2012 Presidential Election

Responding to my post from yesterday that attempted to discuss the apparently non-newsworthy topic of what Christine O'Donnell actually campaigned on in her successful Senate primary run in Delaware, Andrew Sullivan lasers in on my description of the defeated Mike Castle as “just another TARP supporter”: Does even the most devoted libertarian really believe that any responsible president of any party would not have tried to save the economy from a total financial meltdown? Do they recall that the Congress initially did turn it down and then changed its mind? And would it be possible for them to acknowledge that the bank bailout seems to have been far more successful than almost anyone believed at the time? As readers know, the Dish is very libertarian-friendly. But sometimes they drive us nuts with their utter disengagement with, you know, political reality. Taking those in order, with the caveat that I'm hardly “the most devoted libertarian”: 1) When you assume as axiomatic both a looming “total financial meltdown” and a presidential ability to “save the economy,” the only drama left is the final number of digits on the blank check. From inarticulate fears and unrealistic savior-dreams come panicky, incoherent, power-aggrandizing policies whose details don't matter to their biggest supporters, as we learned the hard way twice under George W. Bush. Let's recall the nightmare scenario that the 43rd president said would rain down on our heads unless Congress took “immediate action” to pass TARP: More banks could fail, including some in your community. The stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet. Foreclosures would rise dramatically. And if you own a business or a farm, you would find it harder and more expensive to get credit. More businesses would close their doors, and millions of Americans could lose their jobs. Even if you have good credit history, it would be more difficult for you to get the loans you need to buy a car or send your children to college. And ultimately, our country could experience a long and painful recession. Anything on that list not happen after Bush got his way? Yet the people who were warning about the dire long-term consquences of nationalizing downside risk , of granting vague yet colossal and open-ended powers to the executive branch and Federal Reserve, of continuing to artificially prop up housing prices and kick difficult decisions down the road, it is these people who the Andrew Sullivans of the world want to portray as blind devotees of an unworkable faith, impervious to reality. I invite anyone who thinks that way to read our coverage at the time , including this Sept. 25, 2008 roundtable of free-market economists discussing TARP and other potential government interventions. There you will find people scrambling in real time to put hard numbers and economic principles on fuzzy notions like “total financial meltdown,” and concluding frequently that some things needed to be done by the federal government, just maybe not an Iraq War-sized toxic assets fund that never got around to buying up toxic assets . 2) Yes, we are more than aware that Congress changed its mind on TARP , after arm-twisting from the president and authoritarian hysterics from the likes of David Brooks. I have no idea what that's supposed to add to a debate about TARP's effectiveness two years later. 3) It is not remotely true that “the bank bailout seems to have been far more successful than almost anyone believed at the time.” You don't need to take my word for it; just re-read that Bush quote above about what the bailout was designed to avert . That was safely mainstream opinion in the fall of 2008. Meanwhile, as Tim Cavanaugh pointed out yesterday , ongoing skepticism of TARP's effectiveness probably has something to do with the fact that “performance of the economy has been even worse than interventionists claimed it would have been without any intervention.” 4) As for “utter disengagement” with any kind of reality, let alone “political,” I for one am always happy to plead guilty, since reality bites (or at least the movie did). But even so, I prefer my version of realism to a Sullivan Planet where cash-for-clunkers was “right” and “helpful,” the administration's economic policies ” are defensible for the large part from the perspective of the actual circumstances we face ,” and where Obama and the Congress ” should both get the benefit of the doubt .” The world just doesn't look that way through my eyeballs, no matter how hard I squint. While I don't begrudge Sullivan or anyone else adapting their political and economic views to changing circumstances (or even just for the hell of it), I'd find the arguments a lot more persuasive if he (and they) dropped the pretense that it's only their opponents who are being ideological in any given debate. Do-something mentality , “pragmatism,” and deference to power can all be just as ideological as libertarianism, even if they don't have their own seven-syllable descriptors and bad taste in prog-rock. More pressing to the matter at hand, they can be wrong , and they usually hold the power. It's gonna take more than the absence of bread lines to make me believe this particular P.R. campaign.

