First Lady Michelle Obama leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Last week, the First Lady appeared on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno to cajole Leno to eat his veggies . For his trouble, Leno had to eat a slice of veggie pizza with zucchini and eggplant (yuck), baked sweet potato fries (well, at least he could dip them into ketchup), and an apple with honey from the White House garden. Leno could have stepped into a hornet’s nest, but he was a good sport about it and ate his veggies like a scolded child. I suppose that under those circumstances, it is usually better to respond with honey than vinegar. But sometimes beets can be effective. The First Lady admitted she had an aversion to beets, and Leno later surprised her with a plate of the red variety of beta vulgaris. Mrs. Obama enjoyed eating her veggie about as much as Leno did his. Well, if you don’t want to join them, you can occasionally beet them. Earlier in the interview, when the First Lady said that her mother and daughters had baked a red velvet cake for her birthday, Leno asked, “What is the calorie count?” To which Mrs. Obama replied rather defensively, “It’s fine.” Well, at 513 calories per serving , I’m sure it’s quite fine. Whatever the caloric content, the red velvet cake was apparently special ordered rather than homemade. The First Lady’s enjoyment of red velvet cake notwithstanding, much of the conversation focused on Leno’s non-consumption of vegetables. She asked him, “How do you get your fiber?” and then turned to the audience and asked, “Don’t you wonder?” Well, no, actually. Until Mrs. Obama asked, I had given nary a moment’s thought to how Jay Leno obtains his fiber — much less the amount of it he does or doesn’t consume. Frankly, Leno should have told the First Lady it was none of her damn business. I’m sure most people would welcome such questions about their diets from the First Lady about as much as the First Lady would welcome a question about how much her trip to Costa del Sol a couple of summers ago cost the taxpayers. So let Mrs. Obama have her red velvet cake, if she leaves us to our burgers, pomme frites, and Coca-Cola (or Pepsi). It was the late Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau who said , “there’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation.” So if the state can stay out of Canadian bedrooms, why should there be any place for it in American kitchens? While I understand the need to encourage physical activity among young people, the First Lady’s “Let’s Move” campaign leaves a great deal to be desired, particularly where it concerns “the epidemic of childhood obesity.” According to letsmove.gov , “Over the past three decades, childhood obesity rates in America have tripled, and today, nearly one in three children in America are [sic]
If President Obama mentions Obamacare in the State of the Union address tonight he will probably repeat what the White House stated in advance of his speech: We’ve worked diligently to implement the Affordable Care Act and we’re making incredible progress. Thanks to the new law, 2.5 million more young adults have health insurance, millions of seniors have cheaper prescription drugs and we’ve ended the worst insurance company abuses….We always welcome good ideas from anyone about how to make health care better and more affordable. Before looking at what the President will leave out, let’s look at what he might claim. There are not 2.5 more young adults (age 19-25) covered because of Obamacare. The administration gets this number by adding up everyone interviewed from January-June 2011 who said they did not have health insurance at the time of the interview, for part of the year and for over a year. But such numbers are a snapshot rather than the full picture of unemployment. The Employee Benefits Research Institute has also analyzed the Obama claim: Closer examination of the Census data shows that the percentage of persons ages 19‒25 with employment based coverage as a dependent increased from 24.7 percent in 2009 to 27.7 percent in 2010. The number of persons ages 19‒25 with employment-based coverage as a dependent increased from 7.3 million to 8.2 million. It should be noted, however, that the increase in employment-based coverage as a dependent could be the result of individuals losing coverage through work and thus moving from employment-based coverage in their own name to employment-based coverage as a dependent, which was observed for persons ages 19‒25. 4 The percentage of individuals ages 19‒25 with coverage through their own job fell from 20 percent in 2009 to 17.5 percent in 2010. However, such a notable effect was not observed for adults ages 26‒64. The percentage of adults 26‒64 with employment-based health coverage in their own name fell from 46.6 percent in 2009 to 45.9 percent in 2010, while the percentage with coverage as a dependent slipped from 17.4 percent to 17.2 percent. Which means that people were simply shifting how they get their coverage as opposed to new people getting new coverage. Indeed, the Census report also shows 393,000 more people ages 19-25 getting coverage. But part of that is growth in Medicaid coverage and military enlistment. Are seniors getting cheaper drugs? Yes they are, courtesy of the taxpayers. More on that and other Obamacare victories in a post this afternoon.
