Posts Tagged ‘campaign’
June 2nd, 2012 at 4:54 pm
Wisconsin Likes Walker, Could Boot Obama

Byron York explains why President Barack Obama is not campaigning on behalf of Tom Barrett, the Democrat running against Republican Governor Scott Walker in Wisconsin’s recall election on Tuesday:

The latest poll on the recall battle shows why Obama is staying away. It’s not just that he doesn’t want to appear with a loser. Perhaps just as importantly, there is no advantage for Obama to risk his own popularity by making a high-profile visit to oppose policies that are finding increasing favor with voters.

The new poll, from Marquette University Law School, shows Walker leading Barrett 52 percent to 45 percent. Beyond the horse race, the Marquette pollsters also asked about specific elements of Walker’s reforms. It turns out some of the key elements of those policies — reforms Obama strongly opposed — are now winning the day.

Those policies include:

  • 75% of voters in favor of “requiring public employees to contribute to their own pensions and pay more for health insurance.”
  • 55% of voters in favor of “limiting collective bargaining for most public employees.”
  • 54% of voters thinking Wisconsin is better off in the long run because of the changes in state government

With these numbers and 52% of voters preferring him, Scott Walker appears likely to keep his job.  If Wisconsin voters start to apply the same poll questions to Obama’s failed economic policies – forty months of 8% unemployment, doubling the national debt in just one term in office – they’ll come to the opposite conclusion about the President.

No wonder he doesn’t want to be seen in Wisconsin.

May 18th, 2012 at 7:56 pm
Ryan: Obama Practicing ‘Lost Decade Economics’

When asked by the Washington Examiner about the policy choices facing American voters this election, Paul Ryan painted a picture of stark contrasts, beginning with the Obama Administration’s high-tax, high-spending approach:

“Those kinds of packages won’t succeed in preventing a debt crisis. We’ll pass one round of austerity, that won’t work, then the bond markets will get us, then we’ll do another round and another round, just like what Europe is going through now. We will have chosen to go on the path to decline and we’ll have a lost decade,” Ryan explained. “We see the president and his party are basically practicing lost decade economics,” he finished.

Moving to the Republican alternative, Ryan explained, “We think we have one more great chance, if the elections go the right way, to turn this thing around once and for all. And address it, the right way, up front. With real entitlement reform, restructuring these programs. Real tax reform to get back to growth. We want growth we want opportunity, we want reform, so that we fix this the American way.”

In terms of jobs and economic opportunity, it certainly has been a lost half-decade under President Obama.  Doubling down on more of the same for another presidential term would likely consign an entire generation of workers to a lifetime earnings amount much lower than their parents.

President Obama may be willing to tolerate being the first leader to see a generation of kids live below their parents’ standard of living since World War II.  (What else explains his campaign’s “Life of Julia” foolishness?)  However, my suspicion is that a majority of voters are not interested in either Lost Decade Economics or much less a lost generation of opportunity.

Good sound bites convey truth in a memorable way.  Kudos to Ryan for correctly identifying the likely result of Obama’s wasteful policies.

May 3rd, 2012 at 8:16 pm
More Paul than Romney Delegates at GOP Convention?

On Monday, I shared a story about how Ron Paul’s fervent supporters are outmaneuvering the Romney campaign in the state-by-state process of selecting delegates to the GOP’s nominating convention in Tampa, FL.

Here’s more evidence from the Washington Times:

Exploiting party rules, loyalists for the libertarian congressman from Texas in recent days have engineered post-primary organizing coups in states such as Louisiana and Alaska, confirming what party regulars say would be an effort to grab an outsized role in the convention and the party’s platform deliberations.

In Massachusetts, the state where Mr. Romney served as governor, Paul loyalists over the weekend helped block more than half of Mr. Romney’s preferred nominees from being named delegates at state party caucuses — even though Mr. Romney won his home state’s primary with 72 percent of the vote.

