Monday, November 1, 2010
California Democrats endorse dead state senator for reelection, accuse Republicans of trying to take advantage of situation
A week after the death of state Sen. Jenny Oropeza (D-Long Beach), Democrats have sent mailers to residents urging them to vote to reelect her. That would trigger a special election and give the party a chance to put up a new candidate.
The mailers featuring Secretary of State Debra Bowen and Democratic Party general counsel Martha Escutia do not say explicitly that Oropeza has died or that a vote for her will allow another Democrat to be considered.
"Senator Jenny Oropeza’s illness has been a tragedy," Escutia wrote in one. "Her strength through her struggle inspired us all."
"The Republicans are trying to take unfair advantage of Jenny’s tragedy," the mailer adds. "They suggest that voting for Jenny will only result in a costly Special Election. I am asking you to vote for Jenny Oropeza. If a Special Election is called in a few months, you’ll have the chance to thoughtfully elect your Senator for a new four-year term."
Bowen’s mailer, paid for by the California Democratic Party, is much the same, but adds, "You have a right to vote for her."
Oropeza died after a long illness Oct. 20, which was past the deadline to replace her on the ballot for the 28th Senate District. The predominantly Democratic district includes parts of Los Angeles, Long Beach and the South Bay.
The mailers featuring Secretary of State Debra Bowen and Democratic Party general counsel Martha Escutia do not say explicitly that Oropeza has died or that a vote for her will allow another Democrat to be considered.
"Senator Jenny Oropeza’s illness has been a tragedy," Escutia wrote in one. "Her strength through her struggle inspired us all."
"The Republicans are trying to take unfair advantage of Jenny’s tragedy," the mailer adds. "They suggest that voting for Jenny will only result in a costly Special Election. I am asking you to vote for Jenny Oropeza. If a Special Election is called in a few months, you’ll have the chance to thoughtfully elect your Senator for a new four-year term."
Bowen’s mailer, paid for by the California Democratic Party, is much the same, but adds, "You have a right to vote for her."
Oropeza died after a long illness Oct. 20, which was past the deadline to replace her on the ballot for the 28th Senate District. The predominantly Democratic district includes parts of Los Angeles, Long Beach and the South Bay.
Gallup sees Republican gain of at least 60 sets in U.S. House
The final Gallup Poll before President Obama's first midterm elections Tuesday indicates Republicans are poised to reap historic gains in the House of Representatives, possibly electing twice as many new members as they need to seize control of the chamber where financial legislation originates.
Gallup's latest findings this morning predict Republicans will easily gain the necessary 39 seats to seize control of the House regardless of voter turnout. They predict a minimum GOP gain of 60 seats "with gains well beyond that possible." That kind of rout would be the worst shellacking of a president's party in a half-century.
For comparison, the so-called Republican Revolution of 1994 saw the party gain 54 House seats in Bill Clinton's first midterm, previously the largest loss by a president's party in 50 years.
The final poll of 1,539 likely voters finds 52-55% preferring the GOP generic congressional candidate while only 40-42% prefer the Democrat. The range is due to turnout variables.
Gallup notes that the unprecedented 15-point gap in favor of Republican candidates on its latest generic congressional ballot tally "could result in the largest Republican margin in House voting in several generations." The surge is so large, Gallup says, "that seat projections have moved into uncharted territory."
Before 1994, the largest party switches occurred with 55 seats in 1942 and 71 seats in 1938, long before state legislatures began redrawing congressional districts each decade to ensure incumbents' safe reelection, reducing such large swings.
Historically, the largest membership swing ever was in 1894, another time of economic uncertainty during another Democratic administration (Grover Cleveland).
That year Republicans went from 124 House seats to 254, a jump of 130 members in a total chamber membership then of 357. Only two presidents have gained House seats in their first midterms -- George W. Bush in 2002 and Franklin Roosevelt in 1934.
If such a GOP wave materializes Tuesday, it will be a humiliating defeat for the former state senator from Illinois and his Delaware vice president, Joe Biden, who has guaranteed Democratic congressional victories even more often than he guaranteed a broad economic recovery last summer.