Visit link:
Andrew Sullivan Defends TARP, Criticizes Libertarians for “utter disengagement” with “political reality” (Like That’s a Bad Thing)

Immigration limits are costing the UK thousands of jobs and hurting the country’s fragile economic recovery, Vince Cable said, in scathing comments that lay bear tensions on the issue within the coalition

Read the original post:
Immigrant cap hits economy, says Cable

New York Times reporters Jeff Zeleny and Megan Thee-Brenan examined the findings of the latest CBS/New York Times poll. As November elections approach, things look pretty bleak for Democrats and President Obama especially, who earned a record low approval rating and bad marks on his handling of the economy. But Zeleny whispered a little between-round encouragement into the ear of the battered Democrats, suggesting both sides were equally vulnerable in Thursday’s front page ” Poll Finds Hazards and Opportunities for Both Parties .” The original online headline, “Poll Suggests Big Opening for G.O.P. Going Into Midterms,” was far more accurate. Republicans are heading into the general election phase of the midterm campaign backed by two powerful currents: the highest proportion of voters in two decades say it is time for their own member of Congress to be replaced, and Americans are expressing widespread dissatisfaction with President Obama’s leadership. But the latest New York Times/CBS News poll also finds that while voters rate the performance of Democrats negatively, they view Republicans as even worse, providing a potential opening for Democrats to make a last-ditch case for keeping their hold on power. The poll represents a snapshot of the country’s political mood as the campaign pivots from primary contests that have revealed deep divisions among Republicans into the general election, where the parties deliver their competing arguments to a wider audience. The findings suggest that there are opportunities and vulnerabilities for both parties as they proceed into the final seven weeks of the campaign. But the Times (albeit burying the news at the end of the last sentence of paragraph seven) apparently thinks at least one house of Congress may fall into Republican hands. Voters have a darker view of Congressional Republicans than of Democrats, with 63 percent disapproving of Democrats and 73 percent disapproving of Republicans. But with less than two months remaining until Election Day, there are few signs that Democrats have made gains persuading Americans that they should keep control of Congress. Not until paragraph 18 did the Times mention Obama’s record low approval rating, of 45%-47% approval-disapproval. The paper didn’t mention it’s Obama’s lowest-ever approval rating in a New York Times poll (the last joint Times/CBS poll, in June, had Obama 47%-43% approval-disapproval). The president’s overall job approval rating is 45 percent, with 47 percent disapproving. On the economy, his rating is worse, with 41 percent approving and 51 percent disapproving. When asked whether Mr. Obama has a clear plan for solving the nation’s problems, 57 percent responded that he did not, yet twice as many give him more credit than Republicans for having a plan. The Times pushed for higher taxes in a short sidebar article by Megan Thee-Brenan, ” Support for Higher Tax on Wealthiest .” Amid heated debate in Washington over the fate of the Bush-era tax cuts, there is strong support for the Obama administration’s proposal to allow the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to expire at the end of the year. However, the latest New York Times/CBS News poll finds the public does not expect that to happen if the Republicans win control of Congress in November. The poll found that 53 percent of Americans say Mr. Obama’s proposal to increase taxes on households earning $250,000 or more is a good idea, and 38 percent say it is a bad idea. But she didn’t mention that that’s less support then the last time the Times polled that question. Back in February, 62% thought it was a good idea, 31% a bad idea. That spread has since narrowed to 53%-38%. That was Question 63; you can read a .PDF version of the Times’ latest poll here .

Read more:
Are Both Parties Equally Vulnerable in November, Like the New York Times Says? Hardly

Courtesy of Howard Kurtz, the reliably liberal host of CNN’s Reliable Sources and, in his spare times, the media critic for the Washington Post , comes word that the Obama White House is none too pleased with the story that’s been raging through the blogosphere the past few days. Dinesh D’Souza has drawn a torrent of criticism with a Forbes cover story that accuses President Obama of adopting “the cause of anti-colonialism” from his Kenyan father. But while most detractors focus on the author–and Newt Gingrich, who embraced the critique–the White House is aiming its ammunition at the business magazine. “It’s a stunning thing, to see a publication you would see in a dentist’s office, so lacking in truth and fact,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs says in an interview. “I think it represents a new low.” Gibbs is meeting with Thursday afternoon with Forbes’s Washington bureau chief, Brian Wingfield, to discuss his objections. “Did they not fact-check this at all, or did they fact-check it and just willfully ignore it?” he asks. Nothing like a visit from the press secretary to focus the mind! But don’t expect a retraction from either Forbes or the Indian-born D’Souza: The magazine would not make Editor-in-Chief Steve Forbes, who ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 1996 and 2000, available for comment, or any other editor. The biweekly did issue a statement: “Dinesh D’Souza’s cover story was presented as an analysis of how the president thinks. No facts are in contention. Forbes stands by the story.” But some facts are very much in contention, and D’Souza–who loosely based the article on his forthcoming book, “The Roots of Obama’s Rage”–isn’t hesitant to discuss his work. Reached separately in New York, D’Souza, 49, who worked in the Reagan White House, says his argument that the president was heavily influenced by the late Barack Obama Sr. is a “psychological theory.” But, he insists, “the idea that Obama has roots that are foreign is not an allegation, it’s a statement of fact.” So what do you think? Baseless innuendo that revives the “birther” argument that Obama was not born in the U.S., or astute analysis of a man who spent most of his formative years either outside the country or off the mainland? Be sure to read the Forbes piece and Jack Cashill’s response, “ What D’Souza Doesn’t Get Quite Right ,” at American Thinker. Meanwhile, the mystery of whom Barack Hussein Obama II really is — not where he was born, but who he is — continues to deepen.