Follow this link:
SOTU and Obamacare
The final PPP poll of South Carolina — possibly the last poll of the Palmetto State that we’ll see, and as of this morning the only telephone poll that includes interviews from yesterday, with voters who had seen the news about Rick Perry withdrawing and endorsing Newt Gingrich, the comments from Gingrich’s ex-wife Marianne, and the Thursday night debate — shows everything coming up Newt : Newt Gingrich heads into South Carolina election day as the clear front runner in the state: he’s now polling at 37% to 28% for Mitt Romney, 16% for Rick Santorum, and 14% for Ron Paul. Gingrich’s lead has actually increased in the wake of his ex-wife’s controversial interview with ABC. Although one night poll results should always be interpreted with caution, he led the final night of the field period by a 40-26 margin. One thing that continues to work to his advantage are the debates. 60% of primary voters report having watched the one last night, and Gingrich has a 46-23 lead with those folks. The other reason his ex-wife’s interview isn’t causing him much trouble is that there’s a lot of skepticism about it. Only 31% of voters say they think her accusations are true while 35% think they are false and 34% are unsure. 51% of voters say that they have ‘no concerns’ about what came out in the interview. But PPP’s Tom Jensen adds: Usually when we poll in the closing days before an election and find someone ahead by 9 points we’ll say with a pretty high degree of confidence that person’s going to win. I’m not comfortable saying that about South Carolina. A primary election with a lot of new news in the closing days for voters to absorb is fertile ground for a final result that’s at odd with the polls… Gingrich will probably win tomorrow- but there’s a higher than normal chance for a surprise given everything that’s gone down in the last 48 hours. A surprising break in Romney’s favor seems unlikely at this point; the only Romney victory scenario that makes sense is a late bounce for Santorum that draws disproportionately from Gingrich, and there’s no data to suggest that this is happening. But it’s worth noting that expectations are such that it would be devastating to Newt’s candidacy if he somehow doesn’t win. Romney, who has plenty of money and a big head start in Florida, will live to fight another day (and, indeed, will remain the favorite to win the nomination) no matter what happens today; the same can’t be said for Gingrich.
Go here to read the rest:
Newt’s Great Expectations
It changed so suddenly. Huntsman out Monday. Today, Rick Perry is out. Huntsman, barely a factor in South Carolina, threw his support to Mitt Romney. Rick Perry, more of a factor, threw his support to Gingrich. The Monday debate in South Carolina is a critical detail. Polling before it showed a Romney lead. Polling after it showed a Gingrich surge. Then Sarah Palin endorsed Newt Gingrich. Then news broke that Rick Santorum, not Mitt Romney, really won Iowa. Then Rick Perry dropped out and endorsed Newt Gingrich. Tonight, at 8pm ET, there is a CNN debate. Then Saturday, the voters vote. And behind scenes there is a quiet operation — an operation designed to get Ron Paul the nomination in a fractured field. All the week’s events play right into Dr. Paul’s plan that few even see coming. We’ll get into it all in the Horserace. Newt Gingrich Gingrich heads into Saturday riding a huge wave of momentum. The Second Mrs. Gingrich could potentially spoil it with her interview on the warpath, but the Gingrich daughters responded quickly and could lessen the blow. In fact, while her side of the story is seedy and hostile, it is an open question if Americans will have any sympathy for a woman who herself destroyed Gingrich’s first marriage. She’s no puritan here and Gingrich’s children seem willing to fully defend him. Gingrich also has Sarah Palin and Rick Perry. So tonight all eyes will be on him as he comes under a withering attack from Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul. He is tonight’s real frontrunner in South Carolina. Ron Paul A prominent friend told me some weeks ago that he noticed an odd thing. In his state, several people who have been successful in getting themselves known as very probably Mitt Romney delegates for the Republican National Convention are also his supporters. And they are not just my friends’ supporters, they are also long time staunch Ron Paul supporters. Why then would they, long time staunch Ron Paul supporters, align this year with Mitt Romney? He made calls and talked to friends in other states. All of them saw the same thing happening — long time Dr. Paul supporters working to become delegates to the convention pledging to support Mitt Romney and others. If the field stays fractured at this level, with only a few people, but each getting delegates enough to prevent the front runner from an outright majority, there will be a second vote at the Republican National Convention. Delegates are only locked in for their candidate during the first vote. After the first vote, they can vote for whoever they want. So if Mitt Romney is unable to clear an outright majority on the first ballot, suddenly he could see some of his delegates turn on him — turn and go back to Ron Paul. It is an ingenious strategy premised on a convention where no one gets majority support early. It plays well to a primary calendar where the delegates are first awarded proportionally. Who knows if it is a campaign strategy or just his volunteers, but the Paul campaign has been active now for four years trying to take over local parties. It may pay off if the GOP doesn’t unite around a candidate soon. Mitt Romney It remains Mitt Romney’s race to lose. Romney is nationally still the front runner. He remains the pick of the establishment and the Washington GOP crowd. He has the money and the ballot access the others don’t. But the GOP will go vote for Romney holding their nose. They may start settling, but they do not like him. And now we know that not only did he get less votes in 2012 in Iowa than he did in 2008, he also lost yet another election. Each day this race drags on the veneer of electability wears off and he has to start answering questions that involve phrases like “Cayman Islands” and “Swiss bank account.” No more man of the people. Rick Santorum He should be the next to drop out. The rallying of evangelicals in Texas did him no good. Gingrich leads him among evangelicals 2 to 1 and is trouncing him in South Carolina. He may have won Iowa, but his remaining in the race, like Perry before him, now helps Mitt Romney. Look for Mitt Romney to start throwing bones to Santorum in the debate and on the campaign trail.
Read more:
The Horserace for January 19, 2012
Well, it looks like Iowa and New Hampshire both get to claim one official victim in the 2012 GOP Presidential sweepstakes as Jon Huntsman is announcing today that he is going to be the first to follow Michele Bachmann out the door. Huntsman never managed to get off the floor nationally, and wasn’t able to make enough of a dent in New Hampshire (the one state he actively campaigned in) to gain sufficient momentum and money to carry his campaign forward. So he made one of the few sensible political choices he’s made in this run and decided to drop out while he’s not too far behind. Governor Huntsman was good enough to sit down and talk with me at relative length during the campaign season (see here ), and I came away liking Huntsman much more than I did going in. However, even in that interview you could see the seeds of political tone-deafness that ultimately doomed Huntsman’s campaign. For instance, Huntsman is the only Presidential candidate I am aware of who has kicked off his campaign by taking a job working for the incumbent he hopes to defeat. I cannot for the life of me understand why or how Huntsman was unable to perceive how this would play with the GOP primary electorate. Ultimately, I get how and why Huntsman took the job as ambassador to China; he should have understood, however, that it was a choice that would make it impossible for him to run for President in 2012. Huntsman’s other early missteps likewise threw him in the political cellar, from which he ultimately never emerged. The first of these was no doubt the hiring of John Weaver, who inexplicably continues to get jobs working for Republicans who want to get elected. At this point, the message is clear to everyone who is paying attention – hiring John Weaver to manage your Presidential campaign is a giant middle finger to the GOP conservative base. Even John McCain’s campaign did not take off until he canned Weaver. I suppose it is possible that someone might be able to win a GOP primary election somewhere while actively angering conservatives, but it is not going to happen in a Presidential primary. Huntsman’s failure to put any distance between himself and Weaver’s controversial comments (that essentially called the TEA Party a freakshow) was another major factor in his inability to get off the ground quickly. Third, Huntsman’s inability to modulate himself, even at all, was ultimately harmful. A prime example of this quality came during my interview with him, when I gave him an explicit opportunity to walk back the infamous “call me crazy” tweet. I certainly wasn’t expecting a full Romney flip-flop on global warming, but here was a prime opportunity for Huntsman to at least apologize for the tone of the tweet, or for failing to consider how people might perceive it, and he flatly refused. As Erick has noted here many times before, Huntsman simply refused to play the game that has to be played. I guess to some extent that’s admirable but in this context it involved refusing to apologize to potentially insulted voters, which is a suboptimal election strategy. As sad as it is to say, the ability to read your electorate politically matters a lot to a potential President, and even more to a Presidential nominee. At every step along the way of his early campaign, Huntsman displayed a stunning lack of ability to perform this basic function which, if it had not tripped him up so early in the primary, would have doomed him in the general or made him a horribly ineffective President. Huntsman was Exhibit A for why, although I only support Governors as nominees, not all Governors are suited to national politics. Finally, even if he could have overcome these intrinsic weaknesses and mistakes, this election was simply the wrong time and the wrong moment for a candidate like Huntsman. Let us be honest: the GOP primary electorate is ticked off right now. They are ticked off at Obama, and they are equally ticked off at Republicans in Congress. Right now, the electorate more than ever wants someone who can convey an ability to kick butt and take names against any and all comers who refuse to aggressively shrink the size and scope of government, and to address the spiraling debt problem in this country. Regardless of his politics, people are desperate for the tone of a guy like Christie (who has likely blown his one and only shot at the Presidency) right now, not the soft, manicured gentle (and probably unintentional) condescension of a Jon Huntsman. Accordingly, nearly everything Huntsman did in public fell flat on its face this election season. His jokes bombed at the debates. People mistook his attempts at empathy with ordinary people for smugness (in Huntsman’s defense, very few people who grow up very rich can pull this off with any other result). The overwhelming feedback Huntsman provoked in his debate and media performances – despite his admirable record as Governor – was “get this guy off the stage.” His ultimate doom was indicated when almost half his voters in NH indicated that they were satisfied with the job Barack Obama was doing as President. This was the surest indication yet that in this year, at this time and place, Jon Huntsman’s campaign for the Republican nomination was going nowhere. Governor Huntsman seemed like a decent guy and his record led many to believe that he had promise. But due to his own failings as a candidate and the mood of the electorate overall, he never stood a reasonable chance in this election.
Read the original:
Requiescat in Pace, Jon Huntsman for President Campaign
