”
On August 1, Silvia Woods’ restaurant, built with the help of her husband, will celebrate it’s 50th anniversary but Silvia Woods will not physically be there. Many businesses have died in the past 50 years but not the restaurant built by the South Carolina native in Harlem, in 1962, on Lenox Avenue. The “something out of nothing” she built in the “mean streets” of Harlem 1962 won’t be forgotten.
“When President Barack Obama hauled off and slapped American small-business owners in the mouth the other day, I wanted to dream of my father.
But I didn’t have to close my eyes to see my dad. I could do it with my eyes open.
All I had to do was think of the driveway of our home, and my dad’s car gone before dawn, that old white Chrysler with a push-button transmission. It always started, but there was a hole in the floor and his feet got wet in the rain. So he patched it with concrete mix and kept on driving it to the little supermarket he ran with my Uncle George.
He’d return home long after dark, physically and mentally exhausted, take a plate of food, talk with us for a few minutes, then flop in that big chair in front of the TV. Even before his cigarette was out, he’d begin to snore.
The next day he’d wake up and do it again. Day after day, decade after decade. Weekdays and weekends, no vacations, no time to see our games, no money for extras, not even forMcDonald’s. My dad and Uncle George, and my mom and my late Aunt Mary, killing themselves in their small supermarket on the South Side of Chicago.
There was no federal bailout money for us. No Republican corporate welfare. No Democratic handouts. No bipartisan lobbyists working the angles. No Tony Rezkos. No offshore accounts. No Obama bucks.
Just two immigrant brothers and their families risking everything, balancing on the economic high wire, building a business in America. They sacrificed, paid their bills, counted pennies to pay rent and purchase health care and food and not much else. And for their troubles they were muscled by the politicos, by the city inspectors and the chiselers and the weasels, all those smiling extortionists who held the government hammer over all of our heads.“
Like Silvia Woods, John Kass’ immigrant dad built something built to last. It wasn’t Barack Obama who built the south side Chicago supermarket. It wasn’t the government either. It was hard work:
“You didn’t get there on your own,” Obama said. “I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.”
If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that? Somebody else made that happen?
Somebody else, Mr. President? Who, exactly? Government?
One of my earliest memories as a boy at the store was that of the government men coming from City Hall. One was tall and beefy. The other was wiry. They wanted steaks.
We didn’t eat red steaks at home or yellow bananas. We took home the brown bananas and the brown steaks because we couldn’t sell them. But the government men liked the big, red steaks, the fat rib-eyes two to a shrink-wrapped package. You could put 20 or so in a shopping bag.
“Thanks, Greek,” they’d say.
That was government.”
What built the restaurant of Silvia Woods and the supermarket John Kass senior toiled at for generations was hard work, sacrifice, sweat, worry, fear, and a dream for a better future for family:
“We didn’t go to movies or out to restaurants. Everything went into the business. Uncle George and dad never bought what they could not afford. The store employed people, and the workers fed their families and educated their children and put them through college. They were good people, all of them. We worked together and worked hard, but none worked harder than the bosses.
It’s the same story with so many other businesses in America, immigrants and native-born. The entrepreneurs risk everything, their homes, their children’s college funds, their hearts, all for a chance at the dream: independence, and a small business of their own.
Most often, they fail and fall to the ground without a government parachute. But some get up and start again.”
But that America, like Silvia Woods’ little restaurant that could, won’t go away even though Silvia Woods died last week. John Kass’ dad died long ago as well. But those dreams, their American dream, is still alive.
America after Barack Obama will get up and start again. The dream of America is still alive. No one man can kill it. Not even one from Chicago.
The Psycho Killer from Colorado is getting the headlines and almost all of the Big Media attention. For us, one Psycho Killer at a time. We continue to pay attention to the Psycho Killer from Chicago.
* * * * *
Two events stand out in the immediate future as far as presidential politics are concerned. One additional event has intruded.
The additional event is the killings in Colorado. This midnight madness is sucking up a lot of time on the airwaves and this has implications. The killings in Colorado are a major distraction and as of now the distraction we believe hurts Barack Obama more than Mitt Romney.
While Obama will no doubt exploit the Colorado killings by staging several publicity stunts to pose as a “uniter” in the important swing state this horrific incident has taken a great toll on the Obama strategy timeline.
Barack Obama thought he could spend tens of millions of dollars to crush Mitt Romney, to injuriously define Mitt Romney, in June and July before two major summer events. Now Obama has spent tens of millions in June and July (to very little effect) but his march of hate has been halted by a nut in Aurora. All that Bain distraction, all the myriad other distractions, now face a major distraction in the form of death and injury in the mountains.
The hope of the Obama campaign was that they would batter Mitt Romney in June and July. Then a bleeding lump of flesh Mitt Romney, defined as a monster from Bain by the Obama campaign, would face a news blackout as the major event of the summer, the Olympics, began to play.
“Mitt Romney embarks Tuesday on a six-day trip to England, Israel, and Poland, offering Americans a glimpse of how he might perform on the world stage if he’s elected president.”
Romney will attend the opening ceremony of the Olympics along with other world leaders. Romney will, just before his trip, speak in electorally important Nevada to the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
The 2012 Olympics, the Romney campaign hopes, will remind American voters of the 2002 Olympics in Utah Mitt Romney rescued ten years ago. Mitt Romney will dramatically be able to counter the Bain nonsense by noting that he headed to the Utah Olympics in 1999, not later as Obama would have it. Not only does Romney get some attention as he travels abroad, Romney can bask in the Olympic glow of his own.
There will be meetings with British and other world leaders and of course two fundraisers with Americans abroad. But the highlight of the trip will be the visit to surrounded Israel:
“Romney has been to Israel three times in the past, on a family visit in the late 1990s and, in 2007 and 2011, on fact-finding trips focused on security and economic issues.
On this trip, he’ll meet first with Daniel Shapiro, the U.S. Ambassador to Israel, who will give him a briefing. Romney will also meet with Israeli officials including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Shimon Peres, and will also sit down with Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. He has met them all on previous trips.
While aides say Romney will not specifically criticize the president’s Middle East policy while he is in Israel, he will continue to make the case for standing with Israel – as he often does on the campaign trail. “America needs to stand by its allies, particularly allies that are under siege like Israel, particularly democratic allies who have such a shared history and shared values with America” Dan Senor, a special adviser on foreign policy, told reporters in previewing Romney’s message.”
After Israel it is on to Poland. Romney will meet with the current leadership as well as the man who invited Romney, the man who earned his Nobel Peace Prize with heroic actions, Lech Walesa.
While Romney gets some well deserved attention during his international trip, Barack Obama will put on hats, dance, lie, and spew ridiculous mumblings in an attempt to get some of that desperately craved limelight. But the Olympics will dominate:
“25 July 2012 is the big kick-off, with the opening sports event…
27 July sees the pomp and parades of the opening ceremony in the Olympic stadium, and the lighting of the Olympic torch. [snip]
12 August will see the curtain comes down with the closing ceremony.”
By the end of the Olympics the news will be about the Romney VP pick and the convention in Tampa at the end of the month. In short the DISTRACT AND DESTROY strategy of Barack Obama has failed. Why?
June and July were supposed to be the end of Mitt Romney. Romney was supposed to be left for dead after a Dresden style bombing by Obama. Once Mitt Romney was leveled the Olympic blackout would begin and Romney would be left way behind limping towards his end of August convention while Barack Obama basked in glory.
“President Barack Obama’s campaign spent about $43 million in June on ads aimed to keep Mitt Romney out of the White House.
The Obama campaign shelled out $38.2 million on media buys last month, in addition to $4.5 million for online advertisements and nearly $700,000 for media production, according to the latest campaign finance report released Friday.
The big spending on ads comes as the Obama campaign seeks an advantage by getting an early jump defining Mitt Romney over the airwaves and online.
Romney’s campaign, meanwhile, reported spending about $11 million for media production and placement.