Continue reading here:
Surprise: White House Unhappy with Dinesh D’Souza

AP – President Barack Obama says innovation is key to the country’s economic future but that innovation depends on students developing their skills in science, technology, engineering and math.

Read the original here:
Obama says education is key to innovation
(AP)

New York GOP gubernatorial nominee Carl Paladino has to change his act if he expects to have a chance to win his election, Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) said Thursday. King offered his support to the controversial Tea Party-backed candidate, who defeated former Rep. Rick Lazio in the primary Tuesday, but said he would have to tone down his rhetoric.  {mosads}”Yeah, I intend to support him as the nominee of the party,” King said during an interview on WABC Radio in New York. “I have to tell you, though, some of the stuff he says is — I think it could be damaging. I think he has to realize he’s in the big leagues now and there’s more than just, you know, you’re going to bring a baseball bat to Albany.” King referenced a remark Paladino made on the campaign trail in which he stated that he would “take a baseball bat to Albany” to rid the state capital of corruption. The Buffalo real esate developer, however, has appeared to divide New York Republicans. He has found himself in hot water over e-mails he forwarded to friends containing pornographic material and racist jokes. But King acknowledged that Paladino had unexpectedly harnessed the energy of the GOP voting base, which appears to be deeply discontented with the status quo. “Right now, the fact is, there is a tremendous discontent out there that the elites and many party officials did not see coming,” King said. “And it’s all around the country, so we hope to work with Carl Paladino.” Paladino’s win came on the same night Christine O’Donnell, another candidate backed by Tea Party groups, surprisingly won the GOP Senate primary in Delaware over nine-term centrist Rep. Mike Castle. King said that Paladino has a week to 10 days to prove he is a serious challenger to Democratic nominee Andrew Cuomo and expressed confidence he would adapt his campaign for the general election. “But again, he has to realize — I think he will; he’s a smart guy — that there’s a difference between being an insurgent running in a primary and actually running for governor, being the governor of a state. You can still be a tough guy — look at Chris Christie in New Jersey. He’s doing a tremendous job, but at the same time, he knows how to do it in a way that doesn’t needlessly offend people.”

Excerpt from:
Rep. King: Paladino ‘has to realize he’s in the big leagues’

The Log Cabin Republicans endorsed 11 House candidates Thursday as the association of gay Republicans looks to exert more influence over the midterm elections. The challengers on the list include John Dennis, who’s challenging Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.); Nan Hayworth, who’s running against Rep. John Hall (D-N.Y.); Richard Hanna, who’s running against Rep. Michael Arcuri (D-N.Y.); and Mattie Fein, who faces Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.). “We have a number of Republican candidates across the country that are supportive of our ideals — a free-market economy, a strong defense, smart tax policies, sound fiscal discipline and, without question — value equal treatment for all Americans,” R. Clarke Cooper, the group’s executive director, said in a statement. “We will be active and working with our local members and supporters in each of these districts and states to help get these candidates elected in November.” This round of endorsements means the group now supporters 14 Republican House members and challengers. See the full list after the jump.

Read more:
Speaker Pelosi’s challenger gets Log Cabin support

OBAMA: The party’s hemorrhaging elderly voters over ObamaCare despite Andy Griffith ’s help.   And even the Times says the plan’s numbers don’t add up.  What now?  David? AXELROD :  Two tracks, sir.  Short term, lure seniors back.  We need their votes in November to keep the Senate, at least.  Long term, address the program’s fiscal time bomb. OBAMA :  OK.  How do we get Democrats bragging to oldsters about their support for the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”?   HHS ? SEBELIUS :  Sir, announce that attorneys reviewing the law have determined that language in Part 3, Sec 1141, (a), (1) suggests seniors’ pets may be considered ”partners,” and therefore eligible for health insurance as dependents of covered humans. JOE BIDEN :  Nice!  But . . . who’d, uh, vet the claims?  Hahahahaha. OBAMA :  Be quiet, Joe.  Remember, Hillary’s in the wings.  Whaddya think, Tim? GEITHNER : Too costly, sir . . . unless the only treatment option for animals was to put them down. LARRY SUMMERS :  That works for me.  Even so, there’s just enough scratch in the budget we haven’t passed yet to euthanize felines.  Dogs will have to wait. OBAMA :  Agreed.  Let’s call the subsidiary program “Medicat.” “Peticare” sounds too  . . .  inclusive.  Other ideas to energize old folks?  Nancy? PELOSI :  How about a “Cash for Clunker Body Parts” promotion, sir?  “Replace your worn-out hip or liver, get a $5,000 rebate from Uncle Sam.” OBAMA :  Good!  Funding, let’s say two billion.  Limited time offer.  Tim, write the bill with Waxman , and make the application procedure impossibly complicated.  Last thing we want is a run on the organ banks. GEITHNER :  Yes, sir.  Nobody will actually qualify.  Then you can brag about two billion you saved taxpayers. BIDEN : I dunno, Boss.  Every time we do something to help this ObamaCare rat puke go down like oatmeal, support declines.  We need professional help.  How ‘bout hiring a New York ad agency to pitch our proposals like they were peanut butter or Depends? OBAMA :  Hmmm.  Madisonian Avenue Democracy.  Jefferson would gag.  Well, he’s dead.  Eric, tell a top firm to take on selling our pets and body parts initiatives or face a DOJ probe.  Now, the finance problem.  Rahm? EMANUEL :  Axe is right, sir.  We’re looking at a fiscal train wreck because people are living longer and consuming medical resources into their nineties. PELOSI: Well then, after November, let’s incentivize death.  I’ll have one of my congressional automatons propose legislation halving the death tax for anyone who voluntarily passes away prematurely.  Harry, you run with it in the Senate.  Reverend? JESSE JACKSON :  What? PELOSI : We’ll need some Johnnie Cochran word play for ads. JACKSON :  Oh.  How about, ”Early croak, kin won’t go broke,” or, ”Take a fall, kids get it all.” BIDEN:  Get Hillary’s ghostwriter on it: It Takes an Early Grave to Save the Village . HARRY REID:  Following up on Nancy’s suggestion, sir: in December, speak from the Oval Office about the imminent bankruptcy of convalescent homes across the country.  Announce their nationalization.  Cast it as an urgent measure to stave off an economic and humanitarian catastrophe. BIDEN:  I gotcha!  Then we run ‘em like Third World clinics to boost death rates. OBAMA:  Hmm—a riff on Roach Motels : they “check in, but they don’t check out.”  Sebelius, work with Pelosi and Reid on the legislation. Do a backroom deal to get the AMA on board—tell ‘em we’ll consider tort reform if they cooperate [snort]. SEBELIUS:  A bonus, sir: HHS will pick up costs for deceased residents’ funerals–secular only, of course.  That’ll give you civil rites street cred. HOWARD DEAN:  After midterms, we should have a national conversation on end-of-life options, sir.  Hey Leon, what’s your view on euthanasia? PANETTA:  Um, they’re highly susceptible to al Qaeda recruitment, especially in Jakarta. You should see the reports I’m getting… EMANUEL:  Howard, Leon’s special.  Tease him again and I’ll rip your heart out and eat it in front of your family, Chicago-style. OBAMA:  No squabbling; time’s short.  Valerie, hush-hush, ask Jack Kevorkian to be our National Health Care Czar.  And I want Michael Moore as the program’s ombudsmean. BIDEN :  Good moves, Boss.  No more coddlin’ after the elections.  Throw the fear ‘o God into the geezers. Tell ‘em straight up: you’re the One. You can cut Medicare and privatize Social Security with a word; sic the IRS on their kids; tax their Roth money retroactively. They cross you and you got two years plus to nail their skinny old butts. [enter First Lady] MICHELLE :  I just talked with Rosalynn Carter. I want you to put “Comparable Worth for First Ladies” at the top of your agenda. You hear me, Barack?

See the rest here:
Inside the Obama War Room: Senior Moments

Speaking of sore losers … You may want to update your webpage sometime, guys. After all, the primary was two days ago. Click to Enlarge Via Free Republic The Delaware Republican website has Mike Castle listed under “Our 2010 candidates” with a link to his senatorial campaign website. The front page also has articles trashing Christine O’Donnell including: Conservative Voices Throughout the Country Show Why It’s Crucial to Vote for Mike Castle Weekly Standard: O’Donnell Sued Conservative Group for $6.9 Million O’Donnell Refuses to Address Campaign’s Illegal Conduct Maybe they’re still in shock that their RINO was defeated on Tuesday? UPDATE: It’s still not updated as of 10:47 AM EST. UPDATE: (12:20 PM EST) The Delaware GOP updated the website but still have Castle endorsements on the front page.

View original post here:
Delaware GOP Website Lists Mike Castle as “Our 2010 Candidate”

“It’s Washington versus the country.” “Let’s go balls to the wall for Christine O’Donnell,” Rush Limbaugh implored listeners on his show today, but Rush knows that his listeners are the choir to which he is preaching. It’s the party establishment and the center-right commentariat that needs to hear the message, and in that vein, Rush took on Karl Rove on Read this post