Gallup's latest findings this morning predict Republicans will easily gain the necessary 39 seats to seize control of the House regardless of voter turnout. They predict a minimum GOP gain of 60 seats "with gains well beyond that possible." That kind of rout would be the worst shellacking of a president's party in a half-century.
For comparison, the so-called Republican Revolution of 1994 saw the party gain 54 House seats in Bill Clinton's first midterm, previously the largest loss by a president's party in 50 years.
The final poll of 1,539 likely voters finds 52-55% preferring the GOP generic congressional candidate while only 40-42% prefer the Democrat. The range is due to turnout variables.
Gallup notes that the unprecedented 15-point gap in favor of Republican candidates on its latest generic congressional ballot tally "could result in the largest Republican margin in House voting in several generations." The surge is so large, Gallup says, "that seat projections have moved into uncharted territory."
Before 1994, the largest party switches occurred with 55 seats in 1942 and 71 seats in 1938, long before state legislatures began redrawing congressional districts each decade to ensure incumbents' safe reelection, reducing such large swings.
Historically, the largest membership swing ever was in 1894, another time of economic uncertainty during another Democratic administration (Grover Cleveland).
That year Republicans went from 124 House seats to 254, a jump of 130 members in a total chamber membership then of 357. Only two presidents have gained House seats in their first midterms -- George W. Bush in 2002 and Franklin Roosevelt in 1934.
If such a GOP wave materializes Tuesday, it will be a humiliating defeat for the former state senator from Illinois and his Delaware vice president, Joe Biden, who has guaranteed Democratic congressional victories even more often than he guaranteed a broad economic recovery last summer.
As in 2006 and 2008, voters are ousting the party in power
In the first week of January 2010, Rasmussen Reports showed Republicans with a nine-point lead on the generic congressional ballot. Scott Brown delivered a stunning upset in the Massachusetts special U.S. Senate election a couple of weeks later.
In the last week of October 2010, Rasmussen Reports again showed Republicans with a nine-point lead on the generic ballot. And tomorrow Republicans will send more Republicans to Congress than at any time in the past 80 years.
This isn't a wave, it's a tidal shift—and we've seen it coming for a long time. Remarkably, there have been plenty of warning signs over the past two years, but Democratic leaders ignored them. At least the captain of the Titanic tried to miss the iceberg. Congressional Democrats aimed right for it.
While most voters now believe that cutting government spending is good for the economy, congressional Democrats have convinced them that they want to increase government spending. After the president proposed a $50 billion infrastructure plan in September, for example, Rasmussen Reports polling found that 61% of voters believed cutting spending would create more jobs than the president's plan.
Central to the Democrats' electoral woes was the debate on health-care reform. From the moment in May 2009 when the Congressional Budget Office announced that the president's plan would cost a trillion dollars, most voters opposed it. Today 53% want to repeal it. Opposition was always more intense than support, and opposition was especially high among senior citizens, who vote in high numbers in midterm elections.
Rather than acknowledging the public concern by passing a smaller and more popular plan, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and President Obama insisted on passing the proposed legislation by any means possible.
As a result, Democrats face massive losses in tomorrow's midterm election. Based upon our generic ballot polling and an analysis of individual races, we project that Nancy Pelosi's party will likely lose 55 or more seats in the House, putting the GOP firmly in the majority. Republicans will also win at least 25 of the 37 Senate elections. While the most likely outcome is that Republicans end up with 48 or 49 Senate seats, Democrats will need to win close races in West Virginia, Washington and California to protect their majority.
There will also be a lot more Republican governors in office come January. It looks like six heartland states stretching from Pennsylvania to Iowa will trade a Democratic governor for a Republican one. A common theme in all the races is that white, working-class Democrats who tended to vote for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama in 2008 are prepared to vote for Republicans.
But none of this means that Republicans are winning. The reality is that voters in 2010 are doing the same thing they did in 2006 and 2008: They are voting against the party in power.
In the last week of October 2010, Rasmussen Reports again showed Republicans with a nine-point lead on the generic ballot. And tomorrow Republicans will send more Republicans to Congress than at any time in the past 80 years.
This isn't a wave, it's a tidal shift—and we've seen it coming for a long time. Remarkably, there have been plenty of warning signs over the past two years, but Democratic leaders ignored them. At least the captain of the Titanic tried to miss the iceberg. Congressional Democrats aimed right for it.
While most voters now believe that cutting government spending is good for the economy, congressional Democrats have convinced them that they want to increase government spending. After the president proposed a $50 billion infrastructure plan in September, for example, Rasmussen Reports polling found that 61% of voters believed cutting spending would create more jobs than the president's plan.
Central to the Democrats' electoral woes was the debate on health-care reform. From the moment in May 2009 when the Congressional Budget Office announced that the president's plan would cost a trillion dollars, most voters opposed it. Today 53% want to repeal it. Opposition was always more intense than support, and opposition was especially high among senior citizens, who vote in high numbers in midterm elections.
Rather than acknowledging the public concern by passing a smaller and more popular plan, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and President Obama insisted on passing the proposed legislation by any means possible.
As a result, Democrats face massive losses in tomorrow's midterm election. Based upon our generic ballot polling and an analysis of individual races, we project that Nancy Pelosi's party will likely lose 55 or more seats in the House, putting the GOP firmly in the majority. Republicans will also win at least 25 of the 37 Senate elections. While the most likely outcome is that Republicans end up with 48 or 49 Senate seats, Democrats will need to win close races in West Virginia, Washington and California to protect their majority.
There will also be a lot more Republican governors in office come January. It looks like six heartland states stretching from Pennsylvania to Iowa will trade a Democratic governor for a Republican one. A common theme in all the races is that white, working-class Democrats who tended to vote for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama in 2008 are prepared to vote for Republicans.
But none of this means that Republicans are winning. The reality is that voters in 2010 are doing the same thing they did in 2006 and 2008: They are voting against the party in power.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
George Will on election factoids to whet any palate
During the Tuesday evening deluge, pay particular attention to these stories:
-South Carolina Rep. John Spratt, second-ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, is seeking a 15th term. Missouri Rep. Ike Skelton, chairman of Armed Services, is seeking an 18th term. Texas Rep. Chet Edwards, 13th-ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, is seeking an 11th term. Minnesota Rep. James Oberstar, chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, is seeking a 19th term. In 2008, they won by 25, 32, 7 and 36 percentage points, respectively. In 2010, all are vulnerable, so voters in four districts could subtract 118 years of seniority.
-For 55 years, Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), 84, has occupied the seat his father held for 22 years before him. The son received 71 percent in 2008. His district includes Ann Arbor, which requires conservatives to leave town at sundown. (Just kidding. Sort of.) He beat his 2008 Republican opponent by 46 points. Dingell probably will win while setting the 2010 record for the largest shrinkage of a 2008 majority.
-Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.), who got 75 percent in 2008, voted against Obamacare and is the only Democrat who has signed the discharge petition that would allow the House to vote on repealing the law. He lost his house to Hurricane Katrina and may lose his quest for a 12th term.
-Rep. John Salazar (D-Colo.), whose younger brother was a Colorado senator before becoming interior secretary, won in 2008 by 22 points. In Congress, Salazar has opposed cap-and-trade and TARP and supports a one-year extension of all the Bush tax cuts. The National Rifle Association has endorsed him. Nevertheless, he may lose.
-At age 10, in 1975, Van Tran escaped from South Vietnam the week before Saigon fell. Now he is running against Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.), who seems to think immigration has gone too far: "The Vietnamese and the Republicans are, with an intensity, trying to take away this seat." Polling is difficult in this district, where many speak scant English, but the fact that Sanchez, who received 70 percent in 2008, has played the ethnicity card suggests a highly competitive contest.
-Marco Rubio will be the next senator from Florida. Susana Martinez probably will be New Mexico's next governor. If so, the two freshest Hispanic faces in national politics will be potential Republican vice presidential nominees.
-South Carolina Rep. John Spratt, second-ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, is seeking a 15th term. Missouri Rep. Ike Skelton, chairman of Armed Services, is seeking an 18th term. Texas Rep. Chet Edwards, 13th-ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, is seeking an 11th term. Minnesota Rep. James Oberstar, chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, is seeking a 19th term. In 2008, they won by 25, 32, 7 and 36 percentage points, respectively. In 2010, all are vulnerable, so voters in four districts could subtract 118 years of seniority.
-For 55 years, Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), 84, has occupied the seat his father held for 22 years before him. The son received 71 percent in 2008. His district includes Ann Arbor, which requires conservatives to leave town at sundown. (Just kidding. Sort of.) He beat his 2008 Republican opponent by 46 points. Dingell probably will win while setting the 2010 record for the largest shrinkage of a 2008 majority.
-Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.), who got 75 percent in 2008, voted against Obamacare and is the only Democrat who has signed the discharge petition that would allow the House to vote on repealing the law. He lost his house to Hurricane Katrina and may lose his quest for a 12th term.
-Rep. John Salazar (D-Colo.), whose younger brother was a Colorado senator before becoming interior secretary, won in 2008 by 22 points. In Congress, Salazar has opposed cap-and-trade and TARP and supports a one-year extension of all the Bush tax cuts. The National Rifle Association has endorsed him. Nevertheless, he may lose.
-At age 10, in 1975, Van Tran escaped from South Vietnam the week before Saigon fell. Now he is running against Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.), who seems to think immigration has gone too far: "The Vietnamese and the Republicans are, with an intensity, trying to take away this seat." Polling is difficult in this district, where many speak scant English, but the fact that Sanchez, who received 70 percent in 2008, has played the ethnicity card suggests a highly competitive contest.
-Marco Rubio will be the next senator from Florida. Susana Martinez probably will be New Mexico's next governor. If so, the two freshest Hispanic faces in national politics will be potential Republican vice presidential nominees.
How Ron Johnson beat Feingold: "This is not my life's ambition"
While much of the political world has been obsessing over the troubles of Delaware Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell, or the sparring over Rand Paul and "Aqua-Buddha" in Kentucky, or the controversies surrounding Sharron Angle in Nevada, another Republican newcomer has been running a quiet, direct, and devastatingly effective campaign. Here in Wisconsin, Ron Johnson, a businessman who has never before run for public office, appears poised to pick up a Senate seat for Republicans, defeating Democratic legend Russell Feingold and becoming the first GOP senator elected from the state since 1986.
(snip)
"This is not my life's ambition, not by a long shot," he tells the Chamber. "But the fact is, I'm 55 years old. I grew up in America that valued hard work, that celebrated success. Remember that? We weren't demonizing doctors. We were putting them up on a pedestal. We were telling our kids, 'Look at that person, emulate them.' Work hard, this is the land of opportunity, you can be anything you want to be. And unfortunately in my lifetime, what I have witnessed has been a very slow but sure drift, and I would argue in the last 18 months just a lurch, toward a culture of entitlement and dependency. It's not an America I recognize. It's not an America that works."
"America is exceptional, and that's being squandered," Johnson concludes. "So if there's one little phrase that tells you why I chose this path, I decided to run for the U.S. Senate because I think we're losing America. I don't think that's overdramatic. I don't think I'm overstating the case. And I'm just a guy from Oshkosh, a husband and a father. We're a group of people who refuse, absolutely refuse, to let America go without a knock-down, drag-out fight."
(snip)
"This is not my life's ambition, not by a long shot," he tells the Chamber. "But the fact is, I'm 55 years old. I grew up in America that valued hard work, that celebrated success. Remember that? We weren't demonizing doctors. We were putting them up on a pedestal. We were telling our kids, 'Look at that person, emulate them.' Work hard, this is the land of opportunity, you can be anything you want to be. And unfortunately in my lifetime, what I have witnessed has been a very slow but sure drift, and I would argue in the last 18 months just a lurch, toward a culture of entitlement and dependency. It's not an America I recognize. It's not an America that works."
"America is exceptional, and that's being squandered," Johnson concludes. "So if there's one little phrase that tells you why I chose this path, I decided to run for the U.S. Senate because I think we're losing America. I don't think that's overdramatic. I don't think I'm overstating the case. And I'm just a guy from Oshkosh, a husband and a father. We're a group of people who refuse, absolutely refuse, to let America go without a knock-down, drag-out fight."
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Diana West on the U.S. in Afghanistan: What price suckerhood?
Last Sunday, the New York Times described a crude scene that smacked of not exactly petty graft. There was Afghanistan’s presidential plane on the Tehran airport tarmac, waiting for one last passenger before wheels up to Kabul. The missing passenger was Iran’s ambassador to Afghanistan. The ambassador, Feda Hussein Maliki, climbed aboard and took his tardy seat next to Umar Daudzai, Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai’s chief of staff and closest adviser. Maliki then presented Daudzai with a plastic bag bulging with about $1 million in packets of euros.
From Iran with love.
This, the Times reported, was “part of a secret, steady stream of Iranian cash intended to buy the loyalty of Mr. Daudzai and promote Iran’s interest in the presidential palace” in Kabul.
Bad enough, but it gets worse.
On Tuesday, the New York Times revealed that it wasn’t just the infamously anti-American Afghan chief of staff trucking home with mullah moolah as originally reported. Karzai himself was in on this fix. Answering a question at a press conference on Monday about whether his chief of staff had indeed received Iranian cash, Karzai replied, matter-of-fact, the practice was government-wide, “transparent” even: “They do give us bags of money — yes, yes, it is done. We are grateful to the Iranians for this.”
Welcome to transparency, Afghanistan-style: payola in plain sight. And why not? In that wonderful bazaar that is Afghanistan, as Karzai put it, “Patriotism has a price.”
But what price suckerhood? I regret to say this is the only spoil left in Afghanistan for the United States. Iran, a global sponsor of jihadist terror long before al-Qaida attacked the United States on 9/11, has simultaneously spent most of the past decade buying, cajoling, pressing, weaseling and forcing its influence into the highest circles of our so-called Iraqi and Afghan “allies” even as it fights American troops on those very same Iraqi and Afghan battlefields. This most recent spate of news stories about our Afghan “ally” is just the bag of cash that broke the sucker’s back — or should have. The question is, how do we ask the American military to fight and possibly die for the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan when that same Islamic Republic of Afghanistan’s government is unabashedly in Iran’s pocket even as Iran is simultaneously training Taliban fighters to bring it down? Also this week, the Washington Examiner reported Iran is training Taliban fighters on the use of surface-to-air missiles. Aside from NATO forces fighting alongside the United States in Afghanistan, is there an ally left in Afghanistan?
From Iran with love.
This, the Times reported, was “part of a secret, steady stream of Iranian cash intended to buy the loyalty of Mr. Daudzai and promote Iran’s interest in the presidential palace” in Kabul.
Bad enough, but it gets worse.
On Tuesday, the New York Times revealed that it wasn’t just the infamously anti-American Afghan chief of staff trucking home with mullah moolah as originally reported. Karzai himself was in on this fix. Answering a question at a press conference on Monday about whether his chief of staff had indeed received Iranian cash, Karzai replied, matter-of-fact, the practice was government-wide, “transparent” even: “They do give us bags of money — yes, yes, it is done. We are grateful to the Iranians for this.”
Welcome to transparency, Afghanistan-style: payola in plain sight. And why not? In that wonderful bazaar that is Afghanistan, as Karzai put it, “Patriotism has a price.”
But what price suckerhood? I regret to say this is the only spoil left in Afghanistan for the United States. Iran, a global sponsor of jihadist terror long before al-Qaida attacked the United States on 9/11, has simultaneously spent most of the past decade buying, cajoling, pressing, weaseling and forcing its influence into the highest circles of our so-called Iraqi and Afghan “allies” even as it fights American troops on those very same Iraqi and Afghan battlefields. This most recent spate of news stories about our Afghan “ally” is just the bag of cash that broke the sucker’s back — or should have. The question is, how do we ask the American military to fight and possibly die for the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan when that same Islamic Republic of Afghanistan’s government is unabashedly in Iran’s pocket even as Iran is simultaneously training Taliban fighters to bring it down? Also this week, the Washington Examiner reported Iran is training Taliban fighters on the use of surface-to-air missiles. Aside from NATO forces fighting alongside the United States in Afghanistan, is there an ally left in Afghanistan?
Kudlow: 2% growth is "the final nail" in the Democrats' coffin
On the eve of the midterm elections, a third-quarter GDP report showing a meager 2 percent growth rate is the final nail in the Obama Democrats' political coffin.
