Obama versus whom?
A freeze frame assessment of the 2012 Republican presidential prospects
Obama versus whom?
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
This is a much-expanded version of my Sunday print column. I'm also scheduled today for a live chat on philly.com, at 1 p.m.
If you trust in the predictions of Dick Cheney – and hey, who doesn’t? – then clearly you believe that a Republican restoration is imminent.
The crowd went wild at a recent conservative confab when Cheney confidently decreed that "Barack Obama is a one-term president," but I’d suggest that such giddiness is woefully premature, and that forecasts of an Obama defeat may well prove to be as credible as the seer’s old saw about how our troops in Iraq would be welcomed as liberators.
First, some recent historical perspective - the kind that's typically overlooked in our obsession with the here and now. Ronald Reagan, two years away from his re-election race, was deemed highly beatable; in part because the jobless rate was roughly 10 percent in 1982, his job-approval rating was lower than Obama's today. And Bill Clinton, two years into his first term, was thought to be toast. After he lost both congressional chambers to the Republicans, he was reduced to insisting, at a press conference, that "the president is relevant." But Reagan looked better when he was ultimately matched against Walter Mondale (who promised to raise taxes), and Clinton won in a breeze when matched against Bob Dole's grumpy old man.
Granted, the current polls report that President Obama is vulnerable when matched against a generic Republican candidate. According to a new Gallup poll, 50 percent of registered voters currently believe that Obama doesn't deserve a second term. In reality, however, Obama will be matched against an actual Republican candidate. And all actual candidates are burdened with actual baggage – not to mention the inevitable wounds and scars that any Republican will suffer during a primary season that promises to be downright Darwinian.
Even if one of these Republicans manage to unite all the various overlapping factions – the tea-partiers, the religious conservatives, the deficit hawks, the antiwar libertarians, the pro-business country clubbers, the Wall Street types, the neoconservative warriors – will he or she be sufficiently financed and talented to knock off a charismatic incumbent who’s likely to be sitting on $1 billion in campaign funds?
And speaking of talent, have you actually looked at the current crop of Republican propects? Suffice it so say that one of the front-runners is a guy who once embarked on a family road trip by strapping the family dog to the roof of the car.
OK, dog lovers might give Mitt Romney a pass on that one. But his baggage is heavy regardless. He may have deep pockets and great hair, but his Mormon faith is still anathema to many Christian conservatives, and that faction is dominant in the crucial early primaries. Indeed, he is already widely distrusted, within his own party, as a policy flip-flopper whose Olympian acrobatics conjur memories of Olga Korbut.
In the ’08 primaries, he veered rightward on abortion and gay marriage, distancing himself from his moderate stint as a Massachusetts governor – but his current backflip is far more breathtaking. In ’06, he signed a statewide health care reform law, complete with a requirement that all Bay State citizens buy coverage. You see the problem. He can’t remake himself as a pitchfork populist standing tall with GOP conservatives against the alleged tyranny of ObamaCare, not unless he somehow convinces them that RomneyCare is, in his words, "entirely different."
Which it isn’t. Which is why Obama delights in citing the similarities. Which is why Philip Klein, a blogger at the conservative American Spectator, wrote on Friday, "Romney would not be able to credibly campaign against the national health care law." Which is why Fox News recently sliced Romney to ribbons on this issue – host Chris Wallace told Romney, "we got a lot of email from conservatives this week who said that you are the wrong man" to carry the party banner on health care – and I’ll simply note that any Republican scolded in this fashion by Fox News might as well be riding on the roof with the family dog.
The latest CNN poll of Republican voters puts Romney in second place for the nomination. First place goes to Mike Huckabee. It speaks volumes about the quality of the GOP field that the front-runner du jour is an evangelical pastor who compares gay civil unions to drug use, incest, and polygamy. And assuming he even runs, I wonder whether conservative primary voters will warm to his "soft on crime" credentials, given the fact that, as Arkansas governor, he freed a rapist who later suffocated a mother of three; and that he helped free a serial criminal who, this past November, killed four cops in Washington state as they ate breakfast.
Huckabee may well opt to stick with his broadcast gigs, wisely so. Sarah Palin may do the same, rather than expose herself to the daily indignities of demonstrating how little she knows. She seems far more tempted by the perks of being a well-paid personality; in her current incarnation, she insulates herself from spontaneous questions, the kind that might require her to expound beyond the slogans etched on her palm. (She insists these days that all audience queries be pre-screened. She'd find it tough to give that up.) Indeed, Fred Malek, a longtime GOP operative and Palin adviser, told MSNBC on Friday that she's not doing the requisite preparations for a presidential bid; instead, "she's carved out a different career for herself at this point."
