Steve Chapman: Maybe Obama Should Quit?

Yet more speculation that it would be best for Obama to not seek a second term – from the Chicago Tribune:

… there is good news for the president. I checked the Constitution, and he is under no compulsion to run for re-election. He can scrap the campaign, bag the fundraising calls and never watch another Republican debate as long as he’s willing to vacate the premises by Jan. 20, 2013.

That might be the sensible thing to do. It’s hard for a president to win a second term when unemployment is painfully high. If the economy were in full rebound mode, Obama might win anyway. But it isn’t, and it may fall into a second recession — in which case voters will decide his middle name is Hoover, not Hussein. Why not leave of his own volition instead of waiting to get the ax?…

Mostly he won’t because I suspect he doesn’t realize just how bad its getting…and even if he does, there still is that chance of a massive rebound in the economy and/or a complete implosion by the GOP.  Neither is very likely (in the end, we GOPers will end up nominating someone who can do all that is necessary:  merely be a credible alternative to Obama), but it won’t become crystal clear for months…perhaps too long down the road for Obama to quit and allow time for Democrats to pull it together and get a credible nominee.

To be sure, it would do Obama good to get out – as Chapman observes, even if Obama wins, second terms don’t tend to work out very well.  Obama’s second term would be harder than most – he would have managed to scrape to a win with an economy plunging back in to recession and he’d be dealing with a Congress likely completely controlled by his opponents.  The scandals brewing now would come to a head, then…nothing but a four year long headache for Obama.  Quitting now would mean an almost-certain Hillary nomination…and she could actually win next year; thus Obama would saddle her with all the headaches while he goes on to write his memoirs, make bags of money and perhaps become head of the United Nations in the by and by.

We’ll see how this comes out – it gets more interesting as more and more liberal voices join the Chorus of Concern.  But don’t mistake it – its not a worry about Obama:  it is entirely a concern that with Obama at the top of the ticket while Reid and Pelosi still lead the Congressional Democrats that the party is on the road to a blow-out defeat…the sort of crushing defeat which ushers in 50 years of the other guys running things.  The sort of defeat which could result in the dismantling of the liberal welfare State and the revival of an America that our grand-fathers knew.  Nothing can be more frightening for liberals than that…a confident, growing America running the world based on core, American values.  Makes ’em shudder just to think about it.

As of now, it is a million to one against Obama declining to run…but that is very different from “absolutely impossible” as it was just a month or so ago.  And its only a thousand to one against a serious primary challenger…far different from the million to one against a little while ago.

Reagan for Senate?

Interesting bit of news from SFGate regarding Senator Feinstein’s 2012 Re-election battle:

…the landscape may change soon, analysts said, given Feinstein’s recent campaign money problems and a Field Poll released today that gives one of California’s most consistently popular politicians a 41 percent approval rating, the lowest of her Senate career.

One person considering a run, The Chronicle has learned, is Michael Reagan, a former conservative talk-radio host and the son of former President Ronald Reagan.

Republicans may consider a challenge to Feinstein less foreboding after the survey of 1,001 registered voters found that 39 percent disapprove of Feinstein’s performance and 20 percent have no opinion.

For the first time since being elected to the Senate in 1992, a plurality – 44 percent – of Field Poll respondents were “not inclined” to vote for her while 41 percent were…

I’ll donate to him – he’s all right on the issues…but it has been a looong time since California was “Reagan Country”.  Though there would be a certain satisfaction if the upcoming political revolution in 2012 included electing a Reagan in California.

But, we shall see – given that the hopelessly liberal Jerry Brown was elected by the people of California to get them out of the mess brought on by hopelessly liberal policies, we have to assume that the level of political intelligence in California is quite low.  Think about it – the choice last year was between a dynamic, successful private-sector executive and the man who did more than most to set California on the path to disaster back in the 1970’s…Californians choose the creator of disaster.

Still, I hope Reagan goes for it – it would be endlessly fun, if nothing else.

Will Obama Quit?

PJ Tatler has a run down on the growing rumors that Obama  may quit – pull an LBJ and back out of running in 2012.  I don’t think this will happen.

First off, the only people on the Democrat side who might suggest this – Lieberman, Bayh, etc – are not the sort of people Obama will listen to.  Locked in to his array of sycophants, Obama is not about to allow some outsider to tell him that the game is over and its time to go home.  I can very much see some sensible Democrats wanting to do this – there is a chance with Obama on the ticket that a defeat in 2012 will turn in to an epic, blow out loss – but I can’t see any way for such people to reach Obama.

Secondly, and this ties in to why there won’t be a serious primary challenge, to move against Obama is to risk the Democrats’ hammer lock on the African American vote.  This isn’t just about the 2012 Presidential election – this is about whether or not liberals can retain any power to influence American policy.  A defeat in 2012 would be bad for them – but there is defeat, and then there is crushing loss.  Defeat is Obama out and the loss of 20 House and 5 Senate seats. Bad.  Means GOP controls things for at least two years.  Lots of conservative reforms can be implemented…but the chances of a major overhaul of the FDR/LBJ settlement are small.  Crushing loss is Obama out and the loss of 50 House and 15 Senate Seats.  Horrific.  Means GOP has the power to pretty much do whatever it wants…every liberal program is on the chopping block.  Just can’t be allowed to happen.

But that is what would happen if the Democrat party – by calling on Obama to quit or engineering a serious primary challenger – were to be perceived by African American voters as having betrayed Obama.  Its not that they would vote GOP, but that they would stay home on election day.  Without high African American turnout going 90%+ for the Democrats, the horrific scenario becomes a reality.  Of course, the Democrats might endure the horrific loss, anyway, but why make it a certainty by stabbing Obama in the back?  For good or ill, Democrats have Obama for 2012…in 2008, they jumped on his bandwagon presuming that he could initiate 50 years of liberal rule.  It hasn’t worked out that way.  Even if Obama manages to win in 2012, he has completely failed in that promise…but if the liberals want to have a future in America, they have to ensure that 2012 doesn’t work out as a blowout loss.  Easier to keep losses to a minimum with Obama than without.

I could be wrong about this – there might be a revolt of the remaining moderates in the Democrat party.  More than likely, though, there won’t be…and if there is, it will work out as a quixotic, third party alternative…which would help sink Obama, but wouldn’t destroy the Democrat party for the next 20 years.  That will all be as it may – none of us get a say in how Democrats do things.  Our job is to work for the blowout victory no matter what they do – because right now we have that chance to really do it:  to win so much power that we really can dismantle the Welfare State.

So, let’s just get out there and do it..

Reid: I’ll Force a Vote on the Jobs Bill…Eventually

From the Las Vegas Sun:

Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Republicans won’t support President Barack Obama’s jobs plan, but he still wants them to vote on the sweeping $450 billion economic recovery effort.

“We are going to have the Republicans belly up to the bar to turn down this plan,” Reid said during a virtual town hall meeting with supporters Wednesday.

Reid said he won’t immediately take up Obama’s plan because the Senate must tackle other issues first. He didn’t specify which bills would receive priority over Obama’s economic solution…

Anyone have an idea of what other, crisis issue we have before us which pre-empts jobs?

What is really happening here is not a Reid worry that the GOP will uniformly vote it down, but that half a dozen vulnerable, 2012 Democrats will vote against it, as well.  The last thing Obama, Reid and the Democrats need is for the Obama jobs bill to die in the Democrat Senate.  So, Reid’s “I’ll force them to vote” is just bluster…he won’t move until the House does.

Team Obama: Utterly Clueless

From the Daily Caller:

President Barack Obama will present his “jobs plan” on Wednesday at a company which is shipping jobs overseas.

Obama is scheduled to present his “jobs plan” in Apex, N.C., on Wednesday at the headquarters of WestStar Precision.

WestStar is a high-end, specialty manufacturer that just opened a new facility in San Jose, Costa Rica — creating many new jobs there, but not in the United States…

You have to wonder – are they really this stupid?  Obama has a massive staff of people dedicated to his well being and re-election…did no one check to see just what this photo-op backdrop was up to?  Couldn’t they find one company out there which actually expanded its American facilities of late?  Which didn’t just ship a bunch of jobs overseas?  Making this even more bizarre is the fact that the company owner is a Democrat who has donated to Obama’s campaign.

If we on the GOP side were allowed to write the script for Democrat implosion in 2012, we couldn’t have done better than this.  One thing I’d like to know – you liberals out there who are convinced that Obama is on the side of the little guy…here he’s going to an event to tout his job program at a company which ships US jobs overseas  rather than endure all the laws and regulations you liberals have imposed…and the owner of the company is not some GOP “millionaire and billionaire” fighting tenaciously for his corporate jet tax break…he’s a liberal Democrat.

Explain that, if you can.

At the GOP Debate: The Question for 2012

From Ann Althouse, noted in tonight’s debate:

A young guys asks a classic question: “Out of every dollar that I earn, how much do you think I deserve to keep?”

That is the question to ask – and especially to ask of Obama and the Democrats.  What amount of liberty, at the end of the day, are you prepared to leave with the people?

No, not whether we’ll have the freedom to watch filth in popular culture.  Not whether we’ll have to freedom to suck up money on welfare of bogus disability.  What real liberty – if I work hard and play by the rules, how much of each dollar do you think I should keep?  99 cents?  75 cents?  50 cents?  What?  You tell us  – and then we’ll know who wants a nation of citizens, and who wants a nation of slaves.

Jindal Endorses Perry; Pawlenty Endorses Romney

Getting the Pawlenty endorsement is a good thing for Romney – Pawlenty has excellent social conservative credentials plus a reservoir of support from TEA Party activists.  This will help Romney is his now-uphill climb to beat Perry.  On the other hand, getting Jindal’s endorsement helps Perry with more establishment type Republicans…Jindal is very much the rock-ribbed social and economic conservative, but he’s never been noted as some sort of movement, get out there with the TEA Party activist.

I have to say that the Jindal endorsement will be a problem for me if Perry gets the GOP nomination…my two picks for Veep are Jindal and Rubio; with Jindal as the much-preferred candidate.  Nothing wrong with Rubio, at all – in fact, I hope to vote for Rubio in a Presidential contest one day.  But Jindal’s experience is much greater and I want Jindal to be President one day even more than I’d like to see Rubio as President.  These things will work out as they will…but it will be hard for Perry to pick Jindal due to regional reasons.  On the other hand, Bush picked Cheney and it caused no problem in the long run.

Pawlenty, of course, will certainly remain in the top five of possible Romney VP picks; probably remain in the top ten for Perry, too.  Pawlenty just brings a huge amount of strength to the GOP – and will help any GOP candidate.  Can you imagine a debate between Pawlenty and Biden?  We could make it pay-per-view and raise a billion dollars for the GOP!  Of course, Jindal would mop the floor with Biden, too…the really good news is that we can look forward to having both Pawlenty and Jindal in the next GOP Administration (we do have a wealth of talent which Democrats must envy…whom would Obama dredge up for 2nd Term replacements?  Chuck Schumer?).

Next up may be an endorsement by Jim DeMint…who could end up derailing either Perry or Romney by endorsing the other man.  If he endorses someone else, then it would probably be a wash for Perry and Romney and likely wouldn’t greatly help Bachmann or Cain, as they already have the support of those who back DeMint.

 

Maybe Telling the Truth Works?

According to this CNN poll (PDF), 52% of GOP voters over 65 years old back Perry for the GOP nomination.  Among those 50 and older, 41% back Perry (next in support among this group is Romney, with 22%).  With Pery being the candidate who is correctly identifying Social Security as a Ponzi scheme, this indicates that older voters are ok with the truth…and I wonder if the overall population will be?

It could start a whole, new trend in American politics…where politicians will actually say what needs to be done, regardless of MSM/DNC generated talking points, and the people with a clear eye and common sense just review what politicians say, and then make decisions accordingly.

Imagine what the country would be like?

HAT TIPWashington Examiner

We Can’t Touch Social Security, Unless…

…Obama needs a tax cut and his liberal base won’t let him cut taxes that need cutting.  Jim Quinn over at Zero Hedge explains the problem:

…The party that presents Social Security as a well run outstanding example of government at its finest has decided the best way to create jobs is to double down on you paying even less in payroll taxes than you did this year. We know for a fact the average person will get between 25% and 125% more than they paid into Social Security. The Obama plan last year and again this year is to drastically reduce the amount paid into the Trust fund, so you can have the privilege of consuming the same amount of food and energy at a much higher price. Brilliant plan! It is amazing how liberals and Keynesians can have such disregard and scorn for future generations who will be handed this bill with no means to pay.

The Republicans went along with the 2011 payroll tax cut of 2%. They will go along with the 3.1% payroll tax cut. You see, this is how politics works. Since the payroll tax was “temporarily” cut, whoever lets the payroll tax cut expire will be declared a tax hiker. Therefore, the “temporary” payroll tax cut will be extended indefinitely, further impoverishing future generations. Meanwhile, how many jobs did the first payroll tax cut create? How many will the extended and increased payroll tax cut create? None! Obama is using the George Bush tax rebate check method of destroying the country. Both decided to address a government spending problem by reducing revenues. This is par for the course and explains why the economy is teetering on the verge of collapse…

And we really shouldn’t go along with Obama’s next installment in “temporary” payroll tax reductions.  I know, I know – for us GOPers, a tax cut is always a good thing…and it is, at the end of the day, better that people keep more of their own money.  But if we go along with this, then all we’ll have done is allow Obama to get a campaign talking point while further shoving us in to bankruptcy.  We must balance our budget – this is not a thing we can kid around with or kick down the road.  We have, at most, three or four years before the whole thing falls apart and our government finances become like Greece’s.

For us in the GOP, our duty is to demand massive, across-the-board budget cuts – and, yes, demand tax reform, too; but budget cuts come first.  And in the end, balancing the budget is so important that we must not even shy away from tax cuts…but not until at least $500 billion is reduced from spending.  And I don’t mean “over ten years”…I mean that in FY 2012 (which starts October 1st) we must spend at least $500 billion less than we spent in FY 2011.  If we can’t get at least that, then no tax increase in any way, shape or form can be agreed to.

To call this a serious moment in our nation’s history is to downplay what we’re going through.  Our economy and the global economy teeter on the brink of collapse.  If it does collapse, then hundreds of millions of people will begin to suffer very gravely.  In spite of asinine stories about China replacing us, the fact is that unless the United States pulls out of recession, no one really will.  Only America, properly governed and with a rational economic policy can do what needs to be done.  Our payout if we don’t act properly will be poverty and, very likely, a rapid rise in global tyranny leading to eventual war.

This is not the time for gimmicks – but that is likely all we’re going to get from Obama.  But we, of the Republican party, must have none of that – we must stand for solid, responsible policies which will actually cure the illness…and we must be courageous enough to go in 2012 on such a platform.  Let Obama and his liberals play games, let us save America.