Overall, the Obama campaign spent about $58 million in June, marking its most expensive month this year. The campaign spent $45 million in May and less than $20 million in each of the first four months of this year.
Obama’s campaign spent another $2.6 million on polling, $2.9 million on payroll and $33,000 on text messages in June.
Romney’s campaign spent a total of $27.5 million in June, about twice the $15 million the campaign spent in May.
Obama and the Democratic National Committee raised a combined $71 million in June — falling about $35 million behind the Romney campaign and the Republican National Committee.
The Obama campaign raised a total of about $46 million in June, including $28 million in individual contributions and $17.2 million transferred from other committees.
Obama’s campaign ended the month with $97.5 million in the bank, compared to Romney’s $22.5 million. But Romney Victory Inc. — a Romney-RNC joint fundraising operation — ended June with $57.7 million in cash, compared to the Obama Victory Fund’s $9 million cash on hand.”
Obama spent all that money to destroy Mitt Romney but instead Mitt Romney rose a bit in the polls. We can only imagine that as the results rolled in Barack and Michelle Obama could not believe that their Destroy Mitt Romney attacks were failing and they ordered more and more polling. But more and more polling only produced the same results – failure.
The Obama attacks failed. The Obama fundraising operation relied on the attacks to work and that would lead to happy donors donating lots and lots of cash. But Big Fail. Obama Big Media ally Politico concluded: Mitt Romney, the new fundraiser-in-chief:
“When combined with Republicans’ massive super PAC cash advantage, the GOP fundraising surge spells trouble for the White House, which is relying on hard money and a groundswell of small donations to give Obama four more years.
Romney’s campaign and its allied fundraising committees reported $170 million in cash reserves at the end of June. That’s $26 million more than Obama and the top Democratic committees had in their coffers, according to the latest campaign finance reports released Friday.
Part of the reason for Romney’s cash advantage is that Obama outspent the Republican by $50 million over the last three months as part of the strategy to define Romney before he can gain traction.
The Obama campaign and Obama Victory Fund — a joint fundraising committee with the DNC — spent a combined $189 million in April through June, compared to the $138 million spent by the Romney campaign and its joint fundraising committee. [snip]
In May, the Obama campaign and victory fund spent more than they raised, thanks in large part to shelling out $34 million for advertising.
And in June, the Obama campaign dropped about $43 million in ads alone, including online advertising. Romney spent about $12 million for ads last month.
Until now, Obama’s camp has also sought to use Romney’s advantage among big-donor allies to rally his own small-donor base.
But when it comes to small donations — an area where Romney has lagged far behind Obama — the former Massachusetts governor is picking up steam.”
The Obama campaign’s attempt to portray Mitt Romney as the villainous Bane from “The Dark Knight Rises” appears to be a big flop. And the problem for Obama is, he really doesn’t have a Plan B.
The latest New York Times CBS poll shows the $100 million worth of attack ads against Romney’s Bain Capital tenure haven’t moved many voters. And that was before Obama insulted voters by telling them they never built a business on their own.
There’s an air of desperation in the Obama camp right now. That’s because while the race is a dead heat, Romney has an 8-point lead, according to the recent poll, when voters are asked who would do a better job fixing the economy. [snip]
“I think the big reason it isn’t is the only people who are paying attention are either hard-core Democrats or hard-core Republicans and others who haven’t decided aren’t paying attention right now,” said Andy Smith of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center.
“I don’t think the effort was designed to sway voters so much as it was a way to get the Democratic base motivated again,” Smith added. “To give them something to be angry about again.”
And that is a sad statement about the Obama campaign. The president can’t possibly run positive ads about his record, so his only option is to fire up Democratic voters to hate Romney. But even many Democrats are troubled by Obama’s relentlessly negative — and mostly misleading — campaign.”
Obama’s entire campaign of DISTRACT AND DESTROY can be countered with the 1992 Bill Clinton slogan “It’s the economy, stupid.”
Barack Obama’s campaign slogan this year is “IT’S THE ECONOMY WE HAVE TO DISTRACT FROM, STUPID”.
The first round of polls is out after President Obama’s Bain attacks against Mitt Romney and the results aren’t good news for the White House. By themselves, the national toplines are discouraging enough – Romney holds a (statistically-insignificant) 47 to 46 percent lead in the new CBS/NYT poll, and the president is stuck at 47 percent in the just-released Fox News and NPR poll in 12 battleground states.
But beneath the head-to-head numbers, the results foreshadow some tough times ahead for Obama. Voters appear to be processing the worsening economic news belatedly, and their pessimism shows in spades. In the CBS/NYT poll, Obama’s job approval dropped to 44 percent, with only 39 percent approving of his economic performance – down five points from April. For the first time since January, more voters now think the economy is getting worse. Nearly two-thirds of voters now place some blame on the president for the weak economic conditions, with 34 percent giving him “significant” responsibility. An outright 52 percent majority of independents believe Obama will “never improve” the economy. These aren’t numbers that victories are made of.
And in a sign that the newfound negative tone of the campaign may be backfiring, the poll showed Obama’s favorability ratings – always his strong suit – at an all-time low as president. Only 36 percent in the NYT/CBS poll view him favorably, a six-point drop over the last three months, with 48 percent viewing him unfavorably. Romney’s favorables aren’t good, either – 32/36 fav/unfav – but mutually assured destruction isn’t going to win the election for the president.
The state-by-state numbers aren’t any more encouraging. [snip]
All told, the numbers paint a picture of voters growing increasingly disillusioned with the president. By going hard negative against Romney, the president is landing some solid blows. But without much of a positive governing agenda to campaign on, it doesn’t look like that will be enough by itself.”
Barack Obama will need all the skills honed by his life as a flim-flam con man to distract from the economy. With Unemployment up in 6 of 10 swing states Barack Obama will need to win the Olympic high jump gold medal and Michelle Obama will have to gold medal the weight lifting categories to distract from the economic horror.
Psycho Killer Son of Sam was a postal worker. He achieved a great deal of notoriety with the government’s help by using government built roads and drawing a government paycheck. Do we blame the government for Son of Sam the killer? By Barack Obama’s logic Son of Sam did not get to his exalted position on the top ten list of most wanted alone. The government got him there.
The star of a pro-Obama super PAC ad is speaking out against … President Barack Obama.
“I could really care less about Obama,” Donnie Box says of President Obama, according to In These Times. “I think Obama is a jerk, a pantywaist, a lightweight, a blowhard. He hasn’t done a goddamn thing that he said he would do. When he had a Democratic Senate and Democratic Congress, he didn’t do a damn thing. He doesn’t have the guts to say what’s on his mind.”
“What the president said was both startling and revealing. I find it extraordinary that a philosophy of that nature would be spoken by a president of the United States. It goes to something I’ve spoken about from the beginning of the campaign. That this election is to a great degree about the soul of America. Do we believe in an America that is great because of government, or do we believe in an America that is great because of free people allowed to pursue their dreams and build their future?”
Good for Mitt for expanding the critique to those who try to lift themselves up via hard work. As we noted during the 2007/2008 primaries Obama appears to disdain hard work. Obama attacked Hillary when she extolled hard work as necessary for real change. But Barack Obama, the man child who voted present so often, attacked hard working Hillary Clinton and even hard working small town America.
Hard work by individuals to fulfill their dreams is an essential ingredient to success. Yes some individuals are born rich and they can, if they so choose, be lazy and be trust fund babies who join Occupy Wall Street. But usually the route to success is hard work. As to the question of whether the rich do benefit more from government roads and government largesse than middle and working class Americans the answer is yes, they do. That’s why we have a progressive income tax that takes a bit more from those that benefit more.
It’s a good ad. It’s a good ad because it makes an argument. It’s a good ad because it contains an audio track that contradicts the Obama audio. More of this type of ad and no more of the very clever ads that play Obama audio/video but fail to contradict the Obama claims in an audible manner, please.
“The inflammatory campaign speech comments underline the extent to which Obama believes that the state rather than ordinary citizens create jobs and wealth.
