---
Were I Romney, I would fire "Etch-a-Sketch Fehrnstrom" immediately. Anyone that stupid should not be employed in his current capacity. Fehrstrum gave the opposition the perfect way to remind voters Romney's convictions are less than deep. (See 2 below.)
As for Santorum, he too should be outed for his comment that Obama would be better than Romney. What was he thinking? Obviously he wasn't thinking and if he was then it shows his complete childish temperament.
Yes, Santorum came from behind against great odds but he is nothing but a drag and an albatross and appeals to the most narrow of Republicans. From this point forward and if Santorum was a party loyalist and actually cared about the nation ridding itself of Obama he would pull out now.
In the upcoming La. vote, the Cajuns should put Santorum in the cage he richly deserves! (See 2a below.)
---
Are there any predictive correlations between market results and GDP as pertains to a presidential election? (See 3 below.)
---
George Will cites the argument refuting the government's ability to force one to enter a contractual relationship: "The brief, the primary authors of which are the IJ’s Elizabeth Price Foley and Steve Simpson, says that Obamacare is the first time Congress has used its power to regulate commerce to produce a law “from which there is no escape.” And “coercing commercial transactions” — compelling individuals to sign contracts with insurance companies — “is antithetical to the foundational principle of mutual assent that permeated the common law of contracts at the time of the founding and continues to do so today.”
My own personal view is: should The Supreme Court uphold 'Obamascare' it could so enrage voters it could make them elect a Republican Congress in numbers sufficiently capable of passing legislation that would overturn it and should The Supreme Court hold 'Obamascare" unconstitutional then that could serve as an arrow into Obama's own heart.
Either way Obama's radical over reach could prove a big elective negative. (See 4 and 4a below.)
---
A cogent argument: Nugent makes it pretty clear!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)College of Computing Hires Fortnow, Anton to Lead Schools
On July 1, 2012, Lance Fortnow and Annie Antón will become the second chairs ever to lead Georgia Tech's schools of Computer Science and Interactive Computing, respectively.
March 19, 2012ShareThis
ATLANTA – March 20, 2012 – Following a year-long national search, Georgia Tech’s College of Computing has hired renowned computing leaders Lance Fortnow and Annie Antón to chair its schools of Computer Science and Interactive Computing, respectively, effective July 1.
Fortnow, professor of electrical engineering and computer science at Northwestern University, and Antón, professor of computer science at North Carolina State University (NCSU), will become the second chairs ever to lead the two College of Computing units, which were elevated to school status in 2007. They replace current Computer Science (CS) chair Ellen Zegura and Interactive Computing (IC) chair Aaron Bobick, who will return to their faculty roles as professors in the two schools.
“We are thrilled that Professors Fortnow and Antón have agreed to come to Georgia Tech to lead our two original schools,” said Zvi Galil, John P. Imlay Jr. Dean of Computing. “The College of Computing is poised to expand the ranks of the very best computing programs in the world, and Annie and Lance are going to help us do it. Both of them share our ambitious vision for Georgia Tech to play a major role in setting the global agenda for this new digital era and continue pushing the boundaries of computing itself.”
Fortnow received his Ph.D. in applied mathematics from MIT in 1989, after earning his B.A. in mathematics and computer science from Cornell University in 1985. In addition to his primary faculty appointment at Northwestern, he also has a courtesy appointment at the Managerial Economics and Decision Sciences department in the Kellogg Graduate School of Management and an adjoint professorship at the Toyota Technological Institute at Chicago. Fortnow's research spans computational complexity and its applications, most recently to micro-economic theory.
“I’m excited to join Georgia Tech, a leading center for computer science, at a time when computing is making such a great impact in science and society,” Fortnow said. “I look forward to helping Georgia Tech forge the future of computer science.”
Antón earned three computing degrees from Georgia Tech, completing her B.S. in 1990, M.S. in 1992 and Ph.D. in 1997. Antón is vice-chair of the U.S. Association for Computing Machinery Public Policy Council and has served the national defense and intelligence communities in a number of roles since being selected for the IDA/DARPA Defense Science Study Group in 2005-2006. Her current research focuses on the specification of complete, correct behavior of software systems that must comply with privacy and security regulations. She is founder and director ofThePrivacyPlace.org.
“The School of Interactive Computing––the only school of its kind in the nation––is a unique resource for Georgia Tech and the country,” Antón said. “Computers today interact with the human and physical environments. Advancing the state of the interactive art is a noble mission for the School. I am honored to return to ‘Ma Tech’ and to partner with Dean Galil and the entire Georgia Tech community in aspiring to and achieving new levels of excellence.”