And from the Las Vegas Sun:

In a letter delivered Wednesday to GOP Chairman Michael McDonald, the RNC’s chief counsel said if Ron Paul delegates are allowed to take too many slots for the national convention, Nevada’s entire contingent may not be seated in Tampa.

John R. Phillippe Jr. said that while his letter is not binding, “I believe it is highly likely that any committee with jurisdiction over the matter would find improper any change to the election, selection, allocation, or binding of delegates, thus jeopardizing the seating of Nevada’s entire delegation to the National Convention.”

Clearly, the RNC fears that mischief at the Sparks convention this weekend could result in Ron Paul delegates taking Mitt Romney slots and then not abiding by GOP rules to vote for the presumptive nominee on the first ballot in Tampa. So they are trying to force McDonald to ensure that actual Romney delegates fill 20 of the 28 national convention slots, thus removing any mystery of who they will vote for.

H/T: Teagan Goddard’s Political Wire

May 3rd, 2012 at 6:54 pm
Massachusetts’ Warren Checking All the Liberal Boxes

John Fund nails liberal Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren for being a consistent fraud.  In the last week her bid to unseat Scott Brown has taken two steps backward with the revelation that although she listed herself as a Native American for over a decade as a law professor, she – at most – is only 1/32 Cherokee; and even that connection is in dispute.

The incident confirms Warren as a practitioner of the liberal art of claiming multiple diversity status; in her case as a woman and a Native American.

Just as revealing is her decision year after year to pay Massachusetts’ lower state income tax rather than a voluntary higher rate as she insists wealthy people like her should do.

Fund’s conclusion:

Warren is free to believe that she has Native American ancestry, just as she is free to keep as much of her money as she is legally entitled to. But her choices in filling out forms are instructive. In checking the boxes claiming Native American status for so many years and in not checking the box to pay a higher state income-tax rate, she has revealed more than we need to know to brand her as yet another sanctimonious liberal who wants to have it all ways.

If Warren’s misfires keep up, Scott Brown will once again benefit from running against an unusually self-destructive liberal.

May 2nd, 2012 at 7:03 pm
Maybe Romney Should Choose Labrador for Running Mate

No, I’m not suggesting Romney atone for his past sin of strapping his family dog to his car on vacations by making a canine his running mate.  (Though most veeps at campaign time are called attack dogs.)

Rather, I’m reacting to an intriguing interview between Juan Williams and Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID), a Tea Party congressman from the Class of 2010 who also happens to be Mormon and from Puerto Rico.

He opposes the DREAM Act, but is a staunch advocate for reforming the cumbersome legal immigration process.  As Williams says, Labrador “has been involved in trying to block virtually every one of President Obama’s major legislative initiatives.”  He also “openly mused” about supporting a Tea Party challenger to Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) when it looked like Boehner might cave-in to President Obama’s demands to avert a government shutdown last summer.

As for how Labrador would advise Romney to reach out to Hispanic voters after a bruising primary season:

“I would tell, Romney, as I would tell anybody, is that we need to start talking about being a party of inclusion, we need to start talking about how we’re a, a party for legal immigration, that we actually want to reform the system so people can actually come to the United States in a legal, safe way.”

Sounds like a reasonable pitch to me.

April 30th, 2012 at 5:37 pm
GOP Convention: Ron Paul Revolution?

The Daily Caller explains the (tortured) delegate math that is giving GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul – yes, he’s still running – control of state delegations to the national convention; and with them, the ability to impact Mitt Romney’s march to the nomination.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul claimed another come-from-behind caucus victory this weekend, announcing that approximately 74 percent of the delegates to Louisiana’s state GOP convention will be Paul supporters.

Louisiana has a unique system of selecting delegates to the Republican National Convention. Twenty delegates are selected based on the results of the state’s March 24 primary and another 26 delegates are based on the outcome of the state’s caucus process.

If you’re confused it’s probably because you remember that Rick Santorum won 49 percent of the Louisiana primary vote back in February.

And that’s not the only Santorum victory that ultimately went to Paul:

Earlier this month, Paul won 20 of 24 delegates awarded by Minnesota congressional district conventions. Paul had received a significant 27 percent of the vote in the state’s Feb. 7 caucuses, but Santorum had won nearly every county in a major blowout.

According to The DC, Paul is also on the verge of winning a majority of the GOP’s delegates from Iowa, even though he came in third behind Mitt Romney and Santorum in the Hawkeye State.

Moreover, there are as many as six other states where Paul is poised to control a majority of delegates even though he didn’t win a majority of the primary votes cast in any of them.

If you, like me and perhaps Mitt Romney’s crew, considered Paul’s campaign an afterthought, it may be time to move the Veepstakes chatter to the backburner and ask a much more interesting question – What, exactly, does Mr. Paul want in exchange for his endorsement at the GOP’s Tampa convention?

April 25th, 2012 at 6:15 pm
Jimmy Carter Likes Romney After Favoring Huntsman

Just when he thought it was safe to grab hold of the GOP presidential mantle, Mitt Romney gets the worst kind of endorsement – a thumbs-up from Jimmy Carter.

Said Carter: “I’d rather have a Democrat but I would be comfortable — I think Romney has shown in the past, in his previous years as a moderate or progressive… that he was fairly competent as a governor and also running the Olympics as you know. He’s a good solid family man and so forth, he’s gone to the extreme right wing positions on some very important issues in order to get the nomination. What he’ll do in the general election, what he’ll do as president I think is different.”

To be sure, Carter’s statement about being “comfortable” with Romney isn’t as bad as the former Democratic president’s labeling one-time Romney rival Jon Huntsman as an “attractive” candidate and “very attractive to me personally.”

However, Carter’s justification for being comfortable with Romney does reinforce the conventional wisdom that Romney’s conservatism is a veneer whereas his “moderate or progressive” past is the truer indicator of how he’ll govern as president.

To paraphrase Nancy Pelosi, maybe we’ll have to elect Mitt to see how he’ll govern.

H/T: Political Wire

April 24th, 2012 at 12:59 pm
How to Make Obamacare Exchanges a State Campaign Issue

In a presidential election year like 2012, it’s easy for national issues to crowd out state and local concerns at the ballot box.  But thanks to Obamacare’s costly mandate on states to create health insurance exchanges, fiscal conservatives running for state offices can easily make opposition to more government a central plank in their campaign platform.

According to Cato Institute scholar Michael F. Cannon, outside of the U.S. Supreme Court’s potentially striking down Obamacare’s individual mandate, the most important health policy battle to be waged is state government opposition to creating Obamacare’s state-based health insurance exchanges.

As I’ve written previously these exchanges are a subtle way to coerce states into spending millions of dollars to set-up a government-controlled, taxpayer-subsidized “market” for health insurance.  Thereafter, when Obama’s bureaucrats at HHS decide the state version isn’t performing exactly the way they want, Obamacare grants HHS the power to take over any state’s exchange and run it from Washington, D.C.  Thus, the bait-and-switch is yet another way for Obamacare to hide its impact on the federal budget deficit by shoving some of its start-up costs onto the states.

Cato’s Cannon outlines a different strategy, with talking points that to me seem ready-made for a state campaigner’s website:

Jobs. Refusing to create an exchange will block Obamacare from imposing a tax on employers whose health benefits do not meet the federal government’s definition of “essential” coverage. That tax can run as high as $3,000 per employee. A state that refuses to create an exchange will spare its employers from that tax, and will therefore enable them to create more jobs.

Religious freedom. In blocking that employer tax, state officials would likewise block Obamacare’s effort to force religious employers to provide coverage for services they find immoral — like contraception, pharmaceutical abortions, and sterilization.

The federal debt. Refusing to create exchanges would also reduce the federal debt, because it would prevent the Obama administration from doling out billions of dollars in subsidies to private insurance companies.

The U.S. Constitution. The Obama administration has indicated that it might try to tax employers and hand out those subsidies anyway — even in states that don’t create an exchange, and even though neither Obamacare nor any other federal law gives it the power to do so. If that happens, the fact that a state has refused to create an exchange would give every large employer in the state — including the state government itself — the ability to go to court to block the administration’s attempt to usurp Congress’s legislative powers.

A lower state tax burden. States that opt to create an exchange can expect to pay anywhere from $10 million to $100 million per year to run it. But if states refuse, Obamacare says the federal government must pay to create one. Why should states pay for something that the federal government is giving away?

Bye-bye, Obamacare. That is, if the feds can create an exchange at all. The Obama administration has admitted it doesn’t have the money — and good luck getting any such funding through the GOP-controlled House. Moreover, without state-run exchanges, the feds can’t subsidize private insurance companies. That by itself could cause Obamacare to collapse.

There is no reason a state should agree to spend millions of dollars laying the groundwork for a federal takeover of health care.  Fiscal conservatives running for office this cycle should articulate this argument well and often.

April 23rd, 2012 at 1:30 pm
Inside the Minds of a Democratic Opposition Research Team

Roll Call has a behind-the-scenes look at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s opposition research team, and the findings aren’t pretty.

As any number of elections have taught us, a candidate’s personal history is just as relevant to voting decisions as his or her policy stances.  What makes the profile of the DCCC outfit stomach-churning, however, is the glee staff members exude from discovering the lowest points of other people’s lives:

Diana Asti, a newly promoted research analyst, finished a 204-page book on a target following seven days on the ground, 30 Freedom of Information requests and finding every word from the candidate ever on record. That morning in the DCCC’s second-floor conference room, Asti finally had the opportunity to reveal one of her biggest discoveries about her target: his secret first marriage.

“My head just went in all different directions, like maybe they’ve divorced and he hasn’t paid alimony, or maybe he has a child and he hasn’t paid child support,” exclaimed the 23-year-old Asti afterward in an interview. “I went into a million different directions of what this could possibly be. It was a very exciting moment.”

In case you’re wondering, the reason so few politicians seem “real” is because they live in fear of people like Diana Asti.

And let’s not forget her colleague Jonathan Pullum, a man who confesses the following desire whenever he sees his Republican target:

Occasionally, Pullum still sees his quirky research subject around Capitol Hill. Johnson doesn’t know the 24-year-old from any other young staffer, but Pullum describes his reaction as giddy.

“I have this real desire to be like, ‘How’s it going, buddy? Let’s talk about your diet,’” Pullum said. “It’s all these bizarre things that you know.”

Bizarre, indeed.

April 3rd, 2012 at 6:38 pm
Obama’s Campaign Spending Also Unsustainable

The Daily Caller makes hilarious use of Karl Rove’s analysis comparing the spending rates for the Bush and Obama reelection campaigns.

But there’s plenty of evidence that the campaign isn’t bringing in as much money as it wants.

For example, data from the campaign’s earlier quarterly reports to the Federal Election Commission show that Obama’s spending is growing faster than revenues.

“The Obama campaign’s high burn rate doesn’t come from large television buys, phone banks or mail programs that could be immediately stopped … [but] from huge fixed costs for a big staff and higher-than-expected fund-raising outlays,” according to a March 14 article by Karl Rove, chief political strategist for George W. Bush.

In the second quarter of 2011, Obama’s “campaign spent 25% of what it raised… while Mr. Bush’s campaign spent only 9% in the second quarter of 2003,” Rove said. Since then, the spending pace has accelerated, he said, pointing out that in January “the Obama campaign spent 158% of what it raised, while the Bush campaign spent 60% in January 2004.”

Also, his supporters initially predicted a $1 billion reelection fund, but campaign staffers are quick to deny that is a goal.

Rove argues that one reason the re-election campaign might be running lighter-than-expected on cash is that many of Obama’s 2008 supporters are not opening their checkbooks this time around.

Spending growing faster than revenues (158%!).  Huge fixed costs triggering obscene debt.  An unsustainable burn rate.  Grandiose predictions cratering on fiscal reality.  Contributors unwilling or unable to pony up more cash.

Whether it’s managing the federal government or his own campaign, Barack Obama is as unbalanced with money as he is with policy.

March 5th, 2012 at 6:10 pm
Obama Campaign Won’t Share Money with Other Dems

Politico explains why if Democrats win control of Congress in 2012 it won’t be with President Barack Obama’s help:

[Obama campaign leaders Jim] Messina and [David] Plouffe told the two Hill leaders that there would be no cash transfers to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee from OFA or the DNC, at least not before Election Day, the sources said.

Hill Democrats won’t be seeing much of Obama at their own fundraisers this year, either. Obama has offered to do one money event each for the DCCC and DSCC. OFA officials suggested Vice President Joe Biden do two fundraisers for each campaign committee. Obama will instead send out an email and fundraising letter solicitations for both committees.

Nor, for that matter, have Obama or Biden committed to do events for individual Democratic lawmakers. That’s true even though 23 Democrat-held Senate seats are up for grabs in a competitive battle for control of that chamber. And no fundraisers have been scheduled yet for House and Senate Democrats with Cabinet officials, usually a staple of an election-year calendar for incumbent presidents looking to boost their party’s prospects.

No surprise here since the President is just a typical liberal: a spendthrift with other people’s money but a miser with his own.

March 5th, 2012 at 2:54 pm
Top Dems Back Kaptur Over Kucinich to Face Joe the Plumber

Tomorrow voters in Ohio’s new 9th congressional district will decide whether America will get another two years of the Dennis Kucinich experience.  Pitted against fellow Democratic incumbent Marcy Kaptur, Kucinich has raised nearly twice as much money ($406k) as Kaptur ($204k) since the start of the year, but is trailing with one important constituency – other Democratic members of Congress.

From Roll Call:

Earlier this week, Rep. David Price’s (D-N.C.) re-election committee and [Senate Majority Whip Dick] Durbin’s Prairie political action committee each donated $1,000 to Kaptur. The Congresswoman also received a $1,000 check from Rep. Rosa DeLauro’s (D-Conn.) campaign at the start of this year, according to online fundraising records. Both Price and DeLauro serve with Kaptur on the Appropriations Committee. Durbin, also an appropriator, was first elected to the House in 1982, the same year as Kaptur.

Earlier in the redistricting process Kucinich flirted with running in a newly created seat in Washington State, though much like his ill-fated presidential campaigns, the groundswell of support Kucinich needed to move states never materialized.

Thankfully for politicos, the winner of the member vs. member tussle tomorrow won’t fade into obscurity since the likely Republican nominee will be Sam Wurzelbacher, aka, “Joe the Plumber” from the 2008 presidential campaign.

Only in Ohio.

March 2nd, 2012 at 1:45 pm
Obama Reelection Far From Certain

Newsweek’s Robert Samuelson on what the MSM’s conventional wisdom may be missing with all its Obama-the-invincible chatter:

All in all, the conventional wisdom seems compelling. As a card-carrying member of the mainstream media — a group that creates and sustains the conventional wisdom — I’m inclined to accept it. And yet there’s one conspicuous gap in the-election-is-already-over story: the polls. While the Republicans have been destroying each other and embarrassing themselves, the polls for a general election should have shown a collapse in Republican support. They haven’t — at least so far.

Go to Real Clear Politics ( for the latest figures. The average of the polls it follows shows (for the period from Feb. 10 to Feb. 29) Obama beating Romney by 4.6 percentage points (49 percent to 44.4 percent). Obama’s margin of victory over Santorum is slightly larger (49.3 percent to 44.2 percent).

So it’s a puzzle. Logic and most evidence suggest the election is over. But the polls seem to dissent. Could it be that the real story is that Obama’s not a shoo-in even when he should be?

February 28th, 2012 at 12:11 pm
Michigan’s Tricky Delegate Math

Politico notes that “The rules pit the real race for Michigan at the district, not statewide level.”  Here’s what that means:

Michigan awards its 30 delegates based on the new congressional district lines drawn in 2012 redistricting, with two delegates given to the candidate who wins each of 14 districts. Two additional delegates are allocated based on the statewide popular vote.

Thus, the winner of the state’s popular vote may not be the same candidate who wins a majority of the state’s delegates.

The takeaway is to be wary of statewide exit polls that declare a “winner” since what really matters in terms of GOP convention delegates is who won a majority of new congressional districts.

February 18th, 2012 at 11:04 pm
Real Unemployment Rate Almost Double Official Tally

An editorial by Investor’s Business Daily highlights why the Obama campaign’s crowing about a nascent economic recovery is hiding the real pain American workers are feeling:

Even worse for an administration straining to make the case that it deserves to be around for another four years is the real unemployment rate. It’s not 8.3%, but closer to 15%, a figure that reflects those who “would like to work but have not searched for a job in the past four weeks as well as those who are working part time but would prefer full-time work,” says the CBO.

Another White House problem comes from this in the CBO report: “The share of unemployed people looking for work for more than six months — referred to as the long-term unemployed — topped 40% in December 2009 for the first time since 1948, when such data began to be collected; it has remained above that level ever since.”

Voters aren’t stupid.  If the eventual Republican nominee can make a compelling argument linking Obama’s policies to the decline in jobs, he’ll win.  If not, we’ll have nearly an entire decade of lost opportunities.

February 17th, 2012 at 4:22 pm
Gingrich Donor’s 10 Million Dollar Gift to Romney?

Consider Andrew Malcolm’s take on what casino magnate and Gingrich Super PAC funder Sheldon Adelson is really up to with his new $10 million bet on Newt:

…Gingrich and Santorum are splitting the same crowd. And this benefits Romney, who has his own money and national operation carefully-constructed over years.

So, in this case, the adage about following the money would steer you in the wrong direction. The potential $21 million is really a bank shot for Adelson, going to help Gingrich prevent Santorum from beating Romney.

We’ll see if it works. But pretty clever.

Recall that Adelson was previously reported to have told Romney’s camp that if Mitt won the GOP nomination, Adelson would be even more generous than he was to Newt.  Maybe the $10 million is a down payment on that promise.

February 13th, 2012 at 1:27 pm
When Entrepreneurship and Super PACs Collide

Roll Call has a fascinating behind-the-scenes description of a liberal Super PAC acting as a “clearinghouse for opposition research” that gets repackaged as tips to media and fodder for Democratic campaigns.  That’s not the only bad news for conservatives:

The right does not have anything like it — a PAC serving as a clearinghouse for opposition research. And while liberals rail against the Supreme Court decision that ushered in this new breed of PAC that can accept unlimited donations from corporations and individuals, they agree that the existence of super PACs facilitates coordination between third-party groups.

The Super PAC in question, American Bridge 21st Century, is the brainchild of Media Matters founder David Brock.  Brock, a conservative-journalist-turned-liberal-activist, has built an impressive network of for-profit and non-profit entities that is fast becoming a one-stop-shop for polling data, oppo research, and media angles.  It will be interesting to see how his empire impacts the 2012 election cycle.

How about it, denizens of the conservative movement?  Any takers on creating a conservative alternative to Brock’s standalone juggernaut?

February 8th, 2012 at 7:06 pm
Santorum Out-Spins Romney After Trifecta Win

Here’s Byron York’s recounting of what Rick Santorum’s camp thinks about a Romney advisor’s spin that more money and boots on the ground means that the former Massachusetts Governor will still win the GOP nomination:

After the returns came in, I asked Santorum spokesman Hogan Gidley what he thought about Rich Beeson’s message.  Sure, Santorum did well on Tuesday, but doesn’t Romney have the money and infrastructure to outdistance Santorum, and everyone else, in the long run?

“What an inspiring message,” Gidley said sarcastically.  “That is really inspiring.  I can’t wait to put a bumper sticker on my truck that says MONEY-INFRASTRUCTURE 2012.”

“No one had more money and infrastructure than Hillary Clinton, and hope and change wiped her off the map,” Gidley continued.  “We’ll have money, and we’ll have infrastructure, but our nominee has to have a message that people can get behind and inspires people.”

February 6th, 2012 at 8:00 pm
Tea Party Gingrich Backer: ‘Campaign is a Disaster’

Thanks to Politico, I came across this open letter to Newt Gingrich from Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips.  Phillips, a Gingrich supporter since last fall, thinks Newt’s Florida primary loss to Romney can be explained by a damning lack of organization:

Your campaign is sinking faster than an Italian Cruise ship. I don’t know if anyone is telling you what is going on in your campaign but right now it is a disaster.

Last week, I was in Florida with the Tea Party Express tour. At the events, other campaigns had surrogates. By default, I became yours. I did not mind, but your campaign should have had someone there. While I was at the events in Florida, Romney supporters were there with signs, Ron Paul supporters with signs and Rick Santorum supporters with signs. Your supporters were there. They asked me for signs.

Because there was no one from your campaign attending, there were no signs to give.

Remember, Newt has been a congressman and a consultant, not a CEO.  He resigned his speakership under after a failed coup.  His network of business ventures are built around getting people to imagine fundamental changes that win the future.  I’m a fan of some of his ideas, and I envy his ability to frame an issue around core conservative themes.  That said, if a presidential campaign operation is any indication of how well a candidate manages an important enterprise, I’m afraid we’re left to conclude that Newt Gingrich is not up the job of running the White House, let alone a campaign against Barack Obama.

January 25th, 2012 at 12:36 pm
Mitch Daniels Gets It Right

Reading the text of Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels’ Republican response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union Address gives us a bittersweet reminder of what might have been had he run for President this year.  Here are some phrases I hope the eventual nominee incorporates into his campaign – and governing – rhetoric:

“In three short years, an unprecedented explosion of spending, with borrowed money, has added trillions to an already unaffordable national debt. And yet, the President has put us on a course to make it radically worse in the years ahead. The federal government now spends one of every four dollars in the entire economy; it borrows one of every three dollars it spends. No nation, no entity, large or small, public or private, can thrive, or survive intact, with debts as huge as ours.

“The extremism that stifles the development of homegrown energy, or cancels a perfectly safe pipeline that would employ tens of thousands, or jacks up consumer utility bills for no improvement in either human health or world temperature, is a pro-poverty policy. It must be replaced by a passionate pro-growth approach that breaks all ties and calls all close ones in favor of private sector jobs that restore opportunity for all and generate the public revenues to pay our bills.

“The mortal enemies of Social Security and Medicare are those who, in contempt of the plain arithmetic, continue to mislead Americans that we should change nothing. Listening to them much longer will mean that these proud programs implode, and take the American economy with them. It will mean that coming generations are denied the jobs they need in their youth and the protection they deserve in their later years.

“We will advance our positive suggestions with confidence, because we know that Americans are still a people born to liberty. There is nothing wrong with the state of our Union that the American people, addressed as free-born, mature citizens, cannot set right. Republicans in 2012 welcome all our countrymen to a program of renewal that rebuilds the dream for all, and makes our ‘city on a hill’ shine once again.”

If Republicans win the White House this year I hope there’s an important place in the Administration for Mitch Daniels.