They highlight a key contrast with Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee, who is preaching a message of wealth creation by individuals and reinvigorating the private sector.
Andrea Saul, spokeswoman for Romney, told Fox News that the remarks ‘reflect just how unqualified he is to lead us to a real economic recovery’ and were ‘ insulting to the hardworking entrepreneurs, small-business owners, and job creators who are the backbone of our economy.’
“President Obama has accused Mitt Romney of raking in profits from investing in companies that ship American jobs overseas, but according to his most recent financial disclosure, he and First Lady Michelle Obama have hundreds of thousands of dollars in a mutual fund that has large holdings in corporations that outsource jobs.
“(Romney) invested in companies that have been called ‘pioneers’ of outsourcing,” Obama said at a Saturday campaign event in Glen Allen, Va. “I don’t want a pioneer in outsourcing. I want some insourcing.”
But Obama’s own portfolio shows a willingness to invest in American corporations that have shifted employment overseas. [snip]
The point in this is not to say outsourcing is wrong. Corporations are supposed to maximize profits for shareholders. But Obama’s own portfolio shows that despite his heated rhetoric, he makes investment decisions without regard to whether companies are outsourcing.”
Mitt Romney allies need to point out Barack Obama’s hypocrisies and lies. In ads. With audio.
“A campaign based on falsehood and dishonesty does not have long legs,” Romney said on “Fox and Friends,” later adding: “The president only has one thing going, and that is constant attacks on me. They’re dishonest. They’re misdirected. And I think the American people recognize that kind of politics as something of the past. It may work in Chicago, but it’s not going to work across America.”
Much, much better Mitt. As we write below, Attack, Attack, Attack. Defense is a loser’s game.
It’s a start to holding Barack Obama accountable for his thuggery.
However, this new ad below sucks. If you listen to it, it is a pro Obama commercial. Ads are seen and HEARD.
Put a negative audio track on these ads. They are clever but a waste of money. Stop being clever. Start speaking the truth so it is heard and seen.
Mitt Romney is under attack on several fronts related to his tenure at Bain Capital. Barack Obama and his campaign are slinging every bit of mud against Mitt Romney.
This is a great opportunity for Mitt Romney however. Mitt Romney must not whine. Mitt Romney has to strike at Obama’s heart. Mitt Romney must expose Obama for the ugly person he is.
Any American who still thinks Barack Obama is a “nice person” must be shown what a creep Barack Obama is. This is no time for Mitt Romney to go soft. Either tell the truth Mitt or quit. It’s that simple.
Mitt Romney must also use this examination of his own decades ago record to examine Barack Obama’s history in Chicago and explain why this corrupt history ties into why Obama has been such a failure as president.
* * * * * *
The Obama strategy is obvious to all: Attack Mitt Romney at what is perceived to be his strength – his successful business record. That is what all this Bain gorilla dust is about.
The Mitt Romney response should be an campaign attack on Barack Obama’s perceived strength – “likeability”. But Mitt Romney is acting like John Kerry when he was challenged with attacks on his perceived strength – his military record.
For weeks John Kerry tried to ignore the attacks on his record. The plan was to pretend the attacks were so ridiculous that they did not deserve a response. The Kerry campaign also did not want to fan the flames licking at his campaign. What John Kerry’s campaign did not understand was that the “swift boat” attacks went to the question not of John Kerry’s Vietnam history but to weakness in national security.
The reason why the “swift boat” attacks mattered was that Americans saw John Kerry unwilling or unable to defend himself on a rather simple matter. If John Kerry could not defend himself then how could John Kerry defend the nation? The reason why the “swift boat” attacks on John Kerry worked was because they showed John Kerry to be too weak to be president.
Mitt Romney better take note of the Kerry “swift boating” and assess his own willingness to fight.
* * * * * *
Thus far we have not been at all impressed with Mitt Romney’s response to the smears. The Mitt Romney campaign has mostly been a mess too. SuperPac ads have been a waste of money as well.
Instead of “a good offense is the best defense” the Romney campaign is serving whine after whine. They say Barack Obama is mean and demand apologies. Romney is forgetting the Capone lesson from Chicago Barack Obama: “They send one of yours to the hospital, you send one of theirs to the morgue.”
What does the Mitt Romney campaign need to do?
First, clearly and without equivocation make Barack Obama personally responsible for the lies. Don’t blame the Obama campaign, blame Obama himself. Ads should be produced which clearly state something along the lines of: “Barack Obama pretends he is a nice person. But Barack Obama is a dirty Chicago thug and liar. Barack Obama is lying about Mitt Romney. Barack Obama commands his campaign to call Mitt Romney a “felon”. Barack Obama pretends he is nice. But Barack Obama is a nasty thug.”
Second, follow John Sununu and bring up Obama’s history in Chicago and how that history impacts the failure of the Obama years in the White House. Point out the crony capitalism Obama engaged in while in Chicago. Rezko, Rezko, Rezko. Tie all the crony capitalism in Chicago with the Solyndra crony capitalism. That’s not very hard to do. We have a treasury of archives here that rival in value the Golden Plates.
Third, Mitt Romney should stick to the economy. But Mitt Romney himself must start referring to Obama’s lies about Bain as a “content of character” issue and that Barack Obama is a nasty, dirty, Chicago thug unworthy of the highest office in the land. Romney can hold Obama to account, attack Obama’s “likeability”, and do it more in sadness than in joy.
Meanwhile the SuperPacs must stop airing those all too clever ads which only have audio of Obama saying something stupid while the text mocks what Obama is saying. The SuperPacs must begin to attack Obama on likeability. The SuperPacs must attack Obama’s record in Chicago and finally vet the thug before a national audience.
The SuperPacs must point out that Obama himself wants to smear Mitt Romney’s record from decades ago and therefore Obama’s record from decades ago is now fair game and now relevant once again.
The SuperPacs must point out that Obama wants more and more Mitt Romney records but that most of Obama’s records remain under Obama’s lock and key.
Attack. Attack. Attack.
* * * * * *
The Mitt Ronney campaign is not on attack. The Mitt Romney campaign is on whine. We hate whine.
John Sununu, not a very attractive messenger, does know how to respond. Rezko, felony, Chicago, that is the way to respond to Barack Obama’s lies:
On outsourcing John Sununu is the only one who got the message right as well:
Stop talking about the Obama campaign and how mean they are. Talk about what a nasty man Obama is to order such lies be told to the American people.
This type of headline shows weakness and whine: “Romney camp fires back at Obama’s ‘out of control’ team“. This is stupid. The Obama campaign is not “out of control”. The Obama campaign is doing exactly what Obama is telling them to do. The Obama campaign is exactly under control – Obama’s control. This is a weak, lame response from the Romney campaign which appears to be the one out of control and weak.
This ad is sort of a start on the right path but it has a lot of problems:
Again, why is Obama the only one heard in this ad? There has to be an audio track that calls Obama a liar and a thug. This Mitt Romney campaign paid ad is a disaster because what is heard is Obama saying nice things and no other voice saying “Obama lied to you. Obama lied to all Americans. Obama pretends to be nice. But Obama runs nasty campaigns. That is who Obama is. Martin Luther King warned Americans to make judgments based on content of character not color of skin. Obama has low character. Obama is nasty and the Obama campaign is nasty.”
CNN has debunked Obama’s lies with regards to Bain.
Why didn’t Mitt Romney simply say that Barack Obama personally is the source of these nasty attacks. That Barack Obama himself is in full control of his campaign and that Barack Obama is the nasty thug hurling lies and smears at Mitt Romney. Why all the weak language Mitt?
“Media critic Howard Kurtz warned CNN on Friday that “to many people” it looks like the media has a massive double standard in its campaign coverage of Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.
“[W]hen you combine all the stories, all the airtime, all the column inches, it looks to many people, I’ll just say this bluntly, like the press is giving much more aggressive scrutiny to Romney and his background than it ever gave to Barack Obama,” Kurtz told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.
Kurtz added that “to some,” the media sound like they are “echoing” the Obama campaign’s talking points.
“And I’ve increasingly been worried about whether the media which have been pushing a lot of these stories,” Kurtz insisted, naming “the Boston Globe, the Washington Post on outsourcing, Vanity Fair on Cayman Island accounts, seem to some people to be echoing the message of the Obama campaign by raising so many questions about Romney’s business background.” [snip]
HOWARD KURTZ: All legitimate questions, Wolf, but I think this may be overkill on the part of the Obama campaign. All the megatonnage it has dropped on Mitt Romney’s head over the many events that happened 14, 15 years ago. And I’ve increasingly been worried about whether the media which have been pushing a lot of these stories, The Boston Globe, the Washington Post on outsourcing, Vanity Fair on Cayman Island accounts, seem to some people to be echoing the message of the Obama campaign by raising so many questions about Romney’s business background.
LAUREN ASHBURN, editor in chief, Daily-Download.com: I don’t agree with you. I think that when it comes to this kind of stuff, the more questions the better. This is a man who’s running for President of the United States of America. Ask the questions, answer the questions, if you want to live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
BLITZER: Because if you want to be President, you know this Howie, I’m a little surprised to hear what you’re saying, because no more secrets. Everything basically becomes an open book if you want to be the President of the United States.
KURTZ: I am not saying, Wolf, that journalists shouldn’t be asking these questions, probing Romney’s business background. It is, after all, his principal credential for running and saying he’s going to fix the economy. What I am saying, is that when you combine all the stories, all the airtime, all the column inches, it looks to many people, I’ll just say this bluntly, like the press is giving much more aggressive scrutiny to Romney and his background than it ever gave to Barack Obama.”
The Mitt Romney campaign and Mitt Romney should use this to advantage and not whine. If Big Media wants to go back decades the Romney campaign should say “O.K. Let’s go back and examine everyone’s records. Let’s examine Barack Obama and his record. Let’s all get the same vetting.”.
Mitt Romney has a golden opportunity to tear down the last desperate hope of Barack Obama and his campaign – the alleged “likeability”. But to do that Mitt Romney and his allies have to do more than whine. Mitt Romney has to tell his narrative.
Part of that narrative is the nasty person at the center of the Barack Obama campaign – Barack Obama himself.
* * * * * *
What we’ve been warning about since April 2007 is coming to pass. Mitt Romney is finding out how on target we have been. That is because Mitt Romney is now the target of the disgusting Obama campaign and the disgusting low life called Barack Obama.
What we wrote on September 2007 is as true today and just as relevant. Mitt Romney has to explain the corrupt thug at the heart of the Barack Obama campaign – Barack Obama. We discussed this in “Stinky Politics”:
“Want to know how ‘stinky’ the 2008 presidential race is going to get?
Despite often lofty rhetoric that he plans to bring the nation a “new kind of politics,” Sen. Barack Obama has surrounded himself with operatives skilled in the old-school art of the political backstab. [snip]
When Obama assembled his crew early this year, he brought together a team with a long track record of the sort of caustic rhetoric he has pledged to avoid, just as other presidential candidates have done by hiring people similarly talented in the art of opposition research and attack. [snip]
From his campaign headquarters in a high-rise on Michigan Avenue, Obama’s political warriors range from a research director with extensive experience in throwing darts from Democratic National Committee’s offices to a communications director who once worked for a group that ran a controversial ad that used an image of Osama bin Laden to attack Howard Dean.
Obama’s latest campaign hiccup started with documents that sarcastically questioned Clinton’s ties to India that were pitched to reporters on a not-for-attribution basis. The documents later became public, angering many Indian-American supporters.
The documents questioned links that Clinton (D-N.Y.) and her husband, the former president, had with various companies that outsource American jobs. One included a headline that referred to Clinton as the Democratic senator from Punjab, a reference to a joke Clinton had made last year at a fundraiser.
Yup, the “outsource” charge against Mitt Romney is recycled from the anti Hillary Clinton mud pail. And the reason why there are so many thugs running the Barack Obama campaign is because Barack Obama wants thugs running his campaign.
The Barack Obama Chicago gangland campaign smeared Bill Clinton as a “racist”. Hillary and Bill became “outsourcers”. Mitt Romney better read our archives and read them fast.
Of course there are plenty of examples of Obama portraying himself as an innocent but the record is that Obama bathes in mud and runs a dirty campaign.
And if anyone in the Mitt Romney campaign does not know what the Obama allies and SuperPacs will soon do, read our entry on Phil De Vellis and his room mate Ben LaBolt (now the Obama traveling mouthpiece for the campaign). The dirt is just beginning to flow.
As we wrote about Obama back in 2007: “Joe Biden was wrong about Obama. Obama is not clean — he’s dirty.” The sooner Mitt Romney communicates that message the closer he will get to the White House.
Update: We briefly discussed the appearance of Mitt Romney, boos included, at the NAACP below. It was an example of the Romney campaign doing smart things and our attempt to encourage Republicans/conservatives to become more I/E instead of neanderthal E/I.
We doubt Rice will be the VP choice by Romney. But Mitt Romney’s campaign must be admired for stepping on the “Romney is racist because he didn’t pander to the NAACP and how dare he go there and give the same speech he gives to every group telling them what he will do as president.” (By the way, where’s Barack? Is he raising money in the ‘hood?)
By leaking the Condi Rice as potential VP story Romney sure stuck a shiv in the NAACP race-baiters. Smart move Mitt. Now give a call to Harry and Louise.
“When a president doesn’t tell the truth,” the voiceover in the ad says. “How can we trust him to lead?”
“The Obama outsourcing attacks: ‘misleading, unfair and untrue,'” the voiceover continues. “There was ‘no evidence’ that Mitt Romney shipped jobs overseas.”
Then, the ad refers to what it considers unfair attacks on Democrat Hillary Clinton during the 2008 campaign. “Candidate Obama lied about Hillary Clinton,” the voiceover states, before cutting to a clip of Clinton saying, “So shame on you, Barack Obama.”
“Team Romney obviously aims for the Hillary Clinton voters who have grown disenchanted with Obama in this ad, but any of them still nursing resentment over 2008 probably aren’t voting for Obama this time around, anyway. Hillary will almost certainly be campaigning for Obama in the general election, so Romney’s defense of her honor here is going to get negated at some point in time.”
First of all Hillary Clinton has already declared that as Secretary of State she will not campaign for Obama nor will she attend the Obama disaster in North Carolina. But the point of the ad is to speak to independents and reminding those independents that Obama lied about Hillary Clinton and that Obama is lying about Romney. Why is this such a tough concept for usually intelligent people to understand?
It’s the same with why Romney went to the NAACP was not to court black voters. It was to court whites who want to be reassured that Romney is not a racist. That Romney got booed at the NAACP convention is a plus for him. Wolf Blitzer gets it. It’s not really a very tough concept to understand.
“BLITZER:Despite the boos, it was a smart political move for Mitt Romney to address the NAACP. He knows he is not going to win over a lot of black voters, but attending these kinds of events is important in reassuring a lot of the suburban white voters that he is a moderate, decent politician, someone that wants to work with all Americans”
Speaking of Napalm truth, isn’t this ad that merges the “War On Women” with “It’s the economy, stupid?” easily have come from the Hillary Clinton campaign?:
Now, do we have to explain to the E/I Republicans/conservatives that this War On Women ad is very good or will they stupidly reply that talking about the “War On Women” is somehow bad?
* * * * * *
Mitt Romney is wisely reminding voters of Obama lies against Hillary Clinton. Mitt Romney is smartly using our catechism about trust to expose Obama. But where in blazes are Harry and Louise? If Mitt wants to be particularly daring maybe it’s time for Harry and Louie. We explain below.
Have you seen or heard about the radio ad that Obama is running in Iowa about health care?
It has a man and a woman talking, with the man leading off saying that health care mandates “force those who cannot afford health care insurance to buy it, punishing those who don’t fall in line.”
This is what I’ve been complaining about. I was willing to cut Obama slack on the lack of mandates in his plan, even though the economics says they’re necessary; I figured that in practice, if elected, he’d end up doing the right thing.*
I started ramping up the criticism when he started attacking his opponents from the right, making the lack of mandates a principle rather than a compromise — because that was poisoning the well, making it much harder for any future Democratic president to implement a plan that will work.
And whaddya know, now he’s running an ad that bears a striking resemblance to the infamous “Harry and Louise” ads, run by the insurance industry, that helped block health care reform in 1993.
Call it the audacity of cynicism.
Krugman understood that Obama was “poisoning the well”. Krugman agreed with us that Obama was “making it much harder for any future Democratic president to implement a plan that will work.”
Obama lied. Obama lied repeatedly. This is an important fact to communicate to voters who “like” Obama. HotAir please take note.
Obama lied. Obama lied repeatedly. Obama in his attacks on Hillary Clinton did indeed “poison the well”. Mitt Romney and all his allies should force the water from the poisoned well down Obama’s lying throat.
“Obama Hit Hillary In 2008 Mailer For Individual Mandate Penalty
The mailings went out across Ohio during the heated 2008 primary, and hit Clinton for the individual mandate and penalzing those who don’t buy health insurance. Hillary Clinton said the mailing was a lie and seemed “almost if the insurance companies or the Republicans wrote it.”
With a little tweaking the Obama ad against Hillary could be turned into a fresh as a daisy ad today.
Change you can believe in? C’mon Mitt – waterboard Barack Obama with the water from his poisoned well. Don’t worry about what the Obama “romneycare” return fire will be. All you have to do is force voters to see what a liar Obama is and stoke your base of voters to come out in massive numbers.
“A new Quinnipiac University poll shows why Barack Obama has been so reluctant to talk about his health care plan this summer.
55% of voters say ObamaCare is a tax, while only 36% say it’s not. That’s a nearly 20% gap and a huge political liability.
Some of the specs:
a. Voters think Congress should repeal the law, 49%-43%.
The takeaway here: Very often, voters don’t like undoing something that’s been done, but tend to make peace with legislation only as time passes.
That suggests Republicans only have a small window of time to repeal the law, and it also means that it will probably be a potent political issue, heading into November.
b. A surprisingly high 40% of Hispanics want Congress to repeal the measure. Healthcare is still a top issue to Hispanics, and this is a pretty big repeal number.
c. Indies want repeal, 49%-41%.
d. Even though most voters want the law repealed, they nevertheless support the Supreme Court’s decision on its constitutionality, 48%-45%.
That shows the Supreme Court’s relatively strong image in the eyes of many Americans, but even more profoundly, it shows just how unpopular ObamaCare is, considering that voters are turning to Congress (which they hate) for a resolution.
e. Most voters (59%) said the Supreme Court decision wouldn’t affect their vote, but 27% said it would make them less likely to vote for Obama, while 12% said it would make them more likely.
Now here’s the money stat: 27% of indies say it’ll make them less likely to vote for Obama, while only 9% say it will make them more likely.
f. Gender gap on the mandate. 50% of women support a health insurance mandate, while 50% of men oppose it.
g. HUGE margins think ObamaCare is a tax.
55% say it’s a tax, while only 36% say it’s not. That gap widens when independents are asked. 59% of indies think it’s a tax, and 22% say it’s not.
That’s a stunning 37% gap that works to Republicans’ political favor.
Interestingly, Hispanics think it’s a tax by 60%/29%, which is an even higher margin than among whites. Real phenomenon or perils of polling subgroups?”
Consider, Obama has two “achievements” as president. There is the massive health scam force fed on an unwilling nation. There is the hideous Obama Dimocrat election slush fund dubbed so deceptively as the “stimulus”.
What hath Chief Justice John Roberts wrought? Roberts has provided Republicans/conservatives with the decades long strongest weapon in their arsenal. Republicans can go to their armory library and dust off the opposition texts they employed to win elections before and after Bill Clinton. Chief Justice John Robers has wrought The Return of the “TAX AND SPEND LIBERAL”.
Obama never before has given respect to Bill Clinton’s brilliant economic record in office. But today Dumbo was all ears listening and recollecting Bill. Bill Clinton has a strong economic record. Bill Clinton has recently defended Mitt Romney’s business acumen. Bill Clinton several weeks ago made clear he does not think now is the time to raise taxes nor get rid of the Bush tax cuts.
But Bill Clinton is not the reason for Obama to call for tax cut extension. It is the John Roberts “tax and spend liberal” label that Obama is running from.
In today’s publicity stunt Barack Obama persistently claimed that he has cut taxes for the middle class by thousands of dollars. Unstated is the Obama health scam tax on millions of middle class and working class households to benefit Big Pharma and Big Insurance.
“The Supreme Court lawsuit isn’t the end of the legal challenges to the health care law — and the next ones just might help Republicans keep pushing their favorite political hot buttons.“
It’s easy to understand that Obama opponents on the left are unhappy with Chief Justice John Roberts. We would have much more preferred that the entire Obama health scam be struck down. But Republicans/conservatives unhappy? Heads must be scratched.
“I’ve been a little surprised by the continued outrage on the right and chest-thumping on the left regarding the Supreme Court’s health care decision. The right got everything it wanted in the ruling, save for the actual outcome. The left got legal reasoning that, up until the minute the decision was handed down, it had maintained would mark the end of government as we know it. Sad to say, but the main takeaway is that most court-watchers, left and right, care a lot about the outcome and very little about the law.
Some on the right are latching onto one bit of doctrine as cause for unhappiness in the case. In particular, they claim that John Roberts expanded the government’s taxing power substantially, such that it now provides an endless capacity that Congress lacked with the commerce clause.
“Allen West: Romney Needs To Get Better Counsel From His Advisers; ObamaTax Is a Tax
“It’s a tax,” the Florida Republican told Greta Van Susteren of Fox News. “I think that the governor probably needs to look at who he has within his circle of advisers, and probably get … them to provide the right type of counsel and advice.”
Now, this argument has appeal to Romney because he also imposed a mandate, and doesn’t want the “tax-hiker!” charge leveled at himself.
But here’s the thing: If ObamaTax is in fact a tax, then doesn’t that mean… Justice Roberts got it right?
There’s a lot of games-playing going on with politics, obviously. We’re in campaign season, after all. The candidates do it, we do it.
I think a little too much is being pushed on to this point. On one hand, we’re trying to recover some win from Roberts’ disastrous decision by saying, “Well, at least he said it was a tax; that’s politically useful.”
On the other hand, we’re insisting he got it wrong.
Well, if it got it wrong, it’s not a tax.”
We always wrote that Barack Obama was in a lose/lose position and no matter what happened at the Supreme Court he would lose. Some however, now that the Supreme Court has spoken, insist on giving Barack Obama a win by being dejected that the Constitution was “violated” or that they are weary or that they don’t like what happened, or they are upset, or they feel betrayed, or they don’t know whom to turn to anymore or related feelings from the chocolate box of whines.
We rather everyone put those delicious but fattening chocolates of whine back in the box, realize that we have been correct in our analysis from before the decision came down that Obama was in a lose/lose position, and fight
“The opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts argues that Obamacare is constitutional under the taxing powers of Congress. The Obama administration’s advocate before the Court, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, made this case during oral arguments, and Roberts bought it. The decision, in a sense, formalized what many conservatives had long argued: The Obamacare tax is a tax.
The politics could have hardly been better: The Obama administration and other Democrats would not only have to defend an unpopular law, but they’d have to try explain that a mandate upheld because of the power of Congress to tax was not, in fact, a tax. [snip]
Whatever the mandate was before the decision, and regardless of how strongly one disagrees with the ruling, it’s a tax now. [snip]
Voters will call it a tax and so will every other Republican candidate running for every other office,” he says. “It will be the most popular attack ad in Senate and House campaigns.”
Yes it is a tax. Or is anyone sensible arguing it is not a tax?
We are and have been right on this. By this time next year, or possibly much sooner as Supreme Court decisions begin to flow the next term, we will have been proven right on the constitutional implications we addressed in Part I. Even the damn New York Times knows we are correct:
“No Respite for Liberals [snip]
But the conservative majority also laid down a cache of weapons that future courts can use to attack many of the legislative achievements of the New Deal and the Great Society — including labor, environmental, civil rights and consumer protection laws — and to prevent new progressive legislation. Far from being a source of jubilation, the term may come back to haunt liberals.“
“For Obama, a Signature Issue That the Public Never Embraced Looms Large
On the day President Obama took the final step in turning the Affordable Care Act into law, his senior adviser, David Axelrod, predicted the public would eventually embrace his ambitious effort at health care reform.
“As the American people become familiar with what this program is and what it isn’t,” Mr. Axelrod said, “they’re going to be very, very happy with it.”
Two years later, the public is no happier with the law than it was then. Mr. Obama’s signature initiative may have prevailed in the Supreme Court, but a White House that vowed a public relations blitz selling the act’s virtues never fully followed through, much to the frustration of many Democrats and even some of the law’s authors.
Now Mr. Obama faces the consequences as he heads toward a hotly contested election that will decide whether he has a second term and, by extension, whether the law will survive efforts to repeal it.”
“Some supporters have argued that other social programs in the past were controversial at first before becoming embedded in American society. But polling suggests that is not so.
Social Security was popular from the start, supported by 73 percent of Americans in early 1937 and 78 percent the next year in Gallup polls. Medicare had the approval of 62 percent in early 1965 and 82 percent by the end of that year in Harris polls.
By contrast, just 32 percent supported the Affordable Care Act when it was approved in March 2010, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll. As of a month ago, 34 percent supported it, virtually unchanged.”
What hath John Roberts wrought? For Republicans/conservatives “several long term constitutional gifts” and “very important and immediate political riches”.
For Obama Dimocrats Chief Justice John Roberts crafted a wooden horse, filled with danger and eventual destruction of their city and golden calf.
“Ever since President Bush announced his selection of Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., as his Supreme Court nominee, speculation over whether Judge Roberts might be gay has run rampant throughout the blogosphere. See, e.g., Althouse, Law Dork, and Wonkette. UTR readers have also flooded A3G’s inbox with emails citing the following “evidence” that Judge Roberts is gay:
1. Despite being handsome, brilliant, rich, and nice — in other words, prime marriage material — Judge Roberts didn’t get married until the relatively late age of 41.
3. Judge and Mrs. Roberts have adopted rather than biological children. (The “theory” behind this fact, it seems, is that we therefore have no “proof” of the consummation of the Roberts’ marriage.)
4. Judge Roberts has associated with gay people in the past:
(a) As everyone knows by now, he did probonowork on behalf of gay rights activists, helping out colleagues in their preparation of court filings and oral argument in Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996).
(c) One UTR reader commented that “Roberts has had at least one gay (male) clerk while sitting on the D.C. Cir. I suspect at least one other clerk as well.”
5. Finally, in terms of evidence of gayness, let’s not leave out the notorious plaidpants.
So there’s certainly some grist for the “Judge Roberts is gay” rumor mill in the nominee’s past (even if much of it is of dubious value). And now, tomorrow’s edition of New York Times will throw more fuel on the fire, in the form of this rather interesting article about Judge Roberts’s time at Harvard and what it was like to be a campus conservative there during the 1970’s.
There are two noteworthy aspects of this article from the “John Roberts Is Gay” point of view. First, check out the provocative third paragraph — surprisingly high placement, essentially part of the lede — of Janny Scott’s piece:
“Conservatives were like the queers on campus,” said Eric Rofes, a classmate of Judge Roberts who later became an organizer on gay issues. “People made fun of them. They mocked them and saw them as jokers or losers. I don’t think in the moment many people realized this was the start of an ascending movement. People felt it was like the last cry of the 1950’s.”
Second, directly to the left of the foregoing paragraph in the online version of the article is a photograph (courtesy Don Scherer) showing Judge Roberts hanging out on Martha’s Vineyard with two handsome male friends, Don Scherer and Richard Lazarus. Call Article Three Groupie crazy — you wouldn’t be the first — but the picture strikes her as pretty “gay-looking.”
“John Roberts is gay! Look at those smiling buff friends snuggled next to the next Supreme Court Justice on Martha’s Vinyard displaying the groumet meal they just made, and THEY will tell you. Now let’s hope Roberts is actually confirmed before he’s outed like a certain New Jersey Governor! Some legacy for Christian hero W. — seating the first GAY Supreme Court Justice!* This is SO GREAT!
The hope for change at the Supreme Court from some “leaders” of the left always had the barely submerged notion that Roberts could be forced out if the truth ever came out. Is anyone surprised that in big time politics such slime and smear is contemplated by those that publicly purport to be “gay friendly” liberals?
Professor Althouse, at the time made the case that the New York Times sought to portray John Roberts as a gay man. The Times will editorialize about gay rights but if necessary even the very gay staff at the Times will gay-bait.
Is there any doubt that Barack Obama would gay-bait to save himself? Anyone with doubts about narcissist Obama trashing those who stand in his way were also likely surprised by the latest Tom Cruise divorce. In the past Barack Obama has gay-bashed in order to save his political skin. In order to save himself now Barack Obama would trash the Chief Justice on being gay whether or not it is true.
We certainly hope that no one is so naive as to think that if the Obama health scam had been struck down by the Supreme Court that Obama’s henchmen would restrict themselves to arcane and barely understood Constitutional arguments about the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause or the Tax Power. Obama’s political history is one we have discussed many times before and it is ugly. The go to sources for Barack Obama’s campaigns are always the trash dumpster of sex, scandal, innuendo, and planted stories.
The trash dumpster, including adoption records, was about to be dumped on Chief Justice Roberts head. Whatever had to be done would be done.
Obama was in a lose/lose situation. The priority for Obama, as usual, was himself. Obama did not want to suffer a personal loss even if he took whatever is left of the Dimocratic Party with him on his “victory”.
Obama did understand that a “victory” in the high court would provide more propulsive power to the opposition. But Obama also knew that despite all the brave talk from his campaign a ruling of “unconstitutional” would have finished off his presidency and ruined him personally as a loser.
This does not mean that Obama would have gone quietly into the darkness if the Supreme Court red-stamped “unconstitutional” on the health scam. The Barack Obama henchmen would have gone nuclear against the Supreme Court.
Why would Obama go nuclear even if he lost everything in a ruling throwing out ObamaCare? Perhaps firebombing Roberts and the court might might might salvage his miniscule reelection chances. Perhaps by nuking the court and Roberts vengeance would be served. The left would join Obama in the destruction of Roberts and the court at least in fear of what Roberts has planned for the next term of the court.
As head of the Judicial Branch of the tripartite government John Roberts had his own calculations to make.
John Roberts could simply have led the court in a 5-4 majority striking down the Obamination root, trunk, and branches. The Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause would both be eviscerated and the tax power ruled not germane. After such a wonderful ruling Roberts would then have to hunker down and prepare for attacks on himself personally and the Supreme Court institutionally.
A 5-4 ruling against ObamaCare could be followed by more 5-4 rulings to complete the Roberts agenda (described in Part I). But that would come at a great price politically. And what would happen if Obama won reelection by a sustained attack on the court in a fear and smear campaign?
Now, some label Roberts a “coward” for not going forward with a succession of mighty blows against the empire of liberal jurisprudence and legislation. Some charge Roberts is dishonest with an even more intellectually dishonest opinion written to twist history and find a way to declare the Obamination constitutional. Roberts is damned for not storming the barricades and leading the charge. Roberts is [falsely] hated for augmenting the Tax Power. And how dare he look at politics when his role is supposed to only be on the law and the law only, charge his critics.
Republicans/conservatives have been particularly incensed that Roberts wrote the majority opinion with the conservatives then at the last minute “switched” sides. Ladies and gentlemen, it’s called “bargaining”. It’s what Supreme Court justices do. Roberts wanted to destroy ObamaCare but he also wanted to preserve the integrity of the court in the public’s eyes. But how to get liberals and conservatives of the court on the same page? How to get sharply divided liberals and conservatives to vote 6-3 or 7-2 on the outcome? Roberts came up with a daring, dare we say “brilliant” plan:
“Five justices saw the Medicaid expansion as either constitutional as written (Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor) or salvageable by making it voluntary on the part of the states (Kagan, Roberts and Breyer).
Lawyers who track the court closely say it’s unclear exactly what the outcome would have been if Kagan had voted with Ginsburg and Sotomayor. It’s possible those three might have been able to drive the result, rendering the Medicaid part of the law entirely constitutional. However, if Roberts (or Breyer) was unwilling to endorse such a result, he could have crossed over and voted with the dissenters to make a five-vote majority to strike down the expansion entirely and maybe even the whole law. [snip]
Fourth, and related to the above, Kagan’s vote may have been a strategic concession to save the whole law and/or the Medicaid expansion, rather than see it all struck down. Very possible, though I doubt she’d admit it at the moment.
Some liberals and conservatives believe Kagan signed onto the Roberts-Breyer Medicaid position to avoid a defection by Roberts (or, less likely, Breyer) that could have struck down the Medicaid expansion entirely. [snip]
“That was kind of a compromise that saved ‘Obamacare,‘” Fitton said of Kagan’s vote on Medicaid. “One easily could have found that you could not craft a legislative remedy from the bench. …They could have thrown out all of Obamacare.”
“That would be quite a horse trade if Kagan and Roberts did that secretly,” said Outterson, when asked what he thought of the theory.”
“Kagan voted for portions of Chief Justice John Roberts’s controlling opinion declaring unconstitutional a major provision in President Barack Obama’s health care law, namely the Medicaid expansion.
While Roberts has been denounced by conservatives as an ideological heretic and turncoat for siding with liberals to uphold the individual mandate in the law, Kagan’s conclusion that the law’s Medicaid expansion was unconstitutionally coercive toward the states has triggered no similar wave of condemnation of her by liberals.
The absence of public outrage toward Kagan is particularly notable since she wasn’t parting company just with her liberal ideological counterparts, but with the president who appointed her to the court and with the administration she served as Solicitor General immediately prior to taking the bench.
“Who knew that the Solicitor General thought the Medicaid expansion was unconstitutional?” said Kevin Outterson, a law professor at Boston University who filed an amicus brief urging the court to preserve the Medicaid provisions as written.
Asked how likely he thought it was prior to Thursday’s ruling that Kagan would wind up taking such a stance, Outterson said: “Never in my wildest nightmares.”
Let’s tote the score so far. On the Commerce Clause Roberts gets his way whether ObamaCare is constitutional or unconstitutional. Ditto on the Necessary and Proper Clause (which was the ultimate “trump” card as far as leftist legal commentators). Medicaid expansion crippled although an unconstitutional ruling would have removed it altogether and immediately. But do not doubt that Medicaid expansion is a central component of ObamaCare and without it the entire scheme falls.
The Supreme Court lawsuit isn’t the end of the legal challenges to the health care law — and the next ones just might help Republicans keep pushing their favorite political hot buttons.
The next wave of lawsuits likely wouldn’t put the whole law at stake, as the challenge to the individual mandate could have. But they’re going after pieces of the law that happen to be red meat for many conservative voters — like the law’s contraception mandate and a new Medicare panel that Republicans call a “rationing board.”
And one possible legal challenge, which would try to block the feds from offering subsidies in a federal health insurance exchange, is meant to exploit a loophole in the law. But it could also be a good “messaging hit” — allowing them to attack the subsidies they see as a budget-busting new entitlement. [snip]
“These legal actions could be used as PR initiatives to show the massive overreach of Obamacare,” he said. “In certain places, it could move independents to a varying degree.”
The suits could get additional attention as they move toward the oral argument stages — if they make it that far. And they’ll help the Republicans keep up the broader narrative they hope to push in November: The law has so many problems that it deserves an all-out assault.
“It presents the picture that this law has a lot of problems with it and has to be adapted and changed,” said Republican strategist John Feehery. “This law isn’t getting any more popular.”
The contraception requirement which pits Obama regulators against the Catholic Church (urging civil disobedience) is a 23 state series of lawsuits already in the courts. These cases do not bode well for ObamaCare if Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s opinion on the individual mandate is any clue:
“Other provisions of the Constitution also check congressional overreaching,” Ginsburg wrote. “A mandate to purchase a particular product would be unconstitutional if, for example, the edict impermissibly abridged the freedom of speech, interfered with the free exercise of religion or infringed on a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.”
The “Exchange subsidies” are also going to be under attack. “Opponents of the law say that the administration can’t open the federal exchanges to tax subsidies through the regulatory process if it wasn’t in the law in the first place.” It’s a complex case[s] but sure to affect businesses until the entire law is repealed.
The Independent Payment Advisory Board is also under legal assault. This is the “rationing” board on Medicare that we have railed against for years. Physician-owned hospitals are in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals challenging ObamaCare. This is the Appeals panel that demanded the attorney general write to them and acknowledge that the courts do indeed rule on the constitutionality of laws after Obama demanded the Court uphold his “duly passed” law. The ban on “physician-owned hospitals participating in Medicare violates the doctors’ equal protection rights” say the plaintiffs. This is another case that is complex but the ramifications on the ObamaCare scheme are deadly.
Chief Justice John Roberts knew the legal fight would continue. But even smarter smarts from Roberts was that by effectively destroying the Medicaid expansion on a 7-2 vote means the states now come into play. A majority of states won’t ObamaCare:
“The Republican governors’ message was clear on a morning Republican National Committee conference call, when Jindal and McDonnell stressed their continued defiance of the Affordable Care Act and said they will resist implementing the state-based health insurance exchanges for which the law calls.
“Here in Louisiana, look, we refused to set up the exchange. We’re not going to start implementing Obamacare,” Jindal said. “We have not applied for the grants, we have not accepted many of these dollars, we are not implementing the exchanges, we don’t think it makes any sense to implement Obamacare in Louisiana.”
The response from GOP governors was similar elsewhere.”
On the afternoon of the Obama HellCare decision we wrote of the Roberts decision: “This Roberts decision reminds us of the brilliant Marbury decision which cemented judicial review.” Our comment came as Slate published an article which did not mention Marbury, as we did, but which saw the brilliance behind the decision and declared that Republicans/conservatives will one day cheer:
“Roberts’ genius was in pushing this health care decision through without attaching it to the coattails of an ugly, narrow partisan victory. Obama wins on policy, this time. And Roberts rewrites Congress’ power to regulate, opening the door for countless future challenges. In the long term, supporters of curtailing the federal government should be glad to have made that trade.”
Subsequently others noticed the Marbury quality of the decision and the hand of a Chief Justice like John Marshall. Writers from the center right/right that we respect saw what we did and were impressed with Chief Justice John Roberts’ ability to have his cake and eat it too.
Many conservatives are feeling betrayed by the chief justice’s vote to uphold Obamacare. But there’s a counterintuitive case to be made that John Roberts’s decision is largely a victory for conservatives. [snip]
It’s worth remembering that there are so many people who will be made worse off by the bill – seniors who lose their Medicare Advantage, employees who get dropped from their employers’ plans, families who will see their premiums increase, businesses that have to endure the employer mandate, the taxpayers who have to foot the bill for the whole thing – that it is far from difficult to forge a broad political coalition to kill off the bill. [snip]
By explicitly and unequivocally limiting the scope of the Commerce Clause as well as the feds’ ability to coerce the states, he has done major damage to the century-long leftist project to do away with constitutionally limited government.