The economic nails slowly have been hammered into that coffin all summer and fall. A spate of subpar economic statistics has shown the failure of the fiscal-stimulus spending program. And myriad tax and regulatory threats produced by new government policies have created a massive uncertainty overhang and a dismal jobs outlook. American businesses have gone on an investment-capital and hiring strike.
For a White House that bet the ranch on a massive government pump-priming plan, it has all turned out to be a complete failure. The scheduled economic recovery has simply not occurred.
And that's why a Republican Tea Party tsunami lies just over the horizon. That tidal wave could be even greater than current polling suggests.
It should have been recovery summer, according to the president and his followers. But it is now officially a recovery slump. The entire command-and-control economic philosophy of the Obama Democrats has proven to be a big bust. And they'll pay a very big price for this.
In fact, the last two GDP reports have averaged less than 2 percent growth, something that qualifies as a growth recession, not a recovery.
The economic nails slowly have been hammered into that coffin all summer and fall. A spate of subpar economic statistics has shown the failure of the fiscal-stimulus spending program. And myriad tax and regulatory threats produced by new government policies have created a massive uncertainty overhang and a dismal jobs outlook. American businesses have gone on an investment-capital and hiring strike.
For a White House that bet the ranch on a massive government pump-priming plan, it has all turned out to be a complete failure. The scheduled economic recovery has simply not occurred.
And that's why a Republican Tea Party tsunami lies just over the horizon. That tidal wave could be even greater than current polling suggests.
It should have been recovery summer, according to the president and his followers. But it is now officially a recovery slump. The entire command-and-control economic philosophy of the Obama Democrats has proven to be a big bust. And they'll pay a very big price for this.
In fact, the last two GDP reports have averaged less than 2 percent growth, something that qualifies as a growth recession, not a recovery.
Cllinton and Bush acknowledged their electoral defeats before fleeing to refuges in Asia; will Obama do the same?
Barack Obama is fleeing the United States after the Republican landslide. But hold the excitement conservatives. It's only temporary.
Winners might go to Disneyland. But defeated presidents seemingly favor Asia.
Bill Clinton fled to Asia not long after Democrats suffered their historic blowout in 1994. George W. Bush was Asia bound following his famous declaration of the GOP's "thumpin'" in the 2006 midterm election. Now Obama shall do the same. And in record time.
A mere three days after Tuesday's election, President Obama leaves for a 10-day sojourn abroad. Obama's taking more time away than Clinton or Bush. But Obama will likely have more to recover from. Tuesday's election could be the largest landslide since FDR's day.
White Houses dependably claim these trips are coincidence. It's pro forma spin. Administrations cite this occasion or that summit. But more is always at play.
In March, amid the brutal healthcare fight, Obama postponed his Asia trip until June. Obama postponed it yet again in June. It was the BP oil spill then. The president cannot be abroad when his signature legislation is on the line. Nor when there is a crisis at home. It's poor political theatre. But the long-foreseen wave comes next week. The president's party is to be swept. No president wishes to prolong that narrative.
But will Obama first recognize the event? Both Bush and Clinton stood before reporters the day after. They took the hard questions.
Winners might go to Disneyland. But defeated presidents seemingly favor Asia.
Bill Clinton fled to Asia not long after Democrats suffered their historic blowout in 1994. George W. Bush was Asia bound following his famous declaration of the GOP's "thumpin'" in the 2006 midterm election. Now Obama shall do the same. And in record time.
A mere three days after Tuesday's election, President Obama leaves for a 10-day sojourn abroad. Obama's taking more time away than Clinton or Bush. But Obama will likely have more to recover from. Tuesday's election could be the largest landslide since FDR's day.
White Houses dependably claim these trips are coincidence. It's pro forma spin. Administrations cite this occasion or that summit. But more is always at play.
In March, amid the brutal healthcare fight, Obama postponed his Asia trip until June. Obama postponed it yet again in June. It was the BP oil spill then. The president cannot be abroad when his signature legislation is on the line. Nor when there is a crisis at home. It's poor political theatre. But the long-foreseen wave comes next week. The president's party is to be swept. No president wishes to prolong that narrative.
But will Obama first recognize the event? Both Bush and Clinton stood before reporters the day after. They took the hard questions.
Obama inspires a Nixon comparison, crossing another marker on his slide from The One to The One We Want Out of Office
In a Univision interview on Monday, the president, who campaigned in 2008 by referring not to a "Red America" or a "Blue America" but a United States of America, urged Hispanic listeners to vote in this spirit: "We're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us."
Recently, Obama suggested that if Republicans gain control of the House and/or Senate as forecast, he expects not reconciliation and unity but "hand-to-hand combat" on Capitol Hill.
What a change two years can bring.
We can think of only one other recent president who would display such indifference to the majesty of his office: Richard Nixon.
We write in sadness as traditional liberal Democrats who believe in inclusion. Like many Americans, we had hoped that Obama would maintain the spirit in which he campaigned. Instead, since taking office, he has pitted group against group for short-term political gain that is exacerbating the divisions in our country and weakening our national identity.The culture of attack politics and demonization risks compromising our ability to address our most important issues - and the stature of our nation's highest office.
Indeed, Obama is conducting himself in a way alarmingly reminiscent of Nixon's role in the disastrous 1970 midterm campaign. No president has been so persistently personal in his attacks as Obama throughout the fall. He has regularly attacked his predecessor, the House minority leader and - directly from the stump - candidates running for offices below his own. He has criticized the American people suggesting that they are "reacting just to fear" and faulted his own base for "sitting on their hands complaining."
Obama is walking a knife's edge. He has said that the 3.5 million "shovel-ready jobs" he had referred to as justification for the passage of the stimulus bill didn't exist - throwing all the Democratic incumbents who had defended the stimulus in their campaigns under the proverbial bus.
Recently, Obama suggested that if Republicans gain control of the House and/or Senate as forecast, he expects not reconciliation and unity but "hand-to-hand combat" on Capitol Hill.
What a change two years can bring.
We can think of only one other recent president who would display such indifference to the majesty of his office: Richard Nixon.
We write in sadness as traditional liberal Democrats who believe in inclusion. Like many Americans, we had hoped that Obama would maintain the spirit in which he campaigned. Instead, since taking office, he has pitted group against group for short-term political gain that is exacerbating the divisions in our country and weakening our national identity.The culture of attack politics and demonization risks compromising our ability to address our most important issues - and the stature of our nation's highest office.
Indeed, Obama is conducting himself in a way alarmingly reminiscent of Nixon's role in the disastrous 1970 midterm campaign. No president has been so persistently personal in his attacks as Obama throughout the fall. He has regularly attacked his predecessor, the House minority leader and - directly from the stump - candidates running for offices below his own. He has criticized the American people suggesting that they are "reacting just to fear" and faulted his own base for "sitting on their hands complaining."
Obama is walking a knife's edge. He has said that the 3.5 million "shovel-ready jobs" he had referred to as justification for the passage of the stimulus bill didn't exist - throwing all the Democratic incumbents who had defended the stimulus in their campaigns under the proverbial bus.
Obama adds another specialty to his repertoire - fight promoter
In a radio interview that aired Monday on Univision, President Obama chided Latinos who "sit out the election instead of saying, 'We're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.' " Quite a uniter, urging Hispanics to go to the polls to exact political revenge on their enemies - presumably, for example, the near-60 percent of Americans who support the new Arizona immigration law.
This from a president who won't even use "enemies" to describe an Iranian regime that is helping kill U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. This from a man who rose to prominence thunderously declaring that we were not blue states or red states, not black America or white America or Latino America - but the United States of America.
This is how the great post-partisan, post-racial, New Politics presidency ends - not with a bang, not with a whimper, but with a desperate election-eve plea for ethnic retribution.
This from a president who won't even use "enemies" to describe an Iranian regime that is helping kill U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. This from a man who rose to prominence thunderously declaring that we were not blue states or red states, not black America or white America or Latino America - but the United States of America.
This is how the great post-partisan, post-racial, New Politics presidency ends - not with a bang, not with a whimper, but with a desperate election-eve plea for ethnic retribution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