Not even Palin's fans believe she is electable; although she wowed the crowd at last weekend’s Southern Republican Leadership Conference, she drew only 18 percent of the straw poll voters. The conservative base apparently fears that she’d be chewed up by "the liberal media," but I sense that her fatal flaw is her sarcasm. Swing voters in a general election typically gravitate to sunny optimism – what Palin dismisses as "hopey, changey."
In that straw poll, the former half-term governor wound up in a tie with Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker. Gingrich is teasing us about a presidential bid, just as he did prior to the ’08 festivities. I’m underwhelmed. He peaked as a power figure way back in 1995, around the time he was threatening to shut down the government. He made good on his threat, but lost the PR battle when President Clinton successfully tagged him as an obstructionist. Two years after that, he was nearly dumped as speaker by an in-house coup, led by conservatives who thought he was too easy on Democrats. Anyway, Gingrich showed up at last weekend’s party conference with a bright idea, a back-to-the-future kind of thing: Republicans should win back the Congress in November - and then shut down the government again! Naturally the crowd roared, but the truth is, a lot of conservatives view Gingrich merely as a retread who talks big.
At least he has stump charisma – unlike Tim Pawlenty, who would appear to be a major player, at least on paper. Pawlenty, the lame duck Minnesota governor, has assembled a crack team of campaign veterans, but his big problem – aside from the fact that he lacks a signature achievement as governor – is that he’s more soporific than Ambien. A couple months back, he did a mad-as-heck bit for the tea party faction, voicing his desire to "take a nine iron and smash the window out of big government," but it was akin to watching Woody Allen lock and load.
All told, the public is hip to the GOP’s candidate deficit. Obama’s job-approval numbers are tepid these days – but he looks robust when matched against actual Republican challengers. A new CNN poll shows that, if the election was held today, Obama would crush all likely rivals, by as many as 13 percentage points. That’s the spread with Palin on the ballot.
Republicans can console themselves with the thought that ’12 is a long way off, but the time window for new candidates is rapidly closing. How about Jeb Bush? Toxic name. John Thune, South Dakota senator? He's an unknown who's doing almost nothing to get himself known. Scott Brown? Not a chance; the tea partiers' winter hero supports Roe v. Wade, which would doom him in the Republican primaries.
How about Haley Barbour, governor of Mississippi? That’s an idea. He once ran the national party, he knows Washington, he was a well-wired lobbyist, he's reportedly weighing the idea of running...but wait, he’s also the guy who insists that Virginia’s failure to mention slavery, in its celebration of Confederate History Month, "doesn’t amount to diddly." No surprise there, since Barbour himself has proclaimed April to be Confederate Heritage Month in Mississippi - and he too omitted any mention of slavery.
Barbour's stance would undoubtedly please the overwhelmingly white tea-partiers, 52 percent of whom (according to a new national poll) believe that blacks get too much attention these days. But that kind of attitude wouldn't go down well with the burgeoning minority electorate that already boycotts the GOP in presidential contests. The GOP is already a virtually all-white party; it might be wise to find a nominee who might actually put some color on the palette.
In short, Barach Obama may be beatable - on paper. But you can’t beat something with nothing.