Not only that, Roberts has forced the advocates of big government to grin and bear it! He gave Obama and the liberals a nominal victory while undercutting their long-term agenda, which reminds me of Marbury v. Madison. Yes, Chief Justice John Marshall sided with President Thomas Jefferson on the narrow specifics of that case, but he also dealt the Jeffersonian view of the Court a fatal blow. And more importantly, Marshall’s political craftiness set the stage for further Federalist victories, despite the political power of the Jeffersonians at the ballot box. Without Marbury v. Madison, there would have been no McCullough v. Maryland, no Fletcher v. Peck, no Gibbons v. Ogden.
Roberts has perhaps accomplished something similar here. This country is hopelessly split along ideological lines, and it seems impossible for either side to gain any lasting advantage over the other. But maybe Roberts has managed to do precisely that. By nominally endorsing an overwhelmingly unpopular bill that is in major trouble anyway, he has created the political space needed to strike directly at the heart of liberal legal theory without inflaming the Democrats [snip].
Well, just maybe Chief Justice John Roberts showed the way yesterday. It’s all about taking opportunities as they present themselves, not over-reaching, and playing the long game. Just as Marshall advanced the Federalist agenda by forcing Jefferson to endorse a decision that was inimical to his long-term interests, maybe Roberts just did the same thing to Barack Obama and the liberal Democrats.
And while he did not eliminate Obamacare for us, isn’t it fair of him to ask why we can’t do that for ourselves, in November? He’s given us a huge constitutional victory, why can’t we respond with an equally large electoral victory in five months? It is unreasonable to expect the Court to solve all our problems, isn’t it?
“If Republicans win in November, Obamacare is finished. Surely, our sophist in chief knows that.
But even if President Obama manages to squeak out a victory in four months, the debate over Obamacare will not be over. In fact, I believe that Obamacare in its current form is doomed, regardless of who emerges victorious on November 6.
I have two reasons for this conclusion.
First, the bill is built on far too many questionable assumptions. If any one of them fails to hold, the entire thing could fall apart. [snip]
Second, the bill is nothing like Social Security and Medicare, which seem to be the political template the Democrats believed they followed. The political genius of these programs was that they were designed to benefit everybody. Indeed, this is why FDR stuck with a social insurance model for Social Security, despite the fact that its design was clunky. He understood, correctly, that it would inoculate the program from future political blowback.”
In 1803, the chief justice of the United States had a problem. His hated cousin, Thomas Jefferson, had won the last presidential election. But the outgoing Federalists opted not to go gentle into that good night. The one branch of government they controlled was the judiciary, and they meant to keep it. They had passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, which allowed for several new judicial appointments.
President Adams did a remarkable job filling the appointments and getting them hastily confirmed. The so-called “Midnight Judges” by and large received their commissions. But not all of them did. Incoming President Jefferson then instructed his secretary of state not to deliver the remaining ones.
Unsurprisingly, litigation ensued. One of those who was to receive a commission, William Marbury, filed a petition directly in the Supreme Court under a provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789. He requested a writ ordering the secretary of state to deliver his commission.
But Chief Justice John Marshall was a staunch Federalist. The republic was young, the court’s legitimacy fragile, and the ability of the nation to endure the peaceful transfer of power between parties uncertain. It was also unclear how Marshall’s ordering the newly installed Jeffersonian Republican secretary of state to do something would go over.
So the chief justice did something very clever. He found that Marbury was entitled to his commission, bestowing legitimacy on those Midnight Judges who had received theirs. But he didn’t stop there — to Marbury’s detriment. He then ruled that the Constitution only gave the court so-called “original jurisdiction” over a small number of cases. The provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 bestowing the court with original jurisdiction over writs of the type Marbury sought was therefore unconstitutional.
Jefferson had won, nominally. Madison didn’t have to deliver the commission, Marbury didn’t refile in the lower courts, and he never became a justice of the peace. But history remembers the case as a huge, perhaps decisive, blow against those Jeffersonians who viewed the Constitution as nothing more than a glorified Articles of Confederation.
In depriving the court of original jurisdiction, Marshall had installed the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter of the constitutionality of laws. Jefferson hated the idea of what has become known as judicial review. But having won, he was powerless to act against Marshall. Over the course of his term, Marshall would use that power to increase vastly the powers of the federal government, and to diminish those of the states.”
Many Americans assume that the Supreme Court always ruled on the constitutionality of laws passed by congress. But that is not so. It was not always thus. It was John Marshall who wrote the decision in 1803 that established judicial review. It was John Marshall that placed the Supreme Court in the important position it is today. It was John Marshall in the Marbury decision that made the Supreme Court the court we know today.
Trende is too polite to say it but we will as a public service: Marshall’s decision was a load of crap. In that too, he shares something with the crapola decision written by John Roberts. But that there is a huge degree of intellectual dishonesty and some lack of logic in the final outcome does not diminish the brilliance of neither Marshall nor Roberts. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will always have to swim and live in political waters and it is somewhat churlish to notice when the Chief Justice is all wet.
“But I think if you scratch the surface here, Roberts embarked upon a gambit much like Marshall did 200 years ago. [snip]
But Roberts is only a few years further into his chief justice-ship than Marshall was at the time of the Marbury decision. His tenure is likely to be equally as lengthy, if not more so. I think the forest for him is quite a bit different than the trees that people are focusing on. Consider:
1. The law still has a good chance of not being implemented. [snip]
If Mitt Romney wins the November election, it is highly likely that Republicans will win the Senate as well. Right now, Romney probably has no worse than a 50-50 chance of being elected. I honestly don’t think in the long run this changes things that much. The next jobs report will have a much greater impact on Obama’s re-election bid over the long haul than this decision.
If Republicans win the Senate and presidency, the law is doomed. They will use reconciliation to repeal it, or to gut it. In fact, since the court essentially allowed states to opt out of the Medicaid expansion, there’s a chance that the bill would no longer reduce the deficit if a large state like Texas opted out. This makes the use of reconciliation much easier.”
“Doctrinally, The Federalist Society got everything it wanted.
But judicial conservatives who are not just concerned about the outcome got more than they could have reasonably hoped for. Doctrinally speaking, this case will likely be remembered as a watershed decision for conservatives.
Five justices just signaled to lower courts that, but for the unique taxation power argument, they were prepared to rule that a major act of Congress that plainly touched upon economic activity exceeded Congress’ commerce powers. Right now, liberals are seemingly too busy celebrating their win, and conservatives bemoaning their loss, to realize the significance of this. [snip]
The most important aspect of the ruling, however, comes with respect to the spending clause. Seven justices just agreed to real limits on Congress’ ability to attach strings to legislation. This is significant. Until today, these limits were hypothetical, and it was believed that Congress could, for example, remove all Medicaid funding as a punishment for a state’s refusal to comply with the Medicaid expansion. [snip]
3. The chief justice has built up some political capital.
Barack Obama was forced to go on television and praise the court’s ruling. In so doing, he validated — at least implicitly — one of the most pro-state’s rights decisions in recent times.
Roberts has basically done what John Marshall did…. [snip]
4. This matters in the long run — a lot.
This is not the last battle to be fought on the Roberts Court. It might not even be the most significant. In the next term, for example, the court is being asked to reconsider its affirmative action jurisprudence. There are almost certainly five votes to overturn court rulings from a decade ago upholding some forms of affirmative action.
Following that, the court will face a variety of tough decisions. There are probably five votes to uproot the entire campaign finance system, a decision that would make Citizens United look like small fry. And there are probably five votes to invalidate Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. [snip]
But Roberts has something of an ace up his sleeve now. Accusations of hyper-partisanship are much harder to make against him, and he has more freedom to move on these issues.” [snip]
In so doing, he actually made significant progress for judicial conservatives while ruling against conservative policy. And he might still see that policy repealed if Republicans win in the fall.”
In a few years, possibly a very few months or weeks Chief Justice John Roberts will be seen to have written a very brilliant decision. No trash dumpster can hurt him now. He can fulfill the items on his agenda for the next several decades. Meanwhile, he has given Republicans/conservatives a mighty arsenal with which to fight the battle.
Part III soon: The Return Of “Tax And Spend Liberal”.