Georgia Tech’s schools of CS and IC, together with their sister School of Computational Science and Engineering, form the major academic units of the 21-year-old College of Computing. The School of CS represents foundational areas of computer science, such as networking, information security, software engineering, databases and others. The School of IC’s stated mission is to “redefine the human experience in computing” through education and research in such areas as human-computer interaction, robotics and intelligent systems, computing education, graphics and animation, social computing, augmented environments, and others.
###
About the Georgia Tech College of Computing
The Georgia Tech College of Computing is a national leader in the creation of real-world computing breakthroughs that drive social and scientific progress. With its graduate program ranked 10th nationally by U.S. News and World Report, the College’s unconventional approach to education is defining the new face of computing by expanding the horizons of traditional computer science students through interdisciplinary collaboration and a focus on human-centered solutions. For more information about the Georgia Tech College of Computing, its academic divisions and research centers, please visit http://www.cc.gatech.edu.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
2)The Etch-a-Sketch incident and the art of the political gaffe
By Chris Cillizza
All political gaffes are not created equal.
Some come to define campaigns, others disappear in a single news cycle (or sometimes less).
So what differentiates the gaffes that enter campaign folklore from those that even the most committed political junkies struggle to recall even a few weeks after they happen?
It’s actually a relatively simple answer: Gaffes that matter are those that speak to a larger narrative about a candidate or a doubt/worry that voters already have about that particular candidate.
Take the gaffe du jour — Mitt Romney aide Erik Fehrnstrom’s reference to an Etch-a-Sketch when asked whether the former Massachusetts governor’s move to the ideological right in the primary would hurt him with general election voters.
The Etch-a-Sketch incident is likely to linger in the electorate because it speaks to a broader storyline already bouncing around the political world: That Romney lacks any core convictions and that he will say and do whatever it takes to win. (It IS worth noting that Romney didn’t say the Etch-a-Sketch line — making it less powerful and perhaps less long lasting.)
Romney is also not helped by the fact that the Etch-a-Sketch is such a fun — and cheap! — campaign prop. Already both former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum have been seen sporting Etch-a-Sketches on the trail. And you can bet Democrats are buying the children’s toy in bulk today for future use. (Not surprisingly, Etch-a-Sketch stock has soared over the past 24 hours.)
To that point, the Democratic National Committee released their second Etch-a-Sketch web video in as many days:
Contrast Fehnstrom’s gaffe with President Obama’s slip-up in May 2008 when he told a crowd in Oregon: “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states?”
Conservatives insisted that the reason that gaffe didn’t get enough attention was because of the media’s favoritism directed toward Obama. But, the truth is that the “57 states” comment didn’t become a defining moment in the 2008 campaign because there was no “Obama isn’t smart enough to be president” narrative out there. Democrats, independents and even many Republicans agreed that Obama had the intellectual goods to be president although there was considerable disagreement about whether his policies were the right fit for the country.
While Obama’s “57 states” gaffe never caught on, his comments about rural voters “clinging” to their religion and their guns — made at a fundraising event in California — became a huge problem for his campaign. Why? Because there was an “Obama as elitist” narrative already in the political bloodstream that his “cling” comments played directly into.
Recent (and even not-so-recent) political campaigns are filled with gaffes that prove our point.
* Massachusetts Sen John Kerry’s order of swiss cheese on his cheesesteak mattered because he was already fighting against the idea that he was out of touch with average Americans.
* Rick Perry’s “oops” moment mattered because from the second the Texas governor announced his 2012 candidacy for president there were questions about whether or not he was up to the task.
* George H.W. Bush looking at his watch during a presidential debate in the 1992 campaign mattered because there was a already a sense in the electorate that the incumbent president was aloof and uncaring.
* Edmund Muskie’s tearing up in New Hampshire during the 1972 presidential campaign mattered because it reinforced the idea kicking around in political circles that he was emotionally unstable and prone to burst of temper. (The one and only David Broder wrote extensively about the Muskie crying episode in his book “Behind the Front Page”.)
Playing to type — or even appearing to play to type — is the kiss of death when it comes to political gaffes. Given that political reality, Ferhnstrom’s Etch-a-Sketch gaffe looks likely to hound Romney for the foreseeable future.
2a)Team Romney: Santorum is just helping Obama now
By MAGGIE HABERMAN
In a memo which is in full after the jump, Mitt Romney political director Rich Beeson puts it bluntly: Time for Rick Santorum to go:
The remaining contests offer no path to 1,144 for Senator Santorum, a fact which even he has acknowledged. Each day Senator Santorum continues to march up this steep hill of improbability is a day we lose to unite in our effort as Republicans to defeat President Obama. So as Senator Santorum continues to drag out this already expensive, negative campaign it is clear that he is becoming the most valuable player on President Obama’s team.
Note the hint there about the expense, which is true for not just Santorum, but also for Romney.
The problem for Romneyland is that Santorum, after being irrelevant for six years, is able to command tremendous attention suddenly. While few think he has a true shot at this point, he may not yet see it that way. He does not seem interested, at least yet, in amassing chits for future use. And coming a day after Etchgate, an overblown media bubble story that was nonetheless also a gaffe, it makes the argument harder to get across.
Governor Romney’s resounding victories in Illinois and Puerto Rico this past week have offered even greater clarity about where the race stands today. Here are a few takeaways:
•Of the 74 delegates awarded in the past week, Governor Romney won all but 13 (100% of the delegates in Puerto Rico and 75% of the delegates at stake in Illinois).
•Now leading by more than 300 delegates, Governor Romney continues to double Senator Santorum’s delegate total.
•Governor Romney has now secured more than 50% of the 1,144 delegates needed to clinch the nomination.
•In order for Senator Santorum to secure the 1,144 delegates needed to win the nomination, he must win 70% of all remaining delegates.
•Governor Romney has earned nearly 40% of the 10.2 million votes cast in the primary; 1.3 million more people have voted for Governor Romney than Senator Santorum.
•In the 11 contests that followed Super Tuesday, Senator Santorum not only failed to make up any ground on Governor Romney’s delegate lead, he actually fell behind by 61 more delegates.
The remaining contests offer no path to 1,144 for Senator Santorum, a fact which even he has acknowledged. Each day Senator Santorum continues to march up this steep hill of improbability is a day we lose to unite in our effort as Republicans to defeat President Obama. So as Senator Santorum continues to drag out this already expensive, negative campaign it is clear that he is becoming the most valuable player on President Obama’s team.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)What Stocks and G.D.P. Say About Obama’s Chances
By FLOYD NORRIS
AS the presidential election campaign heats up, two measures of the economic success of President Obama’s administration provide drastically different views of how he has done.
Multimedia
Graphic
Off the Charts: (See below.)
Among the Best Presidents or the Worst, in Economic Terms Obama's stock market record is among the best of all the administrations that have held office over the last century. But in terms of economic growth, the record is among the poorest.
The accompanying chart measures the performance of the stock market and the economy under each administration since Woodrow Wilson was elected in 1912, adjusted for inflation. The measures cover the time from when a president took office until the following campaign got under way.
From the fourth quarter of 2008 through the final quarter of 2011, the American economy grew at an annual rate of just 1.4 percent. Of course, the economy declined during the first two quarters of 2009, reflecting the financial crisis and recession that began before Mr. Obama was elected, and has since recovered all of the decline and more. Nonetheless, over comparable periods, the economy performed better in 21 of the previous 24 administrations.
But since the presidential inauguration on Jan. 20, 2009, the stock market has risen at an annual rate of 16.4 percent, even after adjusting for inflation. That is better than all but four previous administrations.
It is highly unusual for the two measurements to differ so greatly, but there is one similar case. Nearly a century ago, President Wilson took office just as a recession was beginning. The stock market had plunged before he was inaugurated, and the eventual recovery in prices came on his watch. But the decline in the economy during 1914 was not fully overcome until 1916, when spending on World War I brought rapid growth.
World War II caused even greater dislocations in economic output, and means that there probably should be footnotes next to the fastest growth in the chart — during Franklin Roosevelt’s third term — and the largest decline — during the following administration as war spending ended.
In general, share prices seem to have had a better record as election forecasters. Nine previous administrations have produced double-digit percentage gains over the comparable period, and the incumbent party won in seven of the subsequent elections, the exceptions being Democratic defeats in 1952 and 2000. At the other end of the scale, only one incumbent, President Roosevelt running in 1940, was able to win despite substantial stock market losses.
President Obama may be able to take heart from the somewhat similar experience of President Wilson, who was able to claim credit for the recovery and pass off the blame for the recession as he won re-election in 1916. But the other two presidents with similar records of slow economic growth — Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush — each lost their re-election bids.
PERFORMANCE DURING EACH PRESIDENTIAL TERM SINCE 1913
Stock market return
F. D. Roosevelt 1ST TERM
1933-36
+32.8%
Eisenhower 1ST TERM
1953-56
+21.6
Clinton 2ND TERM
1997-00
+19.2
Coolidge
1925-28
+18.2
Obama
2009-12
+16.4
Wilson 1ST TERM
1913-16
+12.4
Reagan 2ND TERM
1985-88
+12.0
Truman
1949-52
+11.4
Harding-Coolidge
1921-24
+10.8
Clinton 1ST TERM
1993-96
+10.5
Kennedy-Johnson
1961-64
+7.8
G.H.W. Bush
1989-92
+7.2
Eisenhower 2ND TERM
1957-60
+4.7
Reagan 1ST TERM
1981-84
+0.7
G.W. Bush 2ND TERM
2005-08
+0.3
F. D. Roosevelt 3RD TERM
1941-44
–1.8
Johnson
1965-68
–2.1
Nixon
1969-72
–2.9
Roosevelt-Truman
1945-48
–6.4
G.W. Bush 1ST TERM
2001-04
–7.8
Carter
1977-80
–9.4
F. D. Roosevelt 2ND TERM
1937-40
–11.2
Wilson 2ND TERM
1917-20
–12.2
Nixon-Ford
1973-76
–12.9
Hoover
1929-32
–27.1
Change in gross domestic product
F. D. Roosevelt 3RD TERM
1941-43
+17.3%
F. D. Roosevelt 1ST TERM
1933-35
+6.0
Truman
1949-51
+5.5
Harding-Coolidge
1921-23
+5.4
Kennedy-Johnson
1961-63
+5.2
Johnson
1965-67
+5.1
Clinton 2ND TERM
1997-99
+4.7
Carter
1977-79
+4.3
Reagan 2ND TERM
1985-87
+3.8
Coolidge
1925-27
+3.4
Eisenhower 1ST TERM
1953-55
+3.2
F. D. Roosevelt 2ND TERM
1937-39
+3.1
Clinton 1ST TERM
1993-95
+3.0
Eisenhower 2ND TERM
1957-59
+2.5
G.W. Bush 2ND TERM
2005-07
+2.5
Reagan 1ST TERM
1981-83
+2.4
Wilson 2ND TERM
1917-19
+2.2
Nixon 1ST TERM
1969-71
+2.1
G.W. Bush 1ST TERM
2001-03
+2.1
Nixon-Ford
1973-75
+1.5
G.H.W. Bush
1989-91
+1.4
Obama
2009-11
+1.4
Wilson 1ST TERM
1913-15
–0.6
Hoover
1929-31
–3.0
Roosevelt-Truman
1945-47
–4.4
Note: The stock returns are based on the Dow Jones industrial average until 1928 and the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index after that. The calculations do not include dividends and are adjusted for changes in the Consumer Price Index. G.D.P. figures for all administrations since 1948 are based on changes from the fourth quarter of the election year through the fourth quarter of the year before the next election. G.D.P. figures for earlier terms are based on annual, rather than quarterly figures.
Send Feedback
Sources: Dow Jones; Bloomberg; Bureau of Labor Statistics; Bureau of Economic Analysis; Haver Analytics
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Obamacare’s contract problem
By George Will
On Monday the Supreme Court begins three days of oral arguments concerning possible — actually, probable and various — constitutional infirmities in Obamacare. The justices have received many amicus briefs, one of which merits special attention because of the elegant scholarship and logic with which it addresses an issue that has not been as central to the debate as it should be.
Hitherto, most attention has been given to whether Congress, under its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce, may coerce individuals into engaging in commerce by buying health insurance. Now the Institute for Justice (IJ), a libertarian public interest law firm, has focused on this fact: The individual mandate is incompatible with centuries of contract law. This is so because a compulsory contract is an oxymoron.
The brief, the primary authors of which are the IJ’s Elizabeth Price Foley and Steve Simpson, says that Obamacare is the first time Congress has used its power to regulate commerce to produce a law “from which there is no escape.” And “coercing commercial transactions” — compelling individuals to sign contracts with insurance companies — “is antithetical to the foundational principle of mutual assent that permeated the common law of contracts at the time of the founding and continues to do so today.”
In 1799, South Carolina’s highest court held: “So cautiously does the law watch over all contracts, that it will not permit any to be binding but such as are made by persons perfectly free, and at full liberty to make or refuse such contracts. . . . Contracts to be binding must not be made under any restraint or fear of their persons, otherwise they are void.” Throughout the life of this nation it has been understood that for a contract to be valid, the parties to it must mutually assent to its terms — without duress.
In addition to duress, contracts are voidable for reasons of fraud upon, or the mistake or incapacity of, a party to the contract. This underscores the centrality of the concept of meaningful consent in contract law. To be meaningful, consent must be informed and must not be coerced. Under Obamacare, the government will compel individuals to enter into contractual relations with insurance companies under threat of penalty.
Also, the Supreme Court in Commerce Clause cases has repeatedly recognized, and Congress has never before ignored, the difference between the regulation and the coercion of commerce. And in its 10th Amendment cases (“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people”), the court has specifically forbidden government to compel contracts.
In 1992, the court held unconstitutional a law compelling states to “take title to” radioactive waste. The court said this would be indistinguishable from “a congressionally compelled subsidy from state governments” to those who produced the radioactive waste. Such commandeering of states is, the court held, incompatible with federalism.
The IJ argues: The 10th Amendment forbids Congress from exercising its commerce power to compel states to enter into contractual relations by effectively forcing states to “buy” radioactive waste. Hence “the power to regulate commerce does not include the power to compel a party to take title to goods or services against its will.” And if it is beyond Congress’s power to commandeer the states by compelling them to enter into contracts, it must likewise be beyond Congress’s power to commandeer individuals by requiring them to purchase insurance. Again, the 10th Amendment declares that any powers not given to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the people.
Furthermore, although the Constitution permits Congress to make laws “necessary and proper” for executing its enumerated powers, such as the power to regulate interstate commerce, it cannot, IJ argues, be proper to exercise that regulatory power in ways that eviscerate “the very essence of legally binding contracts.” Under Obamacare, Congress asserted the improper power to compel commercial contracts. It did so on the spurious ground that this power is necessary to solve a problem Congress created when, by forbidding insurance companies to deny coverage to individuals because of preexisting conditions, it produced the problem of “adverse selection” — people not buying insurance until they need medical care.
The IJ correctly says that if the court were to ratify Congress’s disregard for settled contract law, Congress’s “power to compel contractual relations would have no logical stopping point.” Which is why this case is the last exit ramp on the road to unlimited government.
4a)Could an Obamacare Ruling Doom Obama’s Reelection Hopes?
By Jim Geraghty
Michael Scherer of Time pointed out on Chuck Todd’s “Daily Rundown” that if the Supreme Court declares Obamacare’s individual mandate unconstitutional, it creates an enormous opportunity for the GOP against Obama in the fall, exacerbating public doubts about President Obama’s judgment.
Obama passed a stimulus that did not keep unemployment below 8 percent, as projected, but instead unemployment remains above 8 percent in February 2012. The cornerstone of the plan was “shovel-ready projects” and they turned out to not be so shovel-ready after all. He expressed surprise to his cabinet that his policies to help homeowners haven’t had much of an impact. The “recession turned out to be a lot deeper than any of us realized.”
His energy policies have Americans paying more for gas than they’ve ever paid during this time of year. We’ve given millions in taxpayer money to companies to develop alternative technologies, and their products have proven costly and inefficient in a competitive market.
He reached out to Iran and was rebuffed; meanwhile, our relationship with Israel has never been more tense.
And the signature piece of legislation that he spent most of 2009 and 2010 on, that cost House Democrats their majority, might just turn out to be unconstitutional — and effectively immediately nullified with that ruling.
When does the president’s good judgment start?
Of course, if you’re Mitt Romney, the Supreme Court upholding the mandate as constitutional could be good news, as it would tell conservatives that the only way to stop Obamacare is to elect Romney. But Obama would undoubtedly claim some vindication that the nation’s highest court found nothing unconstitutional about the federal government requiring citizens to purchase health insurance.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
2)The Etch-a-Sketch incident and the art of the political gaffe
By Chris Cillizza
All political gaffes are not created equal.
Some come to define campaigns, others disappear in a single news cycle (or sometimes less).
So what differentiates the gaffes that enter campaign folklore from those that even the most committed political junkies struggle to recall even a few weeks after they happen?
It’s actually a relatively simple answer: Gaffes that matter are those that speak to a larger narrative about a candidate or a doubt/worry that voters already have about that particular candidate.
Take the gaffe du jour — Mitt Romney aide Erik Fehrnstrom’s reference to an Etch-a-Sketch when asked whether the former Massachusetts governor’s move to the ideological right in the primary would hurt him with general election voters.
The Etch-a-Sketch incident is likely to linger in the electorate because it speaks to a broader storyline already bouncing around the political world: That Romney lacks any core convictions and that he will say and do whatever it takes to win. (It IS worth noting that Romney didn’t say the Etch-a-Sketch line — making it less powerful and perhaps less long lasting.)
Romney is also not helped by the fact that the Etch-a-Sketch is such a fun — and cheap! — campaign prop. Already both former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum have been seen sporting Etch-a-Sketches on the trail. And you can bet Democrats are buying the children’s toy in bulk today for future use. (Not surprisingly, Etch-a-Sketch stock has soared over the past 24 hours.)
To that point, the Democratic National Committee released their second Etch-a-Sketch web video in as many days:
Contrast Fehnstrom’s gaffe with President Obama’s slip-up in May 2008 when he told a crowd in Oregon: “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states?”
Conservatives insisted that the reason that gaffe didn’t get enough attention was because of the media’s favoritism directed toward Obama. But, the truth is that the “57 states” comment didn’t become a defining moment in the 2008 campaign because there was no “Obama isn’t smart enough to be president” narrative out there. Democrats, independents and even many Republicans agreed that Obama had the intellectual goods to be president although there was considerable disagreement about whether his policies were the right fit for the country.
While Obama’s “57 states” gaffe never caught on, his comments about rural voters “clinging” to their religion and their guns — made at a fundraising event in California — became a huge problem for his campaign. Why? Because there was an “Obama as elitist” narrative already in the political bloodstream that his “cling” comments played directly into.
Recent (and even not-so-recent) political campaigns are filled with gaffes that prove our point.
* Massachusetts Sen John Kerry’s order of swiss cheese on his cheesesteak mattered because he was already fighting against the idea that he was out of touch with average Americans.
* Rick Perry’s “oops” moment mattered because from the second the Texas governor announced his 2012 candidacy for president there were questions about whether or not he was up to the task.
* George H.W. Bush looking at his watch during a presidential debate in the 1992 campaign mattered because there was a already a sense in the electorate that the incumbent president was aloof and uncaring.
* Edmund Muskie’s tearing up in New Hampshire during the 1972 presidential campaign mattered because it reinforced the idea kicking around in political circles that he was emotionally unstable and prone to burst of temper. (The one and only David Broder wrote extensively about the Muskie crying episode in his book “Behind the Front Page”.)
Playing to type — or even appearing to play to type — is the kiss of death when it comes to political gaffes. Given that political reality, Ferhnstrom’s Etch-a-Sketch gaffe looks likely to hound Romney for the foreseeable future.
2a)Team Romney: Santorum is just helping Obama now
By MAGGIE HABERMAN
In a memo which is in full after the jump, Mitt Romney political director Rich Beeson puts it bluntly: Time for Rick Santorum to go:
The remaining contests offer no path to 1,144 for Senator Santorum, a fact which even he has acknowledged. Each day Senator Santorum continues to march up this steep hill of improbability is a day we lose to unite in our effort as Republicans to defeat President Obama. So as Senator Santorum continues to drag out this already expensive, negative campaign it is clear that he is becoming the most valuable player on President Obama’s team.
Note the hint there about the expense, which is true for not just Santorum, but also for Romney.
The problem for Romneyland is that Santorum, after being irrelevant for six years, is able to command tremendous attention suddenly. While few think he has a true shot at this point, he may not yet see it that way. He does not seem interested, at least yet, in amassing chits for future use. And coming a day after Etchgate, an overblown media bubble story that was nonetheless also a gaffe, it makes the argument harder to get across.
Governor Romney’s resounding victories in Illinois and Puerto Rico this past week have offered even greater clarity about where the race stands today. Here are a few takeaways:
•Of the 74 delegates awarded in the past week, Governor Romney won all but 13 (100% of the delegates in Puerto Rico and 75% of the delegates at stake in Illinois).
•Now leading by more than 300 delegates, Governor Romney continues to double Senator Santorum’s delegate total.
•Governor Romney has now secured more than 50% of the 1,144 delegates needed to clinch the nomination.
•In order for Senator Santorum to secure the 1,144 delegates needed to win the nomination, he must win 70% of all remaining delegates.
•Governor Romney has earned nearly 40% of the 10.2 million votes cast in the primary; 1.3 million more people have voted for Governor Romney than Senator Santorum.
•In the 11 contests that followed Super Tuesday, Senator Santorum not only failed to make up any ground on Governor Romney’s delegate lead, he actually fell behind by 61 more delegates.
The remaining contests offer no path to 1,144 for Senator Santorum, a fact which even he has acknowledged. Each day Senator Santorum continues to march up this steep hill of improbability is a day we lose to unite in our effort as Republicans to defeat President Obama. So as Senator Santorum continues to drag out this already expensive, negative campaign it is clear that he is becoming the most valuable player on President Obama’s team.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)What Stocks and G.D.P. Say About Obama’s Chances
By FLOYD NORRIS
AS the presidential election campaign heats up, two measures of the economic success of President Obama’s administration provide drastically different views of how he has done.
Multimedia
Graphic
Off the Charts: (See below.)
Among the Best Presidents or the Worst, in Economic Terms Obama's stock market record is among the best of all the administrations that have held office over the last century. But in terms of economic growth, the record is among the poorest.
The accompanying chart measures the performance of the stock market and the economy under each administration since Woodrow Wilson was elected in 1912, adjusted for inflation. The measures cover the time from when a president took office until the following campaign got under way.
From the fourth quarter of 2008 through the final quarter of 2011, the American economy grew at an annual rate of just 1.4 percent. Of course, the economy declined during the first two quarters of 2009, reflecting the financial crisis and recession that began before Mr. Obama was elected, and has since recovered all of the decline and more. Nonetheless, over comparable periods, the economy performed better in 21 of the previous 24 administrations.
But since the presidential inauguration on Jan. 20, 2009, the stock market has risen at an annual rate of 16.4 percent, even after adjusting for inflation. That is better than all but four previous administrations.
It is highly unusual for the two measurements to differ so greatly, but there is one similar case. Nearly a century ago, President Wilson took office just as a recession was beginning. The stock market had plunged before he was inaugurated, and the eventual recovery in prices came on his watch. But the decline in the economy during 1914 was not fully overcome until 1916, when spending on World War I brought rapid growth.
World War II caused even greater dislocations in economic output, and means that there probably should be footnotes next to the fastest growth in the chart — during Franklin Roosevelt’s third term — and the largest decline — during the following administration as war spending ended.
In general, share prices seem to have had a better record as election forecasters. Nine previous administrations have produced double-digit percentage gains over the comparable period, and the incumbent party won in seven of the subsequent elections, the exceptions being Democratic defeats in 1952 and 2000. At the other end of the scale, only one incumbent, President Roosevelt running in 1940, was able to win despite substantial stock market losses.
President Obama may be able to take heart from the somewhat similar experience of President Wilson, who was able to claim credit for the recovery and pass off the blame for the recession as he won re-election in 1916. But the other two presidents with similar records of slow economic growth — Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush — each lost their re-election bids.
PERFORMANCE DURING EACH PRESIDENTIAL TERM SINCE 1913
Stock market return
F. D. Roosevelt 1ST TERM
1933-36
+32.8%
Eisenhower 1ST TERM
1953-56
+21.6
Clinton 2ND TERM
1997-00
+19.2
Coolidge
1925-28
+18.2
Obama
2009-12
+16.4
Wilson 1ST TERM
1913-16
+12.4
Reagan 2ND TERM
1985-88
+12.0
Truman
1949-52
+11.4
Harding-Coolidge
1921-24
+10.8
Clinton 1ST TERM
1993-96
+10.5
Kennedy-Johnson
1961-64
+7.8
G.H.W. Bush
1989-92
+7.2
Eisenhower 2ND TERM
1957-60
+4.7
Reagan 1ST TERM
1981-84
+0.7
G.W. Bush 2ND TERM
2005-08
+0.3
F. D. Roosevelt 3RD TERM
1941-44
–1.8
Johnson
1965-68
–2.1
Nixon
1969-72
–2.9
Roosevelt-Truman
1945-48
–6.4
G.W. Bush 1ST TERM
2001-04
–7.8
Carter
1977-80
–9.4
F. D. Roosevelt 2ND TERM
1937-40
–11.2
Wilson 2ND TERM
1917-20
–12.2
Nixon-Ford
1973-76
–12.9
Hoover
1929-32
–27.1
Change in gross domestic product
F. D. Roosevelt 3RD TERM
1941-43
+17.3%
F. D. Roosevelt 1ST TERM
1933-35
+6.0
Truman
1949-51
+5.5
Harding-Coolidge
1921-23
+5.4
Kennedy-Johnson
1961-63
+5.2
Johnson
1965-67
+5.1
Clinton 2ND TERM
1997-99
+4.7
Carter
1977-79
+4.3
Reagan 2ND TERM
1985-87
+3.8
Coolidge
1925-27
+3.4
Eisenhower 1ST TERM
1953-55
+3.2
F. D. Roosevelt 2ND TERM
1937-39
+3.1
Clinton 1ST TERM
1993-95
+3.0
Eisenhower 2ND TERM
1957-59
+2.5
G.W. Bush 2ND TERM
2005-07
+2.5
Reagan 1ST TERM
1981-83
+2.4
Wilson 2ND TERM
1917-19
+2.2
Nixon 1ST TERM
1969-71
+2.1
G.W. Bush 1ST TERM
2001-03
+2.1
Nixon-Ford
1973-75
+1.5
G.H.W. Bush
1989-91
+1.4
Obama
2009-11
+1.4
Wilson 1ST TERM
1913-15
–0.6
Hoover
1929-31
–3.0
Roosevelt-Truman
1945-47
–4.4
Note: The stock returns are based on the Dow Jones industrial average until 1928 and the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index after that. The calculations do not include dividends and are adjusted for changes in the Consumer Price Index. G.D.P. figures for all administrations since 1948 are based on changes from the fourth quarter of the election year through the fourth quarter of the year before the next election. G.D.P. figures for earlier terms are based on annual, rather than quarterly figures.
Send Feedback
Sources: Dow Jones; Bloomberg; Bureau of Labor Statistics; Bureau of Economic Analysis; Haver Analytics
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Obamacare’s contract problem
By George Will
On Monday the Supreme Court begins three days of oral arguments concerning possible — actually, probable and various — constitutional infirmities in Obamacare. The justices have received many amicus briefs, one of which merits special attention because of the elegant scholarship and logic with which it addresses an issue that has not been as central to the debate as it should be.
Hitherto, most attention has been given to whether Congress, under its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce, may coerce individuals into engaging in commerce by buying health insurance. Now the Institute for Justice (IJ), a libertarian public interest law firm, has focused on this fact: The individual mandate is incompatible with centuries of contract law. This is so because a compulsory contract is an oxymoron.
The brief, the primary authors of which are the IJ’s Elizabeth Price Foley and Steve Simpson, says that Obamacare is the first time Congress has used its power to regulate commerce to produce a law “from which there is no escape.” And “coercing commercial transactions” — compelling individuals to sign contracts with insurance companies — “is antithetical to the foundational principle of mutual assent that permeated the common law of contracts at the time of the founding and continues to do so today.”
In 1799, South Carolina’s highest court held: “So cautiously does the law watch over all contracts, that it will not permit any to be binding but such as are made by persons perfectly free, and at full liberty to make or refuse such contracts. . . . Contracts to be binding must not be made under any restraint or fear of their persons, otherwise they are void.” Throughout the life of this nation it has been understood that for a contract to be valid, the parties to it must mutually assent to its terms — without duress.
In addition to duress, contracts are voidable for reasons of fraud upon, or the mistake or incapacity of, a party to the contract. This underscores the centrality of the concept of meaningful consent in contract law. To be meaningful, consent must be informed and must not be coerced. Under Obamacare, the government will compel individuals to enter into contractual relations with insurance companies under threat of penalty.
Also, the Supreme Court in Commerce Clause cases has repeatedly recognized, and Congress has never before ignored, the difference between the regulation and the coercion of commerce. And in its 10th Amendment cases (“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people”), the court has specifically forbidden government to compel contracts.
In 1992, the court held unconstitutional a law compelling states to “take title to” radioactive waste. The court said this would be indistinguishable from “a congressionally compelled subsidy from state governments” to those who produced the radioactive waste. Such commandeering of states is, the court held, incompatible with federalism.
The IJ argues: The 10th Amendment forbids Congress from exercising its commerce power to compel states to enter into contractual relations by effectively forcing states to “buy” radioactive waste. Hence “the power to regulate commerce does not include the power to compel a party to take title to goods or services against its will.” And if it is beyond Congress’s power to commandeer the states by compelling them to enter into contracts, it must likewise be beyond Congress’s power to commandeer individuals by requiring them to purchase insurance. Again, the 10th Amendment declares that any powers not given to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the people.
Furthermore, although the Constitution permits Congress to make laws “necessary and proper” for executing its enumerated powers, such as the power to regulate interstate commerce, it cannot, IJ argues, be proper to exercise that regulatory power in ways that eviscerate “the very essence of legally binding contracts.” Under Obamacare, Congress asserted the improper power to compel commercial contracts. It did so on the spurious ground that this power is necessary to solve a problem Congress created when, by forbidding insurance companies to deny coverage to individuals because of preexisting conditions, it produced the problem of “adverse selection” — people not buying insurance until they need medical care.
The IJ correctly says that if the court were to ratify Congress’s disregard for settled contract law, Congress’s “power to compel contractual relations would have no logical stopping point.” Which is why this case is the last exit ramp on the road to unlimited government.
4a)Could an Obamacare Ruling Doom Obama’s Reelection Hopes?
By Jim Geraghty
Michael Scherer of Time pointed out on Chuck Todd’s “Daily Rundown” that if the Supreme Court declares Obamacare’s individual mandate unconstitutional, it creates an enormous opportunity for the GOP against Obama in the fall, exacerbating public doubts about President Obama’s judgment.
Obama passed a stimulus that did not keep unemployment below 8 percent, as projected, but instead unemployment remains above 8 percent in February 2012. The cornerstone of the plan was “shovel-ready projects” and they turned out to not be so shovel-ready after all. He expressed surprise to his cabinet that his policies to help homeowners haven’t had much of an impact. The “recession turned out to be a lot deeper than any of us realized.”
His energy policies have Americans paying more for gas than they’ve ever paid during this time of year. We’ve given millions in taxpayer money to companies to develop alternative technologies, and their products have proven costly and inefficient in a competitive market.
He reached out to Iran and was rebuffed; meanwhile, our relationship with Israel has never been more tense.
And the signature piece of legislation that he spent most of 2009 and 2010 on, that cost House Democrats their majority, might just turn out to be unconstitutional — and effectively immediately nullified with that ruling.
When does the president’s good judgment start?
Of course, if you’re Mitt Romney, the Supreme Court upholding the mandate as constitutional could be good news, as it would tell conservatives that the only way to stop Obamacare is to elect Romney. But Obama would undoubtedly claim some vindication that the nation’s highest court found nothing unconstitutional about the federal government requiring citizens to purchase health insurance.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment