Takes all that red to pay for the blue.
Big Bird voted!
---
Sowell before the fall. (See 1 below.)
---
Morris after the fall. (See 2 below.)
---
An interesting read. (See 3 below.)
---
As I expected. (See 4 below)
---
A thoughtful explanation about why Romney lost. (See 5 below.)
---
As I expected. (See 4 below)
---
A thoughtful explanation about why Romney lost. (See 5 below.)
---
America is no longer the nation of my youth. It has changed in ways that are understandable and dramatic but are unlikely to reverse course. As George Will wrote,, we have become a nation of takers, misguided,, ignorant of history and economics.
Last night's election is not likely to bring a brighter day but more of the same unless Obama can become more flexible and by doing so force Republicans to do likewise.. Obama has an opportunity and the question remains will he seize it or remain ideologically hidebound and stubborn.
I am not bitter just disappointed. By any human measurement, Romney and Ryan were decent candidates and possessed the competency to be good stewards but voters chose otherwise.
All great nations peak and I suspect we may have as well at least for a period of time. If so the question is how fast the deceleration.
Obama ran an effective campaign. He was able to get by without offering anything by way of a road map for the future other than the word 'forward.' He was able to finesse the consequences of his four years of unremarkable leadership and all the poor metrics associated, ie. unemployment, deficits, poverty, food stamp recipients and a health care program which most everyone either rejects and or fears.
None of this seemed to matter, not even his handling of the assassinations in Libya, and the lies associated with same. The press and media continue proving they are irresponsible
All that mattered was giving Obama four more years to soothe us with his syrupy platitudes and policies which seem intent on making us an irrelevant nation on the world's stage. I hope that is not the case.
Yes, Obama will end our various wars, reduce our military capability and eliminate the words terror and terrorist from government documents so we will feel secure. However,government will expand and he may continue to fund projects that, to date, have all failed at enormous costs. His policies, if enacted, will restrain growth and could lead to another recession.
If this happens our deficits will mount and who knows what then.
Obama has extended his hand. Let's see what occurs. If he is sincere he will go down in history far better than currently perceived.
One final comforting thought. Obama cannot blame his predecessor!
One final comforting thought. Obama cannot blame his predecessor!
The one bright spot in last night's returns was that Meg Heap won and we now have a competent District Attorney for our County.
---
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Gross Misconceptions
This country is at a historic crossroads, and the path we choose can determine our future far beyond the next four years. Our children and grandchildren may someday bless us or curse us for what we do this Tuesday. Against that background, it is painful to see the petty talking points and gross misconceptions that seem to dominate this year's election campaign.
Take the question of jobs. How many times have we heard about how many jobs have been added during the Obama administration? Yet few people bother to find out whether these are net additions to jobs -- which is what is crucial.
The government can always increase some jobs, either directly by hiring more people or indirectly by policies that increase employment in particular industries or regions. But the real question is whether the government's actions create more jobs than they destroy -- that is, whether there is any net addition to jobs.
Yet who in the media even asks that question?
Instead, they focus on the unemployment rate. But people who have given up looking for a job are not counted as unemployed. The proportion of the working age population that is not working is higher now than it has been in many years.
Another gross misconception on the job front is that jobs created during a given administration are a result of the policies of that administration, as are any other signs of economic recovery. But this assumes that the economy is incapable of recovering on its own, without government intervention.
Yet the American economy recovered from downturns on its own for more than a century and a half, until President Herbert Hoover intervened after the stock market crash of 1929. Indeed, this was one of those bipartisan interventions so much hoped for by the media -- and the results were catastrophic.
The media misconception today is that what we need to speed up economic recovery is to end gridlock in Washington and have bipartisan intervention in the economy. However plausible that may sound, it is contradicted repeatedly by history.
Unemployment was never in double digits in any of the 12 months following the stock market crash of 1929. Only after politicians started intervening did unemployment reach double digits -- and stay in double digits throughout the 1930s.
There is nothing mysterious about an economy recovering on its own. Employers usually have incentives to employ and workers have incentives to look for jobs. Lenders have incentives to lend and borrowers have incentives to borrow -- if politicians do not create needless complications and uncertainties.
The Obama administration is in its glory creating complications and uncertainties for business, ranging from runaway regulations to the unknowable future costs of ObamaCare and taxes. Record amounts of idle cash held by businesses and financial institutions are a monument to the counterproductive effects of Barack Obama's anti-business policies and rhetoric. That idle money could create lots of jobs -- net jobs -- if politics did not make it risky to invest.
We often hear that President Obama inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression. But just how do you define that? By how high the unemployment rate went? By how long the recovery takes? Or don't you bother to define it at all?
The annual unemployment rate was as high under Ronald Reagan as it has been under Barack Obama. The difference is that Ronald Reagan did nothing, despite media cries for action, and Barack Obama did virtually everything imaginable, to the cheers of the media. The economy recovered a lot faster under Reagan.
If this is "the worst recession since the Great Depression," it is the worst solely in terms of how long it is taking to recover. But how long this has lasted is precisely what critics of Barack Obama are complaining about. Yet clever political rhetoric turns Obama's failure into an excuse for failure.
Contrary to political and media spin, President Obama did not "inherit" his unemployment from President George W. Bush. The annual unemployment rate never got above 6 percent during the eight years of President George W. Bush's administration.
Unemployment has never been that low under President Obama. Passing the buck backwards is a very poor excuse -- especially for someone using "forward" as his campaign slogan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2)Why I Was Wrong
I've got egg on my face. I predicted a Romney landslide and, instead, we ended up with an Obama squeaker.
The key reason for my bum prediction is that I mistakenly believed that the 2008 surge in black, Latino, and young voter turnout would recede in 2012 to "normal" levels. Didn't happen. These high levels of minority and young voter participation are here to stay. And, with them, a permanent reshaping of our nation's politics.
In 2012, 13% of the vote was cast by blacks. In 04, it was 11%. This year, 10% was Latino. In '04 it was 8%. This time, 19% was cast by voters under 30 years of age. In '04 it was 17%. Taken together, these results swelled the ranks of Obama's three-tiered base by five to six points, accounting fully for his victory.
I derided the media polls for their assumption of what did, in fact happen: That blacks, Latinos, and young people would show up in the same numbers as they had in 2008. I was wrong. They did.
But the more proximate cause of my error was that I did not take full account of the impact of hurricane Sandy and of Governor Chris Christie's bipartisan march through New Jersey arm in arm with President Obama. Not to mention Christe's fawning promotion of Obama's presidential leadership.
It made all the difference.
A key element of Romney's appeal, particularly after the first debate, was his ability to govern with Democrats in Massachusetts. Obama's one-party strident approach, so much the opposite of what he pledged in his first national speech in 2004, had turned voters off. But by working seamlessly with an acerbic Republican Governor like Christie, Obama was able to blunt Romney's advantage in this crucial area.
Sandy, in retrospect, stopped Romney's post-debate momentum. She was, indeed, the October Surprise. She also stopped the swelling concern over the murders in Benghazi and let Obama get away with his cover-up in which he pretended that a terrorist attack was, in fact, just a spontaneous demonstration gone awry.
Obama is the first president in modern times to win re-election by a smaller margin than that by which he was elected in the first place. McKinley, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton all increased their re-election vote share significantly. Obama's dropped from a 7 point margin over McCain to a 1 point margin over Romney.
That he could get re-elected despite his dismal record is a tribute to his brilliant campaign staff and the shifting demographics of America. This is not your father's United States and the Republican tilt toward white middle aged and older voters is ghettoizing the party so that even bad economic times are not enough to sway the election.
By the time you finish with the various demographic groups the Democrats win, you almost have a majority in their corner. Count them: Blacks cast 13% of the vote and Obama won them 12-1. Latinos cast 10% and Obama carried them by 7-3. Under 30 voters cast 19% of the vote and Obama swept them by 12-7. Single white women cast 18% of the total vote and Obama won them by 12-6. There is some overlap among these groups, of course, but without allowing for any, Obama won 43-17 before the first married white woman or man over 30 cast their vote. (Lets guess that if we eliminate duplication, the Obama margin would be 35-13) Having conceded these votes, Romney would have had to win over two-thirds of the rest of the vote to win. He almost did. But not quite.
If Romney couldn't manage this trick against Obama in the current economy, no Republican could.
But that doesn't mean we just give up. Obama barely won this election and we still have a Republican House of Representatives. We still have the ability - and more important, the responsibility - to fight to keep this great country as we know it and love it.
We must stop Obama's socialist agenda. That's our job for the next four years. We cannot allow Obama to magnify his narrow victory into a mandate for larger government, bigger spending, and less freedom.
This is not a call for gridlock. If Obama moves to the center and proposes moderate measures, we should support them. But that's unlikely.So we have our work cut out for us.
Sandy, in retrospect, stopped Romney's post-debate momentum. She was, indeed, the October Surprise. She also stopped the swelling concern over the murders in Benghazi and let Obama get away with his cover-up in which he pretended that a terrorist attack was, in fact, just a spontaneous demonstration gone awry.
Obama is the first president in modern times to win re-election by a smaller margin than that by which he was elected in the first place. McKinley, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton all increased their re-election vote share significantly. Obama's dropped from a 7 point margin over McCain to a 1 point margin over Romney.
That he could get re-elected despite his dismal record is a tribute to his brilliant campaign staff and the shifting demographics of America. This is not your father's United States and the Republican tilt toward white middle aged and older voters is ghettoizing the party so that even bad economic times are not enough to sway the election.
