I have spent the past two days troubled by an op-ed that ran Tuesday in the
From the diaries . Harry S. Truman famously said of the presidency, “The buck stops here.” President Obama might as well make his slogan: “Pass the Buck.” His record of failures and broken promises has left him with no record to run on. But instead of holding himself accountable, the president blames everybody but himself. Of course, as with many things, he promised it would be different. As a newly inaugurated president in February 2009, he told a town hall meeting in Fort Myers, Florida, “I’m not going to make excuses. If stuff hasn’t worked and people don’t feel like I’ve led the country in the right direction, then you’ll have a new president.” Now, he’s going back on his word, presumably because he sees that “stuff hasn’t worked” and that Americans do not feel we are heading in the “right direction.” Indeed, more than three years into the Obama presidency we’re suffering from chronically high unemployment. Gas prices, groceries prices, and healthcare prices have skyrocketed. Far too many families are struggling just to make ends meet. Thanks to massive government regulations, out-of-control spending, ObamaCare, and higher taxes, the economy is weak and growth is sluggish. His $831 billion stimulus failed to create millions of jobs, but succeeded in creating government waste. It is clear that President Obama’s policies have made things worse, not better. But who does the president blame? An earthquake, the Arab Spring, ATMs, airport kiosks, and “bad luck,” among other things. Last June, in response to questions on the difficult economy, President Obama made this excuse: “There are some structural issues with our economy, where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient, with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to the bank and use an ATM…or go to the airport, and you’re using a kiosk….” In August, he pointed to “the Japanese earthquake and the tsunami’s effect on supply chains.” President Obama blames his predecessor, ignoring the fact that he’s been in office for well over three years. He blames Congress, apparently forgetting Democrats controlled Congress for two years and still control the Senate. When confronted last month on the failure of Solyndra, President Obama replied, “But understand: this was not our program per se.” Of course, it was the Obama administration who gave the now-bankrupt company over half a billion dollars in taxpayer loans. Before the company went under, President Obama was proud to take credit for Solyndra. Less than two years ago, at Solyndra headquarters, he declared, “The true engine of economic growth will always be companies like Solyndra.” If that’s what the president believes, it’s no wonder the economy is stalled. Only a president with a failed record would resort to such ridiculous excuses in trying to save his job. A successful incumbent could run on his record, but President Obama has to run on excuses. In 2009, he promised that if he didn’t fix the economy in “three years,” then his presidency would be a “one-term proposition.” After 38 months of unemployment above 8 percent and with 12.7 million Americans out of work, he’s now changed his tune. Last December, with that three year mark approaching, he attempted to backtrack : “We understood that [the economy] was bad, but we didn’t know how bad it was.” That’s not what he said at the time. Here’s what candidate Obama had to say in September 2008: “We are going through the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.” In November 2008, President-Elect Obama declared , “We are facing an economic crisis of historic proportions.” It certainly sounds like Obama knew “how bad it was.” He just didn’t know how to fix it. Unfortunately for Americans, these excuses won’t pay the mortgage. They won’t create jobs. They won’t balance the budget. And that’s why they won’t win Obama a second term.
Continue reading here:
Obama Is Running on Excuses
[Posted by Karl] Liberals are getting increasingly touchy about the looming prospect of voters judging Pres. Obama’s term of office. They are almost as touchy about those noting that Obama wants to focus his campaign on his opponents, real and imagined, rather than on his record or the economy. For example, Ed Kilgore found a straw man resembling Jay Cost and proceeded to beat it as thoroughly as Obama has been beating various straw men these past months. Kilgore claims that “Cost even goes so far as to tell swing voters what they have to care about,” then quotes Jay: I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that the average swing voter does not want to talk about the “war on women,” the Buffett rule, or whatever else Team Obama is going to throw out there in the weeks and months to come. That voter wants to talk about jobs, the economy, the deficit, gas prices, the health care bill– in other words, all the issues where the president is vulnerable . Those not already in the tank for Obama might notice that Jay is not telling swing voters what to think about, but offering his opinion about what they want to talk about. Gallup suggests Cost is correct, with their most recent poll showing voters — even Democrats — think healthcare, unemployment, the debt, national defense and terrorism, and gas prices are all more important issues than birth control policy. Indeed, I doubt Kilgore could find a poll showing any other result (or he would have cited one). TIME’s Joe Klein has the same complaint, this time with a New Democrat-type: Bill Galston has a piece in The New Republic listing the reasons why Barack Obama is going to have a tough time winning reelection in November. He’s right about most of them, but wrong about the one at the very top–he buys into the political science mythology that some presidential elections are referendums on the incumbent’s record and others are straight-ahead choices. I’ve seen some elections that are referendums on the President, but those have almost always been Congressional campaigns, like 2010 and 2006 or 1994. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a presidential election that was a pure referendum, and every presidential election I’ve covered involved a choice. There are good reasons for this. Funny how the so-called “reality-based community” abandons academics when they report findings inconvenient to liberals, ain’t it? Political scientists will tell you that Presidents get pretty much all the blame on (or credit for) the economy, even with divided government, even in presidential election years. Plus, Klein’s historical examples as bad as his knowledge of the studies. Klein claims that “[i]n 1976, Jimmy Carter tried to make the election a referendum on Richard Nixon–and was in the process of failing at that, when Gerald Ford turned in a weak debate performance and saved the election for Carter.” Political scientist Lynn Varveck explains in her book, The Message Matters , that 1976 was an exceptional year in which Gerald Ford could not successfully campaign on the economy, precisely because Carter could make the contest a referendum on the Nixon era. Klein then claims: 1988 should have been a referendum on the Reagan presidency–Michael Dukakis surged to an early lead in the polls because people wanted a change, then crashed when he couldn’t answer a debate question about what he’d do if his wife were raped and murdered (We haven’t heard a debate like that in a while). In reality, 1988 was a referendum on the Reagan presidency — Klein just rejects the result of that referendum. The outcome in 1988 neatly tracked the result expected from the economy . Those pesky political scientists would tell Klein early polls are not predictive , if only he would listen. But he cannot listen. If he listened, he would have to abandon his fantasy that Dukakis was somehow done in by a lousy debate answer. (Again, political scientists could tell Klein about the historically small effects that presidential debates have had on general election polls and outcomes. ) If Klein finds regression analyses and scatter plots too difficult, perhaps he can consider public opinion polling. That’s what William Galston (whom Klein criticizes) did last October: When a president is running for reelection, the electorate is primarily motivated by its judgment of the incumbent’s job performance. Consider some Pew Research Center data on recent presidential contests. In the spring of 1992, two-thirds of George H. W. Bush’s supporters said that they would be casting their vote for him rather than against Bill Clinton, while two-thirds of Clinton supporters said their vote reflected opposition to Bush. In the spring of 1996, 60 percent of Clinton’s supporters said they would be voting for him rather than against Bob Dole, while 60 percent of Dole’s supporters said their vote reflected opposition to Clinton. Early in 2004, more than 80 percent of George W. Bush’s supporters were for him rather than against John Kerry, while two-thirds of Kerry’s supporters were motivated by opposition to Bush. To be sure, these numbers tend to shift during the general election as the contenders become better known. Still, by Election Day in 1996, only 47 percent of Dole’s supporters said that they were casting their vote in his favor rather than against Clinton; by election day in 2004, only 43 percent of Kerry’s supporters said that they were casting an affirmative vote for him. Now look at the most recent Pew results , which showed Obama in a tie with Mitt Romney. About three-quarters of Obama’s support is for him rather than against Romney, while more than two-thirds of Romney’s supporters say they will cast their votes against Obama rather than for Romney. In short, the historical data, regardless of type, points to 2012 being primarily a referendum on Obama and the economy. Galston suggests that in a general election contest against an unpopular incumbent, the main hurdles for the challenger are to appear competent and non-threatening. Instead of touting his record at every opportunity, Obama seems focused on making Romney seem scary. But if Carter couldn’t make Reagan seem scary, how successful is Obama likely to be? –Karl
Follow this link:
Yes, 2012 will be (mostly) a referendum on Obama
Multiple news sources confirming the news, with a 2pm press conference in Gettysburg to follow. The news comes on the heels of word that his chronically ill daughter Bella was hospitalized again over the weekend . Santorum has already called Mitt Romney to concede. In my view, it’s the right time for Santorum to drop out. His family needs him now, the delegate math precluded him from doing anything but dragging the race to a fractious convention, and with Romney preparing a huge ad buy as Santorum fell in the Pennsylvania polls, withdrawing now avoids a potentially embarrassing home state loss on April 24. CNN has live feed of the press conference . POSTMORTEM: There were missteps along the way worth learning from, but at the end of the day, each of the four finalists in this race – Romney, Santorum, Gingrich and Paul – met or exceeded any reasonable expectation for what they could have accomplished in this primary, given where they all started in the spring of 2011. Santorum in particular began the campaign – and even entered the last week of 2011 – as a marginal figure discredited by a disastrous 2006 loss, but vaulted himself back into the national conversation as a major leader of the social-conservative wing of the party and won over 3 million votes and 11 states.
Here is the original post:
BREAKING: Rick Santorum Dropping Out
What a delight to have the manifold pleasures of the Grand Old Game back again. And in its regular-season, now-the-games-count variety. It only seems like a year and a half since that great Cardinal/Rangers World Series last October. Spring training exhibition games are welcome after months of games that aren’t baseball. But they aren’t the real deal. Pitchers are just getting their work in and trying new pitches. Managers are getting a look at minor leaguers, many of whom will start the season in A-ball and end it at their father-in-law’s hardware store in Keokuk. When the guy playing first base is wearing uniform number 106 ½, you know he isn’t going to make the big club. No one cares who wins the spring games. I sometimes wonder why they keep score. Thanks to an accumulation of years and a dickey back, I’ve reached the point in my athletic career that I call Couch-22. With apologies to King Lear, I now confer all athletic exertions on younger strengths. Considering my athletic skills even in my youth, I probably should have traded my cleats in for a couch decades ago. Quoting from memory the self-evaluation of Chicago writer Joe Epstein (a very savvy baseball guy as well as an engaging writer): “I was a pretty good athlete — for a writer.” This First Weekend featured the things that keep baseball fans coming back to their game year after year. Great defensive plays. Clutch hits. And some dominating pitching performances. Justin Verlander of the Tigers is a force of nature, and one of the reasons September seems to be continuing in Red Sox Nation. Kyle Lohse of the Cardinals, using finesse rather than Verlander power, spoiled the opening of the Miami Marlins’ new Tax-Payer Stadium. While we’re on the Marlins, am I the only one who thinks their new home uniforms look like a bad trip in Margaritaville? But the biggest magic last weekend, featuring some of the electrifying moments baseball fans live for, took place at the Trop in St. Petersburg. And not just because the Tampa Bay Rays swept the Evil Empire, though I’ll take this anytime I can get it. It’s appropriate that Carlos Pena plays for the Tampa Bay Rays. He’s a ray of sunshine. Always smiling, always positive, humble. Miss Congeniality with power. He’s the most popular player in Rays history. Even the Grinch who stole Christmas likes this guy. Of course it’s not just Carlos’s Welcome Wagon personality that makes him so popular in the Trop and across the Tampa Bay Area. He holds a host of Rays offensive records: Career home runs at 146, single season home runs at 46 (2007). He not only drives in runs but he prevents opposing ones as well. He’s one of the slickest fielding first basemen in the bigs. There was no joy around Tampa Bay in 2011 when in a salary dump the Rays did not re-sign Pena, who spent a year with the Cubs. But the numbers worked out for him to return, and he got a huge welcome from his many admirers when he was introduced before the Rays’ Opening Day game. Just minutes later, after the Yankees had failed to score in their half of the first and the Rays had loaded the bases in theirs, Pena parked a 3-1, CC Sabathia fastball in the right field stands for a grand slam while a full house in the Trop alternately whooped and swooned. This was a triumph of Rays fans’ hope and Pena’s grit over expectation. Before this at bat Pena was 4 for 35 against Sabathia. This Frank Capra moment would have been enough for a day’s work. But Pena wasn’t through. With the score tied 6-6 in the bottom of the ninth, Pena drove home the winner with a shot over Yankee center fielder Curtis Granderson’s head. This blast came against a very mortal looking Mariano Rivera, off of whom Pena had never before had a base hit. Who says you can’t come home again? Pena’s Opening Day performance was so dramatic it took attention away from the fact that Rays slugger Evan Longoria reached base five times, including a solo homerun. The Rays took the next two, with Pena contributing a home run and a double Sunday, supporting a remarkable pitching performance by Jeremy Hellickson. Joy is unconfined in Mudville. Of course there were many more important things to contemplate on Holy Weekend. But for many of us baseball is a blessing. And we can forgive those in the Tampa Bay Area, pious or heathen, who believe, after this weekend’s festivities, that Carlos Pena is too. Welcome back Carlos. Welcome back baseball. Almost 160 games left, then the playoffs. Life is good.