"With whites being the minority by 2040,..." Talk about leftist wishful thinking! I'd wager anything that CiceroSpuriousDeodatus has toked a mite too much multicultural whoopie weed. Now THAT's funny.— George Tomezsko- You're right, NEPhilly. Obama should have flown through the clouds of ash even though it was deemed unsafe. That would have been the smart thing to do. Especially for the funeral of a president who died in a plane crash.— p-diddy
- still, glad you agree with the golfing part, finally (& that was my only point:) You are right about the reaching part, just a little bored (I hate when my kids say that:) waiting for the next GOP bashing article:) See you on the other side.— NEPhilly
- tom: I'm thrilled that you decided to simply "throw in" Belarus, Latvia and Lithuania. However, they DIDN'T close their airspace. I can't believe we're arguing about this. The leaders from pretty much every country West of Poland that couldn't take a train or car didn't go because they couldn't fly in, but only Obama "decided" not to go. Try and be a little bit intellectually honest here, guys. I'm fine for criticizing him for golfing once he decided not to go. But not for not going.— still_independent
- NEPhilly : to answer your question - I have no idea. I couldn't find any individual analysis. Nor can I contact anonymous "auditors" and ask them. Seriously, you'd give any credibility to an unreviewed report that allows work to be performed by anonymous authors? ... As to the other thing, yes, the pilots could do that. But a) you'd burn too much fuel (does AF-1 support mid-air refueling?) and b) a 757 is NOT a low-flying aircraft. That would be patently unsafe to both the aircraft and those it was buzzing. And I'm sure the secret service would be just fine with it. You're really reaching today. He also could have "simply" circumnavigated the globe and flown in over Russia. I agree about the golfing part, but that's a separate argument.— still_independent
- On the same day the SEC announced the suit filed against Goldman Sachs, the Inspector General issued his report blasting the SEC for its failures in the Mark Stanford ponzi scheme that cost investors over $8 billion. Guess which got the most media coverage. Also interesting is the hedge fund investor who made money shorting those mortgage securities he picked for Goldman to sell, who has close ties to Chuck Schumer, is not included in the suit. And why no criminal charges?— tom - wilmington, de
- still_independent, since the funeral was held in Krakow, Putin almost certainly would have had to fly through Ukraine. Check the map.— tom - wilmington, de
- still_independent, not to suggest that you are geographically challenged, but Ukraine and Estonia are both west of Moscow, and since you mentioned both of these countries, I threw in Belarus, Latvia and Lithuania also since if the cloud is in Estonia, Ukraine and Poland it is probably also in those neighboring countries. To get from Moscow to Warsaw you have to travel west over these countries, do you not?— tom - wilmington, de
- still, you fly high over the ocean and then you fly low when you have too. I'm sure Air Force 1's pilots could have accomplished that. Also, one more time, should the President have played golf when he was missing one of our allies Presdient's funerals? I know you can answer that simple question, give it a try. It said right on the report that they were skeptics, my main question is, is this sentence true or not; *** found that 5,600 of the 18,500 sources in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Nobel Prize-winning 2007 report were not peer reviewed.*** Were 1/3 of the sources peer reviewed (like you just did w/me:) or not?— NEPhilly
- NEPhilly : (w/ full buggywhip) because low flying aircraft and helicopters were cleared in Poland. Unfortunately, you can't cross the ocean in one of those.— still_independent
- NEPhilly: I went to find the report (yes, I do follow links when people post them - you're pretty good about that, so thanks), as the Fox story didn't actually have a link to the report. After some searching, I found it. It's kind of hard to find their methodology, but I managed to find that. Skipping the irony of this "report" being completely unreviewed by anyone, I was naturally curious as to who the actual "citizen auditors" were, and what their backgrounds were. About 1/3 have sonme sort of degree. Some in some sort of science, with a sprinkling of liberal arts. What's disturbing is that some are ANONYMOUS. Maybe "Anonymous2" out of New Zealand did a great job, I have no idea. Or maybe "southfarthing" out of Canada did excellent work as well. Basically, they put up a blog posting asking for auditors on a blog dedicated to warming denial. They then asked the forty respondents to perform an "audit" of various chapters. I can't (well, I can) believe Fox ran with this. Anonymous auditors evaluating the peer review process? I could also quibble with the fact that using, say, a doctoral thesis, is perfectly legitimate so long it is properly cited. According to their criteria, though, this is unacceptable. But I'll still get back to the fact that they put out a call to a bunch of global warming skeptics and allowed them, often knowing nothing more than a blog name, produce this report. This is why I always go to source material, and generally distrust Fox as much as MSNBC... And finally, even given the shortfalls, if you look at the grades for Working Group 1, which is the physical science behing the global warming assertions, it got 8 A's and 3B's.— still_independent
- Sorry lib:( I meant, still, beating a dead horse is what you do best:)— NEPhilly
- lib, beating a dead horse is what you do best:) Should Pres. Obama have played golf when he missed a funeral or not? If the Russian President flew there he had to fly over Poland, no? If their airspace was closed how did he accomplish this feat? ***Russian President Dmitry Medvedev braved the closure of Europe's air space caused by a volcanic ash cloud to attend the funeral in Krakow -- a gesture of solidarity that reinforced Polish hopes for improved ties with their communist-era master.*** http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63G0ZY20100418— NEPhilly
- Our country is historically run toward center. Please consider our uniqueness w/ regard to diversity in economic matters, ethnic differences, religious matters, ages of different voting blocs and on and on. No narrow minded self serving interest groups can possibly win a presidential victory. If these groups can't find commonality they can make a lot of noise and pay money for contoversial speakers but they will not win. It's like woofin' in sports where opponents talk trash for weeks leading to the actual game. If the plan and the team aren't together on game day....Coach, we got between a slim and no chance to win....and slim just left town. Keep woofin' cause the GOP got NO chance.......— stoneman
- swedesboromike : I agree with everything you just wrote. But suggesting that those that pay no federal INCOME tax should not be allowed to vote is repugnant. Poll tax anyone? ... btw, the really wealthy would NEVER allow us to go to a VAT, assuming it was set up to be revenue neutral. All the deductions are gone. The lower taxes on capital gains are gone. Exemptions on inheritance become meaningless. Generally speaking, the wealthy's effective overall federal tax rate (looking at all taxes, not just income tax) would go up.— still_independent
- tom: "Putin flew to Poland for the funeral, and he flew over some of the countries you mentioned" I don't want to claim that you are geographically challenged, but he's coming from the east. Please look at a map, and draw a line from Moscow to Poland.— still_independent
- Liberal- All that is fine and dandy but when people are voting for things for which others will have to pay for you can see a problem developing. Obviously the 50% of people who are not going to have to pay for new government programs will vote for the politician who promises more goodies. Perhaps a better solution would be to eliminate the federal income tax and go to a vat tax. I don't know why people do not understand that all of these programs are not sustainable. As a country we have chosen short term gain over the long term financial viability of our country.
- Tom, you are entitled to your conservative beliefs, but you know far too much about insurance and taxation to use distorted and ahistorical "facts" about these topics for partisan reasons. It's unnecessary because it's actually easier to discuss political principles if there's an agreed-upon set of facts.— liberal
- Re deadbeats who pay no federal income taxes. The federal individual income tax was designed and operated for decades as a tax only on the rich. The threshhold for a married person originally was about $2000 (in 1918), which was more than the average workers' income and only about 5% of the population paid income taxes. This threshhold was increased so that in 1928 a family with $10,000 in income ( a high executive salary equivalent to more than $100,000 today) only $40. As late as 1940 a $10,000 family paid only $343. Source: Surrey and Warren, Federal Income Taxation. During all that time it was never suggested, as far as I know, that the 90% or so of the population that paid no federal income taxes were bad citizens who shouldn't be entitled to vote.— liberal
- NEPhilly: not to continue to beat the dead horse, but those countries closed their AIRSPACE, not just their airports.— still_independent
- tom: to follow up on someone else's remarks, where was the criticism of Bush for golfing? Criticizing him for holding an impromptu press conference about suicide bombers while golfing is completely different. That's completely inappropriate. Where's the criticism similar to what we've seen on this blog about Obama's golfing? Still can't find anything.— still_independent
Comment removed.- ***It may be time for the United Nations' climate-studies scientists to go back to school. A group of 40 auditors -- including scientists and public policy experts from across the globe -- have released a shocking report card on the U.N.'s landmark climate-change research report. And they gave 21 of the report's 44 chapters a grade of "F." The team, recruited by the climate-change skeptics behind the website NoConsensus.org, found that 5,600 of the 18,500 sources in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Nobel Prize-winning 2007 report were not peer reviewed. "We've been told this report is the gold standard," said Canadian global-warming skeptic Donna Laframboise, who runs the NoConsensus.org site and who organized the online effort to examine the U.N.'s references in the report, commonly known as the AR4.*** http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/19/united-nations-climate-global-warming-ipcc/?test=latestnews— NEPhilly
- Do you think the reason Obama doesn't take impromptu questions is because he is a disaster off monitor. ( 57 states, corpsman, Sycacuce ( really spelled it that way ), etc. Why hasn't he released his school marks and IQ. Is it because he isn't as intelligent as all liberals wish and say he is. He is affirmative action taken to the nth degree. Still Ind, you are a research person, have you found his educational background anywhere. Best I could find was ESTIMATES.— Phil Checchia
- I'm not worried about Obama in '12. The recession will be over. People will be seeing what health reform is really like etc. And Obama is a decent, smart leader. I also don't think the current crop of lies (regarding health reform, financial reform etc.) will lead to anything good for the R's beyond the short term. They've inspired a group of poorly informed wing-nuts, but catering to that group (which seems to be the goal of every R candidate) will only hurt the party ultimately, dragging it away from thoughtful conservatism into extremism.— DavidGtown
- one-eyed jack, no, Obama has not done that while playing golf. Why hasn't he? Because reporters are barred from following the president on the golf course. Only photographers are allowed onto the golf course with the president. In case you hadn't noticed, Obama a lot of times does not take questions from the press. During photo shoots with foreign leaders, reporters are kept from asking questions. He rarely comes up to the press while leaving or coming back from a trip while walking to/from the helicopter. He has not had a major press conference in nearly a year. Sure, he took questions after his closing remarks at his nuclear summit, but reporters were barred from asking questions at any time before that during the summit. And this from the most accessible, transparent administration in our nations history. One other thing. Bush met with several of the family members of soldiers killed in Iraq. I wonder if Obama has yet met with any family of a soldier killed in Afghanistan since he ordered that surge.— tom - wilmington, de
- let O'bama undergo polygraphing and see if he has even once told the truth since campaigning in 2008. its a wonder his nose isnt 30 feet long— zen
- Say "goodbye" to one term presidents. After investing so much to get their guy installed, do you really think that "the establishment" would risk losing a guy? If Clinton and Bush got re-elected, despit their baggage, I think Obama's got better than an even shot. The power brokers and sycophant media will make it happen - again.— Mark Glaeser
Tom, if you can't see the coldness in Bush's statement, there is something wrong with you. "I call upon all nations...Now watch this drive." Like he couldn't wait to get off the subject and get back to his game. Did Obama do that while playing golf or basketball? How would you feel if Obama said "We will continue to hunt down those that kill American soldiers and citizens...now watch me bang this 3-pointer."?— one_eyed_jack- This from Politico when reporting on Senate budget discussions..."On the tax side, Democrats have pledged to extend Bush-era middle-class tax cuts due to expire at the end of this calendar year." Now, I am confused. For months, years even, liberals on this site have blasted the Bush tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts that only benefited the wealthy, etc.etc.etc. Could one of them kindly explain what is meant by "Bush era tax cuts for the middle class" since most conservatives were under the impression they did not exist, based on what the liberals have been shouting for months, years even.— tom - wilmington, de
- Gibbs today said this has been the most transparent administration in our nation's history. I guess he is right, so long as nobody needed answers about how the Salahi's got into that state dinner, about Major Nadal Hassan and the Fort Hood shooting, about the secret healthcare negotiations (with Rahm Emmanuel spearheading them), about the alleged offer to Sestak for a job if he did not challenge Specter, about the nuclear summit (which was mostly closed to the press), or about anything else the administration decides not to answer questions about. No wonder Obama does not give full fledged press conferences.— tom - wilmington, de
- still_independent, Putin flew to Poland for the funeral, and he flew over some of the countries you mentioned. Not criticizing Obama, just stating a fact. As for Bush being criticized for golfing during war, this from the Washington Post in 2002..."Under the headline “Before Golf, Bush Decries Latest Deaths in Mideast,” staff writer Mike Allen described Bush as he “sprang from his golf cart at 6:15 a.m. and said he was distressed to hear about the latest suicide bombers in Israel.” “Bush, wearing khakis and a knit shirt, was holding a driver in his gloved left hand,” Allen wrote. “However incongruous the setting, the president plunged ahead,” Allen wrote. “There are a few killers who want to stop the peace process that we have started, and we must not let them,” he [Bush] said. “I call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorist killers.” “His business out of the way,” Allen wrote, “Bush barely paused for breath before saying, ‘Thank you. Now watch this drive.’” But as for Obama, his golfing shows a "cool confidence" and "just the right sport for a leader so driven", both of which have been used to describe Obama's golf outings.— tom - wilmington, de
- jimr, I'm not really saying he should have went (just that he could have if he really wanted to). I'm saying he shouldn't have been playing golf when he should have been at a funeral, that's all:)— NEPhilly
- pdid, he missed the funeral and played golf because he has a tin ear when it comes to relations with our allies, but not our enemies. One of his advisors should have told him it would look bad if he played golf when he was missing a funeral, if didn't have enough sense to figure it out himself. If you couldn't get to a friends funeral, I doubt you would go play golf while it was going on, your mother probably raised you better than that:)— NEPhilly
- NEP, "President Sarkozy of France, Spanish premier José Luis Zapatero, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the Nato Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the president of the European Council Herman van Rompuy, the Prince of Wales and the crowned heads of Norway, Denmark, Spain and Sweden are all staying at home." It was probably a safer move for Obama to stay put and he should keep a low profile. Plus, I can't imagine worrying about what Michael Moore puts up. He's seen as a kook at most angles of the screen. I'm not familiar with his movies firsthand but he nulifies himself as soon as he speaks.— JimR
- Pdiddy- Kudos for playing it straight. At least you are sticking to your principles.
- NEPhilly: I know why Obama missed the funeral. Because he hates America, of course!— p-diddy
- liberal: This is from the last thread, because I think it's worth continuing. You wrote, "I would only part company with the Bush people on terrorism civil liberties issues in that they let torture get out of hand..." So you are offended by the torture of foreign nationals, but you're ok with the assassination of U.S. citizens, without evidence? This is a matter of policy, not just a single individual.— p-diddy
- It's 2010. Can't this wait?— p-diddy
- "Whoever Obama runs against next time it will be a better candidate." Wow! That's quite a statement! Only a person who only supports the right wing could say that. What if the economy turns around (considering the election is over a year and half away this is a good possibility) and the War in Afganistan looks promising? I think it's far too early to worry about this. If I was going to bet however I'd have to put my money on Obama being re-elcted. After all, Reagan, Clinton AND GWB were re-elected rather easily. Betting against the incumbent (even though he is a black man that is hated by the far right) doesn't seem to make sense.— James TL
- still, he could have flown into a US airforce base without much trouble, please. Also, do you think he could have done something out of the public eye out of respect for the missed funeral or not? Why would GWB golfing too much be in that movie, why would he have addressed it in the interview & why would he have sworn it off during the war if there were no one questioning it? Are you saying, GWB was criticized for everything he did by the left and not golfing? I find that hard to believe & I will look for some backup for my statement. Now, should the President have golfed while missing a funeral of an ally or not?— NEPhilly
- Wow- Obama's been in office just over a year. Cheney/Bush had EIGHT years to bring us down. That'll take time to fix, and at least Obama can think (unlike Bush and Palin)— Flyers75
- Hold it. I'm confused. The money that is taken out of my pay check for my Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance or for the Medicare health insurance premiums are really just another federal tax. Please don't tell me that all of that money isn't in a secure lock box for me until I'm retired or disabliity.— Mike Welbourn
- NEPhilly: "his plane could have flown around the volcanic cloud & landed in a different city" - yes, so long as that city was not in Austria, Belgium, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, northern Spain, Hungary, Ireland, northern Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine or the U.K. Now please look at a map and tell me what city he should have flown to.... As to the earlier post "The criticism of his golfing was in that liberal mock-u-mentary Fahrenheit 9/11 and many other places".. Please find me an example of "many other places". I couldn't find any. Maybe they're out there, but as you were the one saying it, I guess it' appropriate you find it.— still_independent
- still, not a surprise:) The criticism of his golfing was in that liberal mock-u-mentary Fahrenheit 9/11 and many other places. As for the missed funeral, I'm sure if the President wanted to attend he could have made it there (his plane could have flown around the volcanic cloud & landed in a different city). It may not have been as convenient as he would have liked, but it was possible (other foreign leaders made it). Also, if he really could not make it he should have taken in a movie or a quiet day the the girls and Michelle out of the public eye out of respect:) Pretty insensitve & shallow if you ask me, which you didn't:)— NEPhilly
- "still independent, conservatives don't like facts, they get in the way of their efforts to manipulate ignorant populations." See, there's another one,no doubt from some MoveOn page.— pj katauskas
- NEPhilly: and btw, the part of Bush's statement from 2008 that you left out with your "..." angered a lot of veterans. the complete statement was "I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf. I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal." Several veterans and veterans' groups criticized him, basically stating that giving up golf (which he replaced with mountain biking) hardly shows solidarity with those that have given up life and limb.— still_independent
- NEPhilly : I'll back up Yersinia for once. I remember lots of criticism about the bike riding and tending to the ranch. I don't remember criticism from the left or anyone else for it... btw, I'm sure the fact that their was a complete flight ban had nothing to do with his not attending the funeral (which he was scheduled to go to).— still_independent
- Where have all the left wing howlers gone, long time passing....?— pj katauskas
- I watched a video of Barack playing basketball. The press covers it as if it's just fabulous that the President is playing basketball. It was funny as no one was passing the president the ball.
- pj, right you are. Same with the anti-war protesters, the Patriot Act protesters, etc. Where have they all gone?— NEPhilly
- Really Yersinia, same article. ***Mr Bush was shown in the Michael Moore film Fahrenheit 9/11 condemning "terrorist killers" in the Middle East when asked a question on the golf course in 2002. Barely pausing for breath, he added: "Thank you. Now watch this drive. Mr Bush later gave up golf, saying in a 2008 interview: "I don't want to some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander-in-chief playing golf... And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal." The golfing figures were compiled by Mark Knoller of CBS Radio, the unofficial White House statistician.***— NEPhilly
- Hey, NE, you should know by now that there's a different standard for D presidents than there is for R presidents. BO gets to golf as much as he wants,whenever he want, without any meddling press mention of that.— pj katauskas
- NE, I don't recall ever seeing Bush made fun of for playing golf. He WAS criticized for spending too much time riding bicycles and playing with chain saws on his ranch, particularly after he spent most of a week engaged in those hobbies while Hurricane Katrina wreaked havoc on New Orleans.— Yersinia Pestis
- ***President Barack Obama has played golf 32 times since he took office, eight times more than his predecessor George W. Bush - who was mocked by the Left for his fondness for the game - did in his entire presidency...Mr Obama's Sunday golf game prompted anger in Poland, where the Warsaw Business Post carried a headline reading: "Obama goes golfing instead of attending Kaczynskis' funeral".*** http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7607947/Barack-Obama-plays-eight-times-more-golf-than-George-W-Bush.html— NEPhilly
- Hilarious! You absolutely made my point! You just post MoveOn talking points, it seems.— pj katauskas
- Just got out of a meeting. Still, you and PJ are hilarious.— NigeltheMastiff
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- tom : I never denied that some pay no federal taxes (although we could, I guess, count federal excise taxes, gasoline taxes, etc.). But it's nowhere near 47%. The last number I saw was labelled as a "guess" from the CBO - it was about 10%. Here's the backing data .... http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2009/all_tables.pdf— still_independent
- Let me just rephrase a bit: "Democratic voters fall in line on election day." I think that sums it up perfectly. No actual brain activity or mental awareness, just the sheep following the orders and talking points of their weasel leaders. Go ahead fall in line, you will lose in 2010.— pj katauskas
- Comment removed.
- Oops, meant "married."— pj katauskas
- Yes, Nigel, you are in good company. Luckily, I marred one, too.— pj katauskas
- Where is the breakdown of that 47%, which gets mentioned a lot around here? How many are senior citizens who paid income tax their whole lives, but no longer have enough income? They should not be allowed to vote anymore?— one_eyed_jack
- still_independent, for example, a single parent of one child who makes $20K per year can have -0- FIT withheld from their check, and would have $1,568 in FICA/Medicare withheld. The refund on their tax return for 2009 would have been $3,458, which would give them back $1,890 more than they paid in FICA/Medicare taxes.— tom - wilmington, de
- Still, you did THAT on purpose, knowing well what EFFECT that would AFFECT Nigel, me and Abe with! I know,I know, there's a dangling preposition in that sentence.— pj katauskas
- still_independent, yes, since Daniels is a Graduate of Princeton University (Ivy League) and has a law degree from Georgetown. As to your point about "other federal taxes", which I am taking to mean social security and medicare, recall that many of the 47% of those who pay no income taxes also pay no medicare/social security taxes thanks to the Earned Income credit and the refundable portion of the child tax credit. I've outlined how that happens on prior blogs, so please drop the "other federal tax" line.— tom - wilmington, de
- Remember one of the 7 drawfs beat George Senior. Of coure that election had a crazy billionaire with a grudge against Bush willing to spend millions of his own money.— towman
- I hear that the leader of the Tea Party movement, Victoria Jackson, will be nominated by the Republicans.— pic man
- Think about this. 47% of the American "taxpayers" pay no income tax. Now, who do you think they will be voting for? The democrats have this set up perfectly. Democrats get the vote of non tax paying citizens, many, of whom, actually do not want to work. The democrats will court them ad nauseum.— frankfj
- NigeltheMastiff : the improper usage has a similar Affect on you and I ....— still_independent
- swedesboromike : "It's representation without taxation". Putting aside your completely ignoring other federal taxes, where exactly, he who professes to be a libertarian, is that in the constitution? Better yet, can I forgo my right to vote in exchange for a suspension of all my taxes?— still_independent
- PJ and Abe, have I actually encountered fellow word nerds? Irregardless just makes me shiver. And journalists should know basic grammar at least, so they shouldn't be making errors like using who when they mean whom. Actually, journalists should know much more than the basics of grammar. An occasional typo is to be expected, but poor usage just makes me shudder.— NigeltheMastiff
- Might I suggest that people who pay no federal income tax do not get to vote? Oh the liberal hornets are going to be flying my way now. But think about it. It's representation without taxation.
- Whoever Obama runs against next time it will be a better candidate. We certainly won't see the slight differences of last election. This contest will be government largesse vs small government, fiscal responsibility, pro business, low taxes. It won't even be a contest as we can see what played out in the blue states of NJ and Mass. The electorate is changing. The Dems still think it's about R's vs D's. Its about whoever can craft a coalition of conservatives, independents, and libertarians. There will always be the Obama following of people looking for handouts for which others will have to pay for but the majority is found with people who believe in the principle of fiscal responsibility.
- tom : do you think the Republican party has gotten past its 18 year aversion to national candidates from Indiana (a.k.a the "potatoe effect" )? :)— still_independent
- I don't think it is going to matter who runs against Obama. The bloom is off the rose. The electorate isn't going to be fooled twice by the clever stagecraft.
- I don't think there's anyone there to reprimand him. It's up to us, I guess.— pj katauskas
- This is very much worth reading. Checked out Kilgore's archives yesterday and he's been amazingly accurate and he's very well-informed: If you can get past partisanship to read this, it's worth it: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/republican_party/index.html?story=/opinion/feature/2010/04/18/gop_2012_problem_kilgore— GetEmGood
- The "irregardless" mistake is horrible. He should be reprimanded for making the masses think that's the correct word.
- You're right, Abe, it should be "whom." But then Bunch ran a column last week the had as part of its caption "For Who." And today Will uses the ever popular but always incorrect "irregardless." I guess all the editors were let go in the bankruptcy.— pj katauskas
- Don't discount Mitch Daniels, current governor of Indiana. He won re-election in 2009 by 18% and has high approval numbers. He passed a healthcare reform law that as financed by a tax increase on cigarettes and that gave tax credits to small businesses who gave health insurance to their employees. In 2005, Daniels also gave Indiana its first balanced budget in eight years and has run a surplus for most of his two terms. He also reformed the states property taxes. He could be a formidable opponent.— tom - wilmington, de
- Obama was elected with a lot of things going on one of which was - he was " not a Repub". The brand was damaged badly. So he has a good chance of falling to a "not a Dem" of equally unknown stripe. One thing Obama showed was that you can come out of the air and make enough of an impression to get noticed. The R's may not even have their candidate on the radar yet.— JimR
Bob Dole's grumpy old man? You just described 90% of the GOP.— potus- Regarding Ron Paul, a good libertarian. Libertarians need someone to remind them that libertarianism, though philosophically interesting, is not a viable political platform. No matter if the candidate is perfect, advocacy of eliminating social security and medicare, etc., is impossible to explain to the electorate. This may be sad, but it is certainly true.— liberal
- Shouldn't it be "Obama versus whom?"
- Considering Bush was so unpopular, you would have expected BO to win by much more.— pj katauskas
- 74 is spot on. There is no advantage now. If W taught us anything it's all about the war chest. Moderates will NOT be pulling the democratic lever in '12 as they did in '08. Bank on it.— Grazman
- bstew74 : all good points. But Thune has to become known enough to win the primary. Obama, at a similar time, was much better known than Thune is. And Palin doesn't apply, since she never ran for president. If Thune's shooting for VP, then laying low makes more sense.— still_independent
- pj katauskas: not that any of this is germaine to the article, but Bush won by 2.4% (50.7 - 48.3). Obama won by 7.2% (52.9 - 45.7). That's TRIPLE the margin, despite your generous rounding errors. So no, Bush's "thumping" of Kerry was not "kinda Obama/McCain-like".— still_independent
Obama will be pwned- 74, excellent points.— pj katauskas
- One error in your point here is the dismissal of Thune. He is doing nothing to make himself known at this point because there simply is no point in doing so. Thune is a nice looking family man, barely older than Obama, and has done little to alienate anyone. What would raising his visibility do for him? Basically it would make him a target. The various factions you note would all make opinions and marginalize him. The best play for Republicans is to lay low for a while. Someone is going to win their primary and it takes no time at all for all of us to find out what this person does. Think along the lines of Obama and Palin, Obama was unrecognizable compared to Hilary Clinton and Palin was unknown two months before the general election (we learned enough about her in the first week). Republicans voters fall in line on election day, they vote in consistent numbers and they vote for their guy. The Democrats win when they electrify the masses like Obama. The key to the election will simply be whether or not he can repeat his performance.— bstew74
- Pretty good column for DP. Couldn't manage to stay away from Palin-bashing but at least he was on topic and managed not to utter the words "Glenn Beck." Ds should remember that after Bush thumped Kerry in 2004 (what, 51 - 47, kinda Obama/McCain-like, right?), there was no D heir apparent for the presidency. And Pesty, is that why R numbers are better than Ds lately? Or is it just you?— pj katauskas
- Didn't even mention Ron Paul,one canidate who could give Obama a run for his money .....— Dadair1
- ...and nothing is exactly what the Republican party has to offer America.— Yersinia Pestis
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