By the time you finish with the various demographic groups the Democrats win, you almost have a majority in their corner. Count them: Blacks cast 13% of the vote and Obama won them 12-1. Latinos cast 10% and Obama carried them by 7-3. Under 30 voters cast 19% of the vote and Obama swept them by 12-7. Single white women cast 18% of the total vote and Obama won them by 12-6. There is some overlap among these groups, of course, but without allowing for any, Obama won 43-17 before the first married white woman or man over 30 cast their vote. (Lets guess that if we eliminate duplication, the Obama margin would be 35-13) Having conceded these votes, Romney would have had to win over two-thirds of the rest of the vote to win. He almost did. But not quite.
If Romney couldn't manage this trick against Obama in the current economy, no Republican could.
But that doesn't mean we just give up. Obama barely won this election and we still have a Republican House of Representatives. We still have the ability - and more important, the responsibility - to fight to keep this great country as we know it and love it.
We must stop Obama's socialist agenda. That's our job for the next four years. We cannot allow Obama to magnify his narrow victory into a mandate for larger government, bigger spending, and less freedom.
This is not a call for gridlock. If Obama moves to the center and proposes moderate measures, we should support them. But that's unlikely.So we have our work cut out for us.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Barack Obama and America's decline
David P. Goldman - Asia Times Online, November 5th, 2012
[See full article for very interesting graphs of data related to this topic]
America is in incipient decline, and this week’s presidential election might be the last chance to reverse it. We are becoming a different sort of country, with a different people and different beliefs. Another four years of Barack Obama well might take us past the point of no return, although no-one, to be sure, knows quite where that lies. There is still time to change course. There might not be time by 2016.
Nearly a third of Americans now depend on food stamps, welfare, disability payments, or some other form of government support, compared with one out of five when George W Bush left office. This enormous shift has occurred before the detonation of a demographic time bomb that will explode towards the end of the present decade, and which will push America towards even greater dependency. This time bomb has four facets:
- The baby boomers will retire, and the percentage of Americans over 60 will jump from a sixth to a quarter of the total population in little more than a decade;
- The population that replaces the baby boomers will come to an increasing extent from families with the lowest level of educational attainment;
- A new underclass is in formation due to the jump in the rate of births out of wedlock, which comprised two-fifths of total births in 2011;
- Dependency on government support will rise sharply just as the federal government’s capacity to finance the dependent population will fall.
Proportion of Americans over Age 60
Source: UN World Population Prospects, Constant Fertility Scenario
Source: UN World Population Prospects, Constant Fertility Scenario
When I sent my book How Civilizations Die to the publisher in the summer of 2011, the prospect of America’s decline still seemed remote: America had the highest fertility rate among industrial countries, the strongest technological base, the most advanced universities, and the most optimistic people. But the preponderance of new data makes the prospect of American decline a real possibility.
The numbers shed light on some of aspects of the presidential election campaign which are, or at least should be, astonishing.
Why, for example, did the Obama administration provoke the hierarchy of the Catholic Church by demanding that Catholic institutions pay for abortion pills through employee health insurance? The Catholic bishops supported Obamacare from the beginning, and the administration’s decision to alienate an ally in order to placate a nearly uncontested voter bloc (young unmarried women) seems impolitic.
The answer lies in the Obama’s campaign confidence that Hispanics will vote on federal handouts rather than faith. “Should I win a second term, a big reason I will win a second term is because the Republican nominee and the Republican Party have so alienated the fastest-growing demographic group in the country, the Latino community,” Obama told the Des Moines Register in an October 23 interview that was originally off the record but was published with the president’s permission. The Register proceeded to endorse Mitt Romney, the first Republican it had supported in two generations.
Hispanics account for 70% of the growth in the Catholic population since 1960, and will be a majority of American Catholics somewhere between 2025 and 3030, according to Church projections.
Hispanic Educational Attainment
Source: Census Bureau, 2010
Source: Census Bureau, 2010
Hispanics are hard workers; the labor force participation rate for Hispanics in October 2012 was 66.3%, higher than the 64.8% for the total population. They also seem less dependent on food stamps than the general population (the Department of Agriculture reports that only 10% of food stamp recipients are Hispanics, who comprise about 17% of the overall population, although it cannot identify the ethnicity of a fifth of total users).
But the Hispanic unemployment rate was 10%, compared to 7.9% overall. Higher Hispanic unemployment is entirely due to lower levels of education; the unemployment rate for Americans with a high-school diploma or less stood at 12.2%.
That explains why two-thirds of Latinos (according to a November 1 Fox News poll) plan to vote for Obama. They have fared worse during the past four years than the general population, and they have taken less government help than the general population, but their prospects are far poorer than the general population in a job market that requires more education.
As the Baby Boomers leave the labor force, they will be replace to an increasing extent by Hispanics, who comprise about 15% of the working-age population, but a quarter of American children.
Hispanic Population as a Percent of Total, by Age Group
Source: Census Bureau
Source: Census Bureau
The notion that Hispanics will inundate the American population through immigration and high birth rates is a xenophobic fantasy. Immigration from Mexico may have reversed during the past several years, the Pew Hispanic Center reported earlier this year, as construction and other jobs evaporated.
The Wall Street Journal reported on October 3, “The overall fertility rate for women in the US – defined as the number of newborns per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44 – was 63.2 last year, down from 64.1 in 2010 and the lowest rate since the government started collecting these statistics in 1920. And the sharpest decline was among young Hispanics: “Hispanic women between 20 and 24 saw their fertility rate drop to 115 last year from 165 in 2007.’”
The sudden drop in Hispanic fertility calls to mind the rapid decline in birth rates in Catholic regions during the 1960s and 1970s, notably Quebec, Spain, and Poland, which now have some of the world’s lowest fertility rates. Mexico’s fertility rate has fallen to barely above replacement. If American Hispanics are following the pattern in Catholic countries, it suggests that the next generation will be far less Catholic than their parents.
Hispanic Catholics are not the only segment of America’s religious population whose faith appears to attenuate with generational change. Sarah Posner reported October 9 in the London-based Guardian:
… the data shows [conservative Christians] are clearly losing the public. Another survey last week from the Public Religion Research Institute showed that while Mitt Romney has the support of 80% of younger white evangelical millennials (aged 18 to 25), this is a small and diminishing constituency: white evangelicals comprise only 12.3% of that age group. That’s less than half their proportion of the 50 to 64 population. The Pew survey showed that while 32% of Americans aged 50 to 64 are white evangelicals, only 13% of those aged 18 to 29 are.
One can’t blame President Obama for the apparent decline of religious faith among young Hispanics or evangelicals, but the contempt he shows the Catholic Church surely makes matters worse. It is harder to raise one’s children in a religious community when the president disdains the largest religious denomination.
A generation less imbued with traditional values, and which weaker qualifications, is about to encounter a bleak future.
A great transition downwards in American educational levels is pre-programmed: as the most successful generation in American economic history retires, they will be replaced to an increasing extent by children from families with very low educational levels and little cultural inclination to seek education for their children. By contrast, Asian-Americans comprise less than 12% of the total New York City school population but about three-quarters of the elite city high schools, where admission depends on entrance examinations. Income has nothing to do with the disparity; the new elite of New York City students come overwhelmingly from poor immigrant families.
No amount of government spending on education will fix the problem. Children learn how to learn, and acquire the motivation to learn, from their families. If families want to educate their children, nothing will stop them. New York’s Asian-American children attend the same miserable public schools as everyone else, but their parents scrape together the tuition for cram school.
There is an obvious solution to the problem: encourage Asian immigration. It isn’t enough to institute a points system like Canada’s because there aren’t enough Asians who already are educated to fill the gap. It is difficult to envisage how such a policy might be devised, let alone accepted. But there is nothing un-American in favoring immigrants with superior skills and education. America succeeded because it had a 90% literacy rate at the time of the Revolution, compared to less than 40% for France.
The American economy will be hard pressed to absorb labor force entrants with low skills. Construction provided opportunities to less-educated workers. It won’t come back for a long time. As I wrote in a 2009 essay for First Things:
America’s population has risen from 200 million to 300 million since 1970, while the total number of two-parent families with children is the same today as it was when Richard Nixon took office, at 25 million. In 1973, the United States had 36 million housing units with three or more bedrooms, not many more than the number of two-parent families with children – which means that the supply of family homes was roughly in line with the number of families. By 2005, the number of housing units with three or more bedrooms had doubled to 72 million, though America had the same number of two-parent families with children.
The number of two-parent families with children, the kind of household that requires and can afford a large home, has remained essentially stagnant since 1963, according to the Census Bureau. Between 1963 and 2005, to be sure, the total number of what the Census Bureau categorizes as families grew from 47 million to 77 million. But most of the increase is due to families without children, including what are sometimes rather strangely called “one-person families.”
Where will jobs come from for the unskilled?
The entrepreneurial start-up sector is dead in the water. As I reported in this space last week, “The average return on investment (ROI) for 3,181 traded US companies as of the second quarter was just 1.0%, versus 10.2% for the top 500 by market capitalization.” Small companies can’t cut in a globalized world where technology, manufacturing and marketing require global reach from inception. Facebook might have started in a Harvard dorm room, but the social networking giant has pulled up the ladder behind it. Even in the freewheeling world of social media, the entry threshold is punishingly high.
A perfect economic storm is in incubation. An American population with lower educational attainment, and with a huge continent of children raised in single-parent families, will meet a labor market dominated by corporate oligopolies that can source labor anywhere in the world.
That is the future. But the present is already cause for alarm. Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute summarized his new book A Nation of Takers: America’s Entitlement Epidemic in these bullet points:
- Entitlement outlays, after controlling for both inflation and population growth, grew by over 700% in 50 years. By 2010, the average per capita burden of entitlements for every man, woman and child was about $7,200 apiece, or nearly $29,000 for a notional family of four.
- In 1960, one dollar of every three taken in by the federal government was devoted to entitlements and two dollars were designated for governance. By 2010, this had reversed to one dollar for governance and two for entitlements.
- About half of Americans live in a household that receives one or more transfer payments.
- Almost half of American children are in households that receive one or more.
- About 18% of all personal income received in the United States is through government transfer payments.
- Almost 12 million working-age Americans in 2010 were receiving one or more disability entitlement payments though entitlement programs, which is one for every 11.3 people of the same age with a job.
- Around 35% of Americans in 2011 lived in households that got one or more means-tested benefits, which is about twice as high as the rate in the early 1980s.
That’s why the budget deficit continues to run in excess of a trillion dollars a year. The American economy can’t survive with just 58% of the working-age population employed (compared to 63% before the crisis).
Employment to Population Ratio
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
During the past year, the US Treasury borrowed $1.2 trillion. Half of that amount was lent to America by foreigners. Mitt Romney asks whether it’s worth borrowing money from China to fund each line item in the federal budget, but China was a net seller of $165 billion of Treasury securities during the past 12 months. Japan was the largest buyer, at $220 billion.
America cannot continue to fund an indigent population on the largesse of the rest of the world for very much longer. At some point foreigners will demand a risk premium for owning US Treasury securities. And every 1% increase in the interest rate on government debt will cost the Treasury $160 billion a year. Obama well may turn out to be the James Callaghan of the United States, the Labor Party prime minister who brought Britain to its economic nadir during the pound sterling crisis of 1976.
Foreign Holdings of US Treasury Securities
Source: US Treasury
Source: US Treasury
A second term for Barack Obama promises more of the same: more dependency, more entitlement spending, more federal debt, and more dependency on foreign lenders – until the rest of the world wearies of American fecklessness and finds a better use for its money. Can America reverse the damage? Probably, if it acts now. More of the same is a prescription for a catastrophic spiral into national decline.
Spengler is channeled by David P Goldman. His book How Civilizations Die (and why Islam is Dying, Too) was published by Regnery Press in September 2011. A volume of his essays on culture, religion and economics, It’s Not the End of the World – It’s Just the End of You, also appeared last fall, from Van Praag Press.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4)
RJC Releases Results of Jewish Exit Polling
GOP Gains 10 Points Among Jewish Voters Since 2008
The Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) today released one of the largest and most comprehensive series of exit polls ever taken in the Jewish community.
The survey, a national sample of 1000 Jewish voters, as well as a 600-person sample of Jewish voters in Ohio and a 600-person sample of Florida Jewish voters, shows Jewish support for the President dropped from 78% in 2008 to 69% last night. See the poll results at the links below.
Matt Brooks, the executive director of the RJC said, "The results demonstrate that President Barack Obama and the Democrats saw a significant erosion of support from 2008, while Republicans continued their trend of the last several decades of making inroads in the Jewish community."
The Republican share of the Jewish vote jumped nationally from 22 percent to 32 percent -- an increase of almost 50 percent -- and is part of a trend in which Republicans have gained market share among Jewish voters in five of the last six national elections. The ten-point gain is the largest gain since 1972.
The Democrats' loss of support among Jewish voters indicates continued unease in the Jewish community with the President's handling of U.S.-Israel relations. The President dropped three points with all voters versus ten points with Jewish voters.
"The RJC is encouraged by the gains we made in 2012 and by the continuing movement in the Jewish community toward the GOP. Despite the discouraging election results, we're pleased by the gains we have made in the Jewish community," said Matt Brooks.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)Why Mitt Romney Lost
Christopher Ruddy’s Perspective: It was the worst of times and the worst of times.
With the 2012 election results in, there are no short- or even medium-term "silver linings" for Republicans.
President Barack Obama has won a decisive victory and the GOP, expecting to gain Senate seats, actually had a net loss of three.
The "morning after" will bring the expected explanations and after-game quarterbacking. Still, it is important that the GOP understand why we lost this one in hopes of future victory.
Perhaps the easy explanation is that two hurricanes and two betrayals by Chris Christie killed Mitt Romney's chances.
The first hurricane was Isaac, the one that skirted Tampa in late August during the Republican convention. That one seriously disrupted the official schedule.
GOP star Marco Rubio — who gave the best speech of the convention — was bumped off prime-time TV coverage, and so was the video biography "introducing" Mitt to the nation.
Aging actor Clint Eastwood was scrambled into the schedule to offer a funny but often incoherent monologue with an empty chair. He stole Mitt's show. And prime-time keynoter Chris Christie barely mentioned the nominee or Obama in a speech that sounded like the New Jersey governor was pumping his re-election.
The ground lost in Tampa wasn't regained until the first debate in Denver, when Romney shined. It was the first, best, and last time he would really sparkle.
As a result of the debates, by late October polls showed that Romney was finally beginning to see a surge.
Then the second hurricane, Sandy, struck on Oct. 29. The campaign went into “freeze” mode while Obama swung into “commander in chief” mode. Romney's surge was suddenly frozen too.
Enter Iago.
It was perfectly fine for Chris Christie to join with Obama in the wake of the crisis. But to lather the president with praise, calling his response to Sandy “outstanding” in the immediate aftermath of the storm was completely unjustified.
It was another act of treachery. (As the disaster unfolded, and with hundreds of thousands still without electric power as I write this, there is plenty of evidence that the leadership by Obama and federal agencies has been seriously lacking, as it has been from Christie and other state and local officials who have failed to adequately prepare and respond to the disaster.)
As I said, it is easy to blame Sandy and Christie for Romney's loss. I won't. Sure they hurt Romney. But he lost for other reasons.
Sandy and Christie's double-dealing can be compared to bad turbulence that any experienced jet pilot should expect on a long mission. The turbulence may be rough, but it is nothing more than a passing episode for a good pilot with a smart flight plan.
On to why our pilot Mitt Romney and his plan were so flawed.
1. Paul Ryan. Romney's choice of Ryan was almost inexplicable.
A good conservative, Ryan was unqualified for the job of vice president, and therefore the job of president. A sitting member of Congress, he held no leadership position on the Hill.
Romney's VP selection was the most important one of his campaign, and by it he telegraphed his lack of political wisdom to the nation.
With his VP pick Romney had the opportunity to show he was willing to reach out to middle voters and break out of the GOP's demographic box (think Rubio, Nevada's Brian Sandoval, or New Mexico's Susana Martinez) or pick a Republican heavyweight who exuded gravitas while potentially giving him a state (think Rob Portman or Tim Pawlenty).
2. The Ryan Plan. Romney had endorsed Ryan's plan for Medicare even before he tapped him as a running mate. But by selecting Ryan, he was nailing the odious plan to the masthead of his campaign.
Ryan's plan, which first called for abolishing federal Medicare in 10 years and later for a substitute voucher program, proved to be disastrous for Romney and other Republican candidates.
As far as I could see, the Ryan plan was the No. 1 policy focus of Obama's and other Democratic attack ads against the GOP.
I am not sure what the GOP was smoking when they decided to propose demolishing or radically altering the cherished healthcare program for seniors.
Apparently, the Romney campaign began to realize Ryan's negatives late in the campaign, banishing his public appearances to secure red states. But it was too late.
3. The Myth of a “Base Election.” Romney totally bought into the notion that this was an election about energizing the conservative base. He seems to have ignored the fact that the base was already highly energized because of its dislike of Barack Obama.
This election was just like every other one in modern times — about winning middle, swing voters. We used to call them Reagan Democrats but the better label today is Clinton Democrats.
Romney did much to annoy them (like backing the Ryan plan) and almost nothing to reach out to them, "triangulating" so to speak with ideas that showed the GOP cared about them.
4. No Plan. Along the lines of triangulating, Romney needed to espouse several simple ideas that explained what he would do if elected president.
Romney promised to create 12 million jobs. That's not a plan, it's a promise. He didn't clearly articulate how he could fulfill that promise.
In fact, Romney's team offered the fewest specifics of any presidential campaign ever.
5. Crushing Optimism. When, in 1980, Ronald Reagan put the GOP on the path of optimism and economic growth, he not only won two landslide elections, he also changed the political landscape for three decades.
When Romney did offer a plan, it was about "hard truths," such as tackling the deficit, cutting the debt, cutting the budget (killing Big Bird), and cutting Medicare.
What happened to the Grand Old Party that once advocated cutting taxes and spurring economic growth — ideas espoused by the late Jack Kemp and people like Arthur Laffer, Larry Kudlow, Newt Gingrich, Mike Reagan, and others?
This is the party most Americans and I identify with.
6. Poor Campaign Staff. Considering that Romney's presidential quest was the best funded Republican race in history, his campaign staff was certainly not the best money could buy.
The Romney staff was insular and arrogant, and his campaign strategy team led by Stu Stevens and Russ Schriefer was simply abysmal.
7. No “Gingrich” Ads Against Obama. Residing in a battleground state, Florida, I had a front-row seat to Romney's ad war on Obama. I was shocked how few ads the campaign was airing over the summer and how many Obama’s campaign was.
Meanwhile, Obama's ads were nasty, negative ones, while Romney's were of the kinder, gentler, country-club Republican variety.
I asked a high-level Romney operative why the Republicans were spending $2.5 million to build a wooden stage for the Tampa convention and not putting the money into ads.
The answer: The Romney camp believe people don't remember ads until close to the election. The sea of Romney ads never did emerge that September.
I thought perhaps this was just the Florida strategy. But then I read a shocking report in Broadcasting & Cable, the respected TV industry publication.
By late September Romney's campaign had not even run a single TV ad in several key markets in swing state Ohio! And the magazine reported that because Romney's campaign was not planning its ad buys properly, they were often paying five to 10 times more than Obama was paying for the same ad spot.
Obama's campaign, of course, took the opposite approach to Romney's, defining him early on with hard-hitting TV ads. Romney's failure to run tough ads against Obama is mind-boggling, even more so because of how Romney ran his primary campaign.
For example, I saw the negative attack ads the Romney camp ran against Newt Gingrich in Florida last December and January. By February, the Romney team had spent some $55 million airing some of the most vicious political ads deployed in a GOP presidential primary, most of them against Gingrich.
At the time, Rush Limbaugh commented on Romney's Newt ads, and I'm paraphrasing here, "Mark my words — Mitt Romney will never run these type of ads against Obama."
Rush's words were prophetic.
8. Dissing Hispanics. As the elections of 2000, 2004, 2008, and now 2012 have demonstrated, demographics are trumping ideology in national elections.
The Republican Party has a difficult time grasping this concept.
Romney seemingly ignored this truth by taking an ultra-hardline on immigration — one so tough he called for the "self deportation" of illegal immigrants. Not only is such a plan impractical and immoral, it is unacceptable politically, as yesterdays' results proved.
Consider that Obama reneged on his promise to Hispanics to make their concerns a priority. They were there for the GOP's taking.
The one Hispanic group that has voted consistently for Republicans — Cuban-Americans — gave Obama a record number of votes this year.
Already the liberal spinmeisters are blaming the tea party and conservatives for Romney's loss. The facts show the claim is not true.
The success Romney did achieve was due to their support. Romney's loss was due to a concoction of things involving the candidate himself, his team, his strategy, and his decisions.
Soon we will, correctly, move on. The GOP will learn from this debacle.
The Republican Party might start the process with an image makeover — putting away the Wall Street look in favor of a Main Street one — while it takes back the mantle of Lincoln; a party that fights for the underdog and appeals to the aspirations of the American people.
Christopher Ruddy is CEO and editor of Newsmax Media Inc.
.
Christopher Ruddy’s Perspective: It was the worst of times and the worst of times.
With the 2012 election results in, there are no short- or even medium-term "silver linings" for Republicans.
President Barack Obama has won a decisive victory and the GOP, expecting to gain Senate seats, actually had a net loss of three.
The "morning after" will bring the expected explanations and after-game quarterbacking. Still, it is important that the GOP understand why we lost this one in hopes of future victory.
Perhaps the easy explanation is that two hurricanes and two betrayals by Chris Christie killed Mitt Romney's chances.
The first hurricane was Isaac, the one that skirted Tampa in late August during the Republican convention. That one seriously disrupted the official schedule.
GOP star Marco Rubio — who gave the best speech of the convention — was bumped off prime-time TV coverage, and so was the video biography "introducing" Mitt to the nation.
Aging actor Clint Eastwood was scrambled into the schedule to offer a funny but often incoherent monologue with an empty chair. He stole Mitt's show. And prime-time keynoter Chris Christie barely mentioned the nominee or Obama in a speech that sounded like the New Jersey governor was pumping his re-election.
The ground lost in Tampa wasn't regained until the first debate in Denver, when Romney shined. It was the first, best, and last time he would really sparkle.
As a result of the debates, by late October polls showed that Romney was finally beginning to see a surge.
Then the second hurricane, Sandy, struck on Oct. 29. The campaign went into “freeze” mode while Obama swung into “commander in chief” mode. Romney's surge was suddenly frozen too.
Enter Iago.
It was perfectly fine for Chris Christie to join with Obama in the wake of the crisis. But to lather the president with praise, calling his response to Sandy “outstanding” in the immediate aftermath of the storm was completely unjustified.
It was another act of treachery. (As the disaster unfolded, and with hundreds of thousands still without electric power as I write this, there is plenty of evidence that the leadership by Obama and federal agencies has been seriously lacking, as it has been from Christie and other state and local officials who have failed to adequately prepare and respond to the disaster.)
As I said, it is easy to blame Sandy and Christie for Romney's loss. I won't. Sure they hurt Romney. But he lost for other reasons.
Sandy and Christie's double-dealing can be compared to bad turbulence that any experienced jet pilot should expect on a long mission. The turbulence may be rough, but it is nothing more than a passing episode for a good pilot with a smart flight plan.
On to why our pilot Mitt Romney and his plan were so flawed.
1. Paul Ryan. Romney's choice of Ryan was almost inexplicable.
A good conservative, Ryan was unqualified for the job of vice president, and therefore the job of president. A sitting member of Congress, he held no leadership position on the Hill.
Romney's VP selection was the most important one of his campaign, and by it he telegraphed his lack of political wisdom to the nation.
With his VP pick Romney had the opportunity to show he was willing to reach out to middle voters and break out of the GOP's demographic box (think Rubio, Nevada's Brian Sandoval, or New Mexico's Susana Martinez) or pick a Republican heavyweight who exuded gravitas while potentially giving him a state (think Rob Portman or Tim Pawlenty).
2. The Ryan Plan. Romney had endorsed Ryan's plan for Medicare even before he tapped him as a running mate. But by selecting Ryan, he was nailing the odious plan to the masthead of his campaign.
Ryan's plan, which first called for abolishing federal Medicare in 10 years and later for a substitute voucher program, proved to be disastrous for Romney and other Republican candidates.
As far as I could see, the Ryan plan was the No. 1 policy focus of Obama's and other Democratic attack ads against the GOP.
I am not sure what the GOP was smoking when they decided to propose demolishing or radically altering the cherished healthcare program for seniors.
Apparently, the Romney campaign began to realize Ryan's negatives late in the campaign, banishing his public appearances to secure red states. But it was too late.
3. The Myth of a “Base Election.” Romney totally bought into the notion that this was an election about energizing the conservative base. He seems to have ignored the fact that the base was already highly energized because of its dislike of Barack Obama.
This election was just like every other one in modern times — about winning middle, swing voters. We used to call them Reagan Democrats but the better label today is Clinton Democrats.
Romney did much to annoy them (like backing the Ryan plan) and almost nothing to reach out to them, "triangulating" so to speak with ideas that showed the GOP cared about them.
4. No Plan. Along the lines of triangulating, Romney needed to espouse several simple ideas that explained what he would do if elected president.
Romney promised to create 12 million jobs. That's not a plan, it's a promise. He didn't clearly articulate how he could fulfill that promise.
In fact, Romney's team offered the fewest specifics of any presidential campaign ever.
5. Crushing Optimism. When, in 1980, Ronald Reagan put the GOP on the path of optimism and economic growth, he not only won two landslide elections, he also changed the political landscape for three decades.
When Romney did offer a plan, it was about "hard truths," such as tackling the deficit, cutting the debt, cutting the budget (killing Big Bird), and cutting Medicare.
What happened to the Grand Old Party that once advocated cutting taxes and spurring economic growth — ideas espoused by the late Jack Kemp and people like Arthur Laffer, Larry Kudlow, Newt Gingrich, Mike Reagan, and others?
This is the party most Americans and I identify with.
6. Poor Campaign Staff. Considering that Romney's presidential quest was the best funded Republican race in history, his campaign staff was certainly not the best money could buy.
The Romney staff was insular and arrogant, and his campaign strategy team led by Stu Stevens and Russ Schriefer was simply abysmal.
7. No “Gingrich” Ads Against Obama. Residing in a battleground state, Florida, I had a front-row seat to Romney's ad war on Obama. I was shocked how few ads the campaign was airing over the summer and how many Obama’s campaign was.
Meanwhile, Obama's ads were nasty, negative ones, while Romney's were of the kinder, gentler, country-club Republican variety.
I asked a high-level Romney operative why the Republicans were spending $2.5 million to build a wooden stage for the Tampa convention and not putting the money into ads.
The answer: The Romney camp believe people don't remember ads until close to the election. The sea of Romney ads never did emerge that September.
I thought perhaps this was just the Florida strategy. But then I read a shocking report in Broadcasting & Cable, the respected TV industry publication.
By late September Romney's campaign had not even run a single TV ad in several key markets in swing state Ohio! And the magazine reported that because Romney's campaign was not planning its ad buys properly, they were often paying five to 10 times more than Obama was paying for the same ad spot.
Obama's campaign, of course, took the opposite approach to Romney's, defining him early on with hard-hitting TV ads. Romney's failure to run tough ads against Obama is mind-boggling, even more so because of how Romney ran his primary campaign.
For example, I saw the negative attack ads the Romney camp ran against Newt Gingrich in Florida last December and January. By February, the Romney team had spent some $55 million airing some of the most vicious political ads deployed in a GOP presidential primary, most of them against Gingrich.
At the time, Rush Limbaugh commented on Romney's Newt ads, and I'm paraphrasing here, "Mark my words — Mitt Romney will never run these type of ads against Obama."
Rush's words were prophetic.
8. Dissing Hispanics. As the elections of 2000, 2004, 2008, and now 2012 have demonstrated, demographics are trumping ideology in national elections.
The Republican Party has a difficult time grasping this concept.
Romney seemingly ignored this truth by taking an ultra-hardline on immigration — one so tough he called for the "self deportation" of illegal immigrants. Not only is such a plan impractical and immoral, it is unacceptable politically, as yesterdays' results proved.
Consider that Obama reneged on his promise to Hispanics to make their concerns a priority. They were there for the GOP's taking.
The one Hispanic group that has voted consistently for Republicans — Cuban-Americans — gave Obama a record number of votes this year.
Already the liberal spinmeisters are blaming the tea party and conservatives for Romney's loss. The facts show the claim is not true.
The success Romney did achieve was due to their support. Romney's loss was due to a concoction of things involving the candidate himself, his team, his strategy, and his decisions.
Soon we will, correctly, move on. The GOP will learn from this debacle.
The Republican Party might start the process with an image makeover — putting away the Wall Street look in favor of a Main Street one — while it takes back the mantle of Lincoln; a party that fights for the underdog and appeals to the aspirations of the American people.
Christopher Ruddy is CEO and editor of Newsmax Media Inc.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment