The3rd“draftMitt”movementstillhasa

The 3rd “draft Mitt” movement still has a few glaring problems

posted at 5:31 pm on August 9, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Our friend Matt Lewis takes to the pages of the Telegraph this week with an impassioned defense of the record – and perhaps future political viability – of Mitt Romney. And to be sure, a lot of the admittedly retrospective praise in this article is fully deserved.

First, since his 2012 defeat, Mr Romney has been proved right about a variety of issues. When he called Russia a “geopolitical foe” during a 2012 presidential debate, Mr Obama gibed: “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, because the Cold War has now been over for twenty years.” …

Within seconds of taunting Mitt over Russia, during that same debate, Mr Obama crowed: “Just a few weeks ago, you said you think we should have more troops in Iraq right now.” …

But it wasn’t just foreign policy. On the domestic front, Mr Romney warned about ObamaCare, saying that some of the “people who counted on the insurance plan they had in the past” would “lose it”. In 2013, Politifact named the “if you like your plan, you can keep it” line their “lie of the year”.

It’s hard to argue with Matt on any of these points. Mitt Romney was proven to be right on a variety of important topics, and not just areas where he found some subtle difference of opinion with his debate opponent. Many of these are policy areas where Romney was openly and widely ridiculed, providing fodder for The Daily Show and Saturday Night Live. Of course, nobody is laughing now.

But Lewis launches from this solid platform of analyzing Romney’s vision to speculate that it might not be all that crazy to think that Mitt should still wind up in the Oval Office.

He was often cast as a rich guy who led a charmed life. But Americans like a comeback story, and what better way to reinvent oneself as a man of the people than to have lost at something, only to get up, brush yourself off, and try again.

Mr Romney ran for the Republican nomination in 2008, falling short to John McCain. So this would be his third attempt at the presidency – which is not unprecedented. Most famously, William Jennings Bryan was a three-time losing Democratic nominee for president. But the American public has presumably grown more fickle since then.

He goes on from there to draw other historical parallels, further pointing out that Nixon lost presidential and gubernatorial bids in 1960 and 1962, only to go on to win the White House in 68. That’s certainly true, but I would note that the examples given come from a very different era, when American attitudes and the political machines of the day operated in a very different way. We had many perpetual candidates in the first half of the 20th century and it was nothing unusual. But the demand for something new all of the time in America has swept those old campaign modes aside. US voters in the modern era take a page from the opening speech of the movie Patton, never tolerating “a loser” for very long. Mitt was dedicated and persevered, but he’s now lost to both John McCain and Barack Obama.

Also, I simply don’t see any sort of grassroots conservative uprising to draft Mitt again. In fact, it’s just the opposite. Matt points to some recent polls which show that, if they had the chance to do it over again, voters wish they’d chosen Romney over Obama. True enough, and easy to understand, but that’s not to say that they wish to head to the theaters and watch this movie for a third time. Mitt still rings up big numbers in New Hampshire, but these are voters who carry a clear memory of Romney as a candidate for the best part of a decade and as yet have no definitive, declared candidates for the next cycle who aren’t mired in questions and controversy. As we get closer to 2016 and some substantial hats are tossed into the ring, that will probably change drastically.

And finally, there is the real missing piece of the Romney 2016 equation: we have yet to see any indication that Mitt is actually interested or could even be cajoled into another turn in the line of fire. As Noah pointed out in June, Romney has very recently been asked about it and said the idea was silly. Some members of Romney’s own inner circle have brought it up and gotten a response of (quote) No, no, no, no, no,no, no, no.

There may be a Draft Mitt movement taking place out there, but I think it’s largely a media creation. And even in as much as it may exist, Mitt himself doesn’t seem to be a member of it.

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: 2016 election, Mitt Romney

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Under pressure from Romney insiders, “Draft Mitt” group cancels national launch

UnderpressurefromRomneyinsiders,“DraftMitt”group

Ifvotershadittodoover,Romney

If voters had it to do over, Romney in a landslide

posted at 3:31 pm on July 27, 2014 by Noah Rothman

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Polls which ask voters for their thoughts on how the last election should have shaped up a year or two years after the fact are pretty much meaningless. The latest CNN/ORC survey which asks voters that question is no exception to that rule. Nevertheless, with just 100 days reaming before the midterm elections, this question is an instructive measurement of voter satisfaction with the president.

If voters had it to do all over again, 53 percent would support Mitt Romney over the 44 percent who would continue to back Barack Obama. The president’s remaining coalition is what you would expect it to be; voters aged 18 – 34, Northeasterners, Democrats, self-identified liberals and moderates, urban and minority voters.

Where the president suffers the most in this survey is among women. CNN/ORC found that women voters backed Romney over Obama by 52 to 45 percent. That is almost identical to the margins among male voters (54/43 percent) and dramatic reversal from 2012 when the nationwide exit polls showed women backed Obama by double digits (55/44 percent).

There is not much in the way of good news for Obama in this poll. A majority say Obama is not a “strong and decisive leader.” By 56 to 43 percent, voters say Obama does not agree with them on the issues they “care about.” Only 42 percent say Obama can manage the government effectively; 57 percent believe he cannot.

But this survey is not all roses for Republicans either. In 2012, Obama trounced Romney by 63 points when voters were asked which candidate “cares about people like me.” While Romney has closed that gap in the intervening years since the last presidential election, he has not overcome the deficit entirely. By 51 to 48 percent (though within this poll’s 3.5 percent margin of error), voters still believe Obama cares more about them than does Romney.

Moreover, even in spite of Romney’s rehabilitation, voters would still back Clinton at this stage of the 2016 cycle by 55 to 42 percent.

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: Barack Obama, Mitt Romney

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

America confirms Mitt Romney was right about Russia in 2012

AmericaconfirmsMittRomneywasrightaboutRussia

Q-poll:ObamaworstpresidentsinceWWII posted

Q-poll: Obama worst president since WWII

posted at 8:41 am on July 2, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

It’s no secret that Barack Obama’s popularity has plunged over the past 18 months of his second term, but just how bad has it gotten? According to a new poll from Quinnipiac, Americans pick him as the worst post-WWII president of all. A third of respondents choose Obama for that dubious honor, while 28% pick George W. Bush:

President Barack Obama is the worst president since World War II, 33 percent of American voters say in a Quinnipiac University National Poll released today. Another 28 percent pick President George W. Bush. …

Obama has been a better president than George W. Bush, 39 percent of voters say, while 40 percent say he is worse. Men say 43 – 36 percent that Obama is worse than Bush while women say 42 – 38 percent he is better. Obama is worse, Republicans say 79 – 7 percent and independent voters say 41 – 31 percent. Democrats say 78 – 4 percent that he is better.

Obama beats up George Bush on the economy any time he can in order to distract attention from the fact that his own economic policies have produced the worst recovery since WWII — not exactly a coincidence in regard to this poll. That tactic isn’t working as well as it used to work, though:

Voters say by a narrow 37 – 34 percent that Obama is better for the economy than Bush.

That’s within the MOE, but that’s the good news on Bush comparisons. He’s now at 39/40 against Bush as to which was the better President, down from 46/30 in January 2011 when the question was last asked. Among independents, Obama scores 31/41 and barely holds serve with women at 42/38.

Obama got a little bit of good news in his overall approval ratings, but that just shows how bad the rest of the news is from this poll. His job approval improved to 40/53, up from 38/57 in December … but not by much. Among independents, it’s 31/59, and among women — a critical demographic for Democrats this fall — it’s 42/49. He’s dead even on trustworthiness overall (48/48) but 42/53 among independents, and underwater on leadership at 47/51 overall and 41/57 among independents.

Perhaps even more embarrassing — and potentially more dangerous for other Democrats — is the rise of buyer’s remorse from the election of 2012:

America would be better off if Republican Mitt Romney had won the 2012 presidential election, 45 percent of voters say, while 38 percent say the country would be worse off.

Missing Mitt are Republicans 84 – 5 percent and independent voters 47 – 33 percent, while Democrats say 74 – 10 percent that the U.S. would be worse off with Romney.

If independents have double-digit buyer’s remorse from 2012, that suggests a strong desire to make up for their earlier mistake. The economy is driving that remorse. Respondents rate the economy as their highest priority by far in the midterms. Obama only gets a 40/55 on the economy, and 34/61 among independents. At the very least, it shows that independents won’t be too motivated to vote for Obama’s allies, while Republicans will be very motivated to turn out in November.

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: Barack Obama, economy, George W. Bush, job approval, midterms, Mitt Romney, poll, Quinnipiac

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Brazile:AskingaboutHillary’swealthissexist,or

Brazile: Asking about Hillary’s wealth is sexist, or something

posted at 2:01 pm on June 23, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

The most amazing part of this argument isn’t the Pavlovian resort to identity-card victimization, although that’s certainly amazing enough. It’s the total amnesia about how Democrats spent their 2012 summer vacation and the abject hypocrisy that follows that causes the jaw to drop. I missed this part of the Washington Post story on Democratic panic over Hillary Clinton’s continuing faceplants over her wealth, but David Frum pointed it out on Twitter (via Twitchy):

"Strategist Donna Brazile, a Clinton supporter, said scrutiny of Clinton’s speaking fees smacks of sexism.” http://t.co/5Lsdjjsl9X

— David Frum (@davidfrum) June 22, 2014

But Donna doesn’t go far enough. ANY unwelcome scrutiny of *anything* HRC says or does = sexism. http://t.co/5Lsdjjsl9X

— David Frum (@davidfrum) June 22, 2014

Here’s Brazile throwing the sexism card:

Strategist Donna Brazile, a Clinton supporter, said scrutiny of Clinton’s speaking fees smacks of sexism.

“I hope Hillary never apologizes for trying to earn a living,” Brazile said. “She’s no different than [former secretary of state] Colin Powell, no different than [former Florida governor] Jeb Bush, no different than anybody else who’s left public office and looked for ways to make an income. . . . What is wrong with a woman having the same earning potential as any man?”

Ahem. Brazile and her fellow Democrats spent all summer in 2012 attacking Mitt Romney’s wealth and the business he created, even while Barack Obama kept a former Bain exec as an advisor. Harry Reid accused Romney of tax evasion for a decade, allegations which proved utterly false, in an attempt to pressure Romney into releasing his income tax records for Democrats to attack — which they did, incessantly. Romney, who never pretended to be a middle-class guy “struggling” to pay his bills, got repeatedly painted as a prep-school elitist who couldn’t possibly understand the experience of middle America on the basis and origin of his wealth.

Now, suddenly, focusing on wealth is not just improper but sexist. In Clintonworld, what’s good for the gander is decidedly not good for the goose, so it’s time to smear critics to pre-empt the attacks. Outside Democrats aren’t the only ones panicking over Hillary’s gaffe-a-thon, apparently.

Later in the morning, Al Hunt dismantled Brazile’s argument on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, although without mentioning Brazile. Hunt even mentions the Bushes in contrasting Hillary’s hypocrisies and falsehoods to the manner in which wealthy political families have reconciled their status with voters:

The issue isn’t really wealth, but the Clintonian impulse to spin and prevaricate rather than deal with issues honestly and forthrightly. It didn’t take Hillary long to remind Americans of the more negative aspects of the Clinton era, and not long after that for her apologists to smear people for pointing it out. Just like old times …

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: "truly well off", Bain Capital, Donna Brazile, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, sexism, wealth

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

WaPo:Wait,didn’tObamatakecreditforfull

WaPo: Wait, didn’t Obama take credit for full Iraq withdrawal in 2011?

posted at 8:01 am on June 20, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Noah picked up on this change in tone from Barack Obama yesterday, but he wasn’t alone. The Washington Post’s Scott Wilson also noticed that Obama went from bragging about “ending the Iraq war” by pulling out all American troops — which had been an oft-repeated campaign pledge in 2007-8 — to suddenly changing to passive voice yesterday about the lack of American troops in Iraq in a war that everyone now knows is far from over. Wilson recalls that Obama described it very differently in 2011, and in the presidential campaign of 2012 too:

President Obama surprised a few people during a news conference Thursday by claiming that the 2011 decision to withdraw all U.S. forces from Iraq, a politically popular move on the eve of an election year, was made entirely by his Iraqi counterpart. The implication ran counter to a number of claims that Obama has made in the past, most notably during a tight campaign season two years ago, when he suggested that it was his decision to leave Iraq and end an unpopular war. …

In the 2012 campaign’s stretch, Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney met inside the performing arts center of Lynn University for the last of three presidential debates. The race remained close, and in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on the U.S. diplomatic mission and CIA-run annex in Benghazi, Libya, the Romney team saw foreign policy as an area of potential vulnerability for the incumbent. The debate focused on the issue.

For much of that election year, Obama had included a line of celebration in his standard stump speech, one that among an electorate exhausted by more than a decade of war always drew a rousing applause: “Four years ago, I promised to end the war in Iraq,” Obama proclaimed in Bowling Green, Ohio, in September 2012, and did nearly every day after until the election. “We did.”

In fact, as Wilson recalls, Obama objected when Mitt Romney declared during a debate that both he and Obama would have preferred a status-of-forces agreement (SOFA) that left a residual force in Iraq:

“With regards to Iraq, you and I agreed, I believe, that there should be a status of forces agreement,” Romney told Obama as the two convened on the Lynn University campus in Boca Raton, Fla., that October evening. ”That’s not true,” Obama interjected. “Oh, you didn’t want a status of forces agreement?” Romney asked as an argument ensued. “No,” Obama said. “What I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East.”

Here’s that exchange from the October 2012 debate, for those who need their memories refreshed as much as the President:

It’s true that the issue of immunity had become a sore spot with the Iraqis. Even during the Bush years, the Iraqi government wanted the US to waive immunity, which both the Bush and Obama administrations refused to do, and for very good reasons. The upcoming 2008 election gave Maliki the option of pressing the matter with the next President rather than Bush, which is one reason why the 2008 SOFA didn’t deal with either ending immunity or a long-term residual force.

Obama made it clear from 2007 forward that he didn’t want to stay in Iraq. He won an election in part on that pledge; the economy was certainly the big issue, but the difference between Obama and McCain on Iraq (and interventionism in general) was also a big part of that election. If Obama had been committed to the mission in Iraq, he could have forced Maliki into giving up on the immunity demand. But Obama clearly wasn’t committed to that mission; he opposed it — and got elected by the American people in part because of that opposition. As Dexter Filkins notes, the immunity issue was a welcome lever to fulfill that campaign pledge.

So yes, Obama chose to end the American presence in Iraq. Yesterday’s dodge shows how much the consequences of that decision have changed the way it looks, and Obama wants to run from it. Unfortunately, he’s on the record bragging about that decision so often that the passive voice is laughable now, and a demonstration of Obama’s weakness.

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: 2008 election, Barack Obama, immunity, Iraq, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Nouri al-Maliki

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

NewRepublicanfrontrunnerinNewHampshire:MittRomney,

New Republican frontrunner in New Hampshire: Mitt Romney, of course

posted at 6:01 pm on June 19, 2014 by Allahpundit

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Yes, I understand that he’s not running. And yes, I understand that the only reason he’s leading this poll is because he has tons of name recognition there whereas the rest of the 2016 field hasn’t even introduced themselves to voters yet. None of that matters. What matters is that when an opportunity this sweet to troll your Romney-hating readership comes along, you seize it. With both hands.

Romney 3.0, guys. The magic is back.

According to the Suffolk University/Boston Herald survey, which was released Thursday, 24% of Granite State Republicans and independents who lean towards the GOP say that Romney would be their first choice for their party’s presidential nomination.

Among the potential 2016 GOP contenders, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was a distant second, at 9%, with Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky at 8%, and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush at 7%…

Without Romney, Christie and Paul were tied at 11% as the first choice for the nomination among Republicans in New Hampshire, with Bush and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas each at 8%.

To put in perspective for you how important name recognition is, this same poll has Jon Huntsman leading Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, and Paul Ryan. Huntsman, remember, gave up early on Iowa in 2012 and campaigned entirely in New Hampshire on the longshot theory that if he pulled the upset on Romney there, righties might turn to him as their “Anyone But Mitt” savior and propel him to victory in South Carolina and beyond. He finished a distant third behind Romney and Ron Paul, but left enough of an impression that he still polls better at the moment than far more influential Republicans. (Er, what’s Paul Ryan’s excuse for doing so poorly, though? He was the VP nominee.) I think the poll might also be lowballing Rand Paul, as there may be a libertarian contingent in New Hampshire that’s not being included as “Republicans” here who’ll nonetheless turn out for Rand in 2016. Like I said, Ron finished second. There’s a base there to build on. As for Romney, though, consider this a sign that he may retain enough goodwill in the state in two years to help the establishment champion on the stump. If Jeb or Christie is in a tight race with Paul, is Mitt the difference? RINO alliance!

Since we’re on the topic of primaries, let me apologize to Jonathan Last for having misunderstood his post yesterday about whether Hillary’s imploding. I thought he meant as a general election candidate; he says he meant that she might be imploding among Democrats and liberals, specifically. Last, like Ross Douthat, thinks that Democrats are potentially facing the sort of elites-versus-populists schism that the GOP’s coping with right now. I think there’s something to that — which is why “Ready for Hillary” and pro-Clinton Democrats in Congress have moved so quickly to endorse her. The more inevitable she seems, the more populists like Elizabeth Warren will think twice about rolling the dice on a primary challenge. I’m skeptical that her elitist, establishment reputation will stop her on the left, though, not so much because she’s learned hard lessons from 2008 as because there’s simply no potential challenger as formidable now as Obama was then. No one has a “historic candidate” narrative that trumps Hillary’s own; no one has retail appeal or star power that’s going to challenge Bill Clinton’s this time. And most of all, Democrats don’t have the luxury they had in 2008 of rolling the dice on a charismatic challenger knowing that the wind was at their backs in November after eight years of Bush. If you’re going to try to hold the White House for a third consecutive term, your best bet is with the household name whom everyone thinks has a legit shot at winning, not a crapshoot like Warren or (giggle) Brian Schweitzer. If anyone’s learned any hard lessons from 2008, it’s centrist voters who decided to listen to the left when they said we could afford to gamble on a little-known newbie senator hero-worshiped by liberals. That lesson doesn’t point towards Elizabeth Warren in 2016. It points towards you know who. Exit quotation:

Brian Schweitzer proves that 2016 Dem field = video store that only has Godfather I&II and a bunch of Asylum movies. http://t.co/8GR7y4RzgP

— daveweigel (@daveweigel) June 19, 2014

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: Hillary Clinton, jonathan last, Mitt Romney, New Hampshire, republican, rubio

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Romneycallstalkofhimmakinganotherpresidential

Romney calls talk of him making another presidential bid ‘silly’

posted at 5:01 pm on June 15, 2014 by Noah Rothman

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

The talk of the town on the Sunday morning talk shows was Rep. Eric Cantor’s (R-VA) loss to his Republican primary opponent and the fracturing of the GOP. Former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney appeared on Meet the Press on Sunday where he was asked about that dynamic within the party, and talk by some that Romney should consider making another run for the White House. Romney said he was not interested in mounting a third presidential bid and called talk of drafting him to run “silly.”

Romney said that the narrative that the party is split along establishment and tea party lines is undermined by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) winning his primary race over at least five competitive challengers.

“Is the tea party populism driving the Republican Party?” host David Gregory asked.

“It certainly didn’t drive what happened in South Carolina,” Romney replied.

“Would you be a candidate in 2016,” Gregory pressed. “If you were drafted, if the conditions were right, would you consider another run?”

“I’m not running for president,” Romney laughed. “I’ve said that so many times.”

Romney reminded Gregory that he recently held a conference of Republican officeholders where they discussed the GOP’s evolving messaging heading into 2016. The former presidential candidate noted that one of the primary reasons to hold that conference was to introduce prospective presidential candidates to his fundraising network. “Had I been running, I wouldn’t be doing that,” he said.

“I’m convinced that the field of Republican candidates that I’m seeing is in a lot better position to do that than I am,” Romney said. “Talk of draft is kind of silly.”

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: 2016, David Gregory, Eric Cantor, Lindsey Graham, Mitt Romney

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

MittRomney:Iraqisapartofthe

Mitt Romney: Iraq is a part of the pattern of failures of the Obama-Clinton foreign policy

posted at 6:41 pm on June 13, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

I’m posting this, merely because — and I quote –

That is all.

Obviously, his red line in Syria, then walking away from it; saying that Assad must go, then three years later, doing nothing really to make that happen; in Iraq, failing to get a status of forces agreement so that we can have a group of 10 to 15,000 soldiers there; all these decisions made in the past puts us in a very poor position now frankly, with very poor options. This is the consequence of a president that did not take the right actions at the time opportunity presented itself. … Trying to recapture the lead and keep these kinds of things from happening is going to be a real challenge, and gosh, I hope the president is going to be able to do that in his last two years. … I frankly think this is a continuation of a pattern of the Obama-Hillary Clinton foreign policy, and it hasn’t worked.

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: Barack Obama, foreign policy, Hillary Clinton, Iraq, Middle East, Mitt Romney

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Romney:Let’sraisetheminimumwage posted

Romney: Let’s raise the minimum wage

posted at 2:01 pm on May 9, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Alternate headline: Romney not running for President in 2016. Mike Barnicle braced Mitt Romney on the GOP’s demographic issues and its “conservative bent” on popular initiatives like immigration reform and a minimum-wage hike. Romney talks about the big tent of Republicanism, but notes that he supports a minimum-wage hike:

“I think we ought to raise it, because frankly, our party is all about more jobs and better pay, and I think communicating that is important to us,” Romney said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

In recent days, two of Romney’s former opponents, Rick Santorum and Tim Pawlenty, have also urged their part to raise the minimum wage.

Republicans are correct to aim toward blue-collar economics, especially after the debacle of focusing on the so-called “47 percent.” The minimum-wage hike, especially as proposed by the Obama administration, is the wrong way to go about it. The US has repeatedly hiked the minimum wage, and yet has ended up in the same position in regard to the percentage living in poverty anyway. Why? Because raising the minimum wage only temporarily boosts buying power, as prices rise and jobs erode in response to the higher costs it imposes.

In fact, as the CBO pointed out, the majority of the costs end up being borne by the poor the minimum-wage hike is supposed to help:

Once fully implemented in the second half of 2016, the $10.10 option would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers, or 0.3 percent, CBO projects (see the table below). As with any such estimates, however, the actual losses could be smaller or larger; in CBO’s assessment, there is about a two-thirds chance that the effect would be in the range between a very slight reduction in employment and a reduction in employment of 1.0 million workers…

The increased earnings for low-wage workers resulting from the higher minimum wage would total $31 billion, by CBO’s estimate. However, those earnings would not go only to low-income families, because many low-wage workers are not members of low-income families. Just 19 percent of the $31 billion would accrue to families with earnings below the poverty threshold, whereas 29 percent would accrue to families earning more than three times the poverty threshold, CBO estimates.

Moreover, the increased earnings for some workers would be accompanied by reductions in real (inflation-adjusted) income for the people who became jobless because of the minimum-wage increase, for business owners, and for consumers facing higher prices.

If minimum-wage hikes solves problems of poverty and inequality, then we would have solved both of those issues decades ago. We have yet to see any evidence that they actually produce anything but an extremely short-term benefit, and mostly to those who don’t need it. (Amity Shlaes presented an argument this week that it actually made the unemployment situation during the Depression substantially worse.) Unfortunately, the GOP hasn’t done a very good job of pointing out the pitfalls of this policy, while Democrats mainly demagogue the point on “fairness.”

What kind of economic message should Republicans have? We need to focus on policies that expand opportunity, especially in the entrepreneurial arena. The massive decline of business births over the last several decades has curtailed the kind of job creation and economic expansion that puts pressure on labor markets to increase compensation. As I argued in my column for The Fiscal Times this week, that decline is a result of a massively-expanded federal regulatory regime that stifles start-ups while giving advantage to rent-seeking large players in markets:

The problem, therefore, is national, and must relate to regulatory or tax policy or a combination of both. During this period, though, taxes didn’t increase sharply for businesses, at least not until recently.  With few and temporary exceptions, though, the federal regulatory regime has only increased.  The Phoenix Center pointed out this implacable escalation in its April 2011 policy bulletin on regulatory expenditures.

As a share of private sector GDP, the federal regulatory burden has increased over the same period as this study. The Phoenix Center recommended at the time that even a small decrease in federal regulatory burden – just 5 percent, roughly decreasing the regulatory budget by less than $3 billion – would generate an additional $75 billion in the economy and add 1.19 million new jobs to the private sector.

Instead, we passed Obamacare.

We have another indirect method to test this conclusion, too. Expanded regulation tends to favor larger and more established firms in a market, which have more resources and better economies of scale to deal with compliance issues. Sure enough, the Brookings Institution study found that kind of dynamism alive and well. “Whatever the reason,” the authors conclude, “older and larger businesses are doing better relative to younger and smaller ones.”

Instead of increasing costs on business and stifling even more jobs, the GOP should be aiming at cost and regulatory reductions, an expansion of energy production to lower costs even further, and streamlining the tax code to rid ourselves of the rent-seeking policies that offer unfair advantages to larger players. Republicans and conservatives should consider a more comprehensive and deliberate effort to rein in market consolidations on that basis, too. Anti-trust has always been more of a function of the other end of the political spectrum, but any effort to defeat crony capitalism has to aim at two targets: the reduction of centralized power in the public sector, and the reduction of centralized power in the private sector. Unless we’re serious about both, we’re not serious about ending crony capitalism, and we’re not serious about blue-collar economics.

Tags: blue collar economics, CBO, crony capitalism, economy, minimum wage, Mitt Romney

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

CBS,NYTregretthatObama-Putinrelationshipison

CBS, NYT regret that Obama-Putin relationship is on the rocks

posted at 12:41 pm on April 21, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Old and busted: Smart power and reset buttons. New hotness: Cold War echoes and writing off “allies” like Russia. Both the New York Times and CBS News report that President Obama has changed strategies with Vladimir Putin and have shifted to “an updated version of the Cold War strategy of containment.”:

Even as the crisis in Ukraine continues to defy easy resolution, President Obama and his national security team are looking beyond the immediate conflict to forge a new long-term approach to Russia that applies an updated version of the Cold War strategy of containment.

Just as the United States resolved in the aftermath of World War II to counter the Soviet Union and its global ambitions, Mr. Obama is focused on isolating President Vladimir V. Putin’s Russia by cutting off its economic and political ties to the outside world, limiting its expansionist ambitions in its own neighborhood and effectively making it a pariah state.

Mr. Obama has concluded that even if there is a resolution to the current standoff over Crimea and eastern Ukraine, he will never have a constructive relationship with Mr. Putin, aides said. As a result, Mr. Obama will spend his final two and a half years in office trying to minimize the disruption Mr. Putin can cause, preserve whatever marginal cooperation can be saved and otherwise ignore the master of the Kremlin in favor of other foreign policy areas where progress remains possible.

In other words, Obama now plans to treat Russia as America’s greatest geopolitical threat. Golly, who else said that? I’m trying my best to recall, but the Era of Hopenchange keeps calling and wants its fantasy world back.

CBS laments the end of Obama’s relationship with Putin:

In addition to sounding like he has no faith Russia will change course, the president sounds like he has no faith in his own ability to alter Russia’s behavior.

The New York Times reported over the weekend that Mr. Obama has abandoned any hope of a good relationship with Putin, less than four years after he declared a successful “reset” of U.S.-Russia relations. Now, the Times reports, the president will merely look to “minimize the disruption Mr. Putin can cause, preserve whatever marginal cooperation can be saved and otherwise ignore the master of the Kremlin in favor of other foreign policy areas where progress remains possible.”

The change comes after Mr. Obama’s attempts to coax Putin into calling off pro-Russian forces occupying buildings in eastern Ukraine led nowhere. Descriptions of the phone calls between the two men issued by the White House and the Kremlin often sounded like two entirely different conversations. It was not unlike a phone call between the president and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., earlier this week that the president described as “very pleasant” while Cantor found it to be partisan posturing.

All of this sounds a little too familiar to Ron Fournier, too. After wooing Putin and failing, Obama wants to wash his hands of the Russian relationship, just as Obama did with his professed desire for bipartisanship shortly after first taking office:

The policy shift is defensible in light of Putin’s dismissal of U.S. overtures on Ukraine and the broader attempt by Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to “press the restart button” with Russia. I have been among the critics who have accused Obama of misjudging Putin and raising expectations beyond his capacity to meet them. …

The turnaround on Russia is no more remarkable than the pivot Obama took after the 2008 election, when he abandoned his post-partisan brand at the first sight of Republican intransigence and forced the Affordable Care Act through Congress without GOP backing. Once poisoned, the well went dry: The candidate who had the “audacity to hope” for a new kind of politics surrendered to the toxic culture he promised to change. Obama wrote off Republicans. He said House Speaker John Boehner can’t or won’t bargain on the budget, then wrapped the white flag of surrender around the debt, gun control, tax reform, immigration, and other issues. Obama stopped looking for compromises, and then expressed outrage when he couldn’t find them.

Fournier points out one especially resonant paragraph in Baker’s report, and calls it emblematic:

The more hawkish faction in the State and Defense departments has grown increasingly frustrated, privately worrying that Mr. Obama has come across as weak and unintentionally sent the message that he has written off Crimea after Russia’s annexation. They have pressed for faster and more expansive sanctions, only to wait while memos sit in the White House without action. Mr. Obama has not even imposed sanctions on a list of Russian human-rights violators waiting for approval since last winter.

That last paragraph reminds me of Democrats who privately gripe about Obama’s lack of engagement with Congress, his unwillingness to build meaningful relationships, his allegiance to polls and focus groups, and his cautious nature that, in their minds, holds him back from greatness. “He can’t handle Putin. He can’t handle Republicans,” said a veteran Democratic consultant and part-time adviser to both of Obama’s presidential campaigns. Speaking on condition of anonymity, the Democrat added, “He just is not a natural leader.”

Of course he isn’t. By nature, he’s a legislative backbencher and a superior campaigner, not a natural leader or even a competent executive. That’s why “smart power” has turned into such a disaster, and why domestic initiatives like ObamaCare were doomed to failure even apart from their structural flaws. The Obama administration careens from incompetence to incompetence, and until recently the media has seemed oddly uninterested in that dynamic. This is a great demonstration of why the first executive job on anyone’s resumé should not be the Leader of the Free World.

What can be done now, though? Putin has already signaled his readiness to challenge the West, emboldened by the flaccid response he’s seen thus far. If the West wants to keep Putin from forcing his way back into the Russian Empire, the US and EU had better prepare themselves to suffer some economic consequences for Russian isolation. Sanctions have to hit more than a few individuals in the Putin government, who will otherwise get compensated by Putin in order to keep his power balance in place. Only when Putin’s adventurism hits a broad swath of Russians will he find these policies unsustainable, and perhaps develop a little respect for international pressure. So far, this has been a cost-free trajectory for Putin and Russia, and the loss of his “relationship” with Obama clearly hasn’t bothered Putin one iota.

Tags: Barack Obama, Cold War, Mitt Romney, Russia, Ukraine, Vladimir Putin

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

ThemediashouldstopreportingwhatHarryReid

The media should stop reporting what Harry Reid says

posted at 4:01 pm on April 5, 2014 by Dustin Siggins

One of the most important jobs of the media is to be the so-called “fourth estate” — an unofficial fourth branch of government that holds the three official branches accountable. Ideally, this would take place when reporters provide a look at reality when politicians lie, despite pressure from the same politicians to not report the truth.

However, there is another way to hold a politician accountable: Stop taking the politician seriously by not reporting what he or she said. I propose that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has long passed the point of “unseriousness” to “harmful to society,” and this should be reflected in reporters and editors refusing to publish what he says.

Consider just a handful of truly harmful things Reid has done or said in the last few weeks, and one example from 2012:

In 2012, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) received some level of infamy for claiming that Mitt Romney didn’t pay taxes for a decade. Naturally, the charges were not backed by any evidence, yet the mainstream media treated Reid’s comments as though they had legitimacy. At the time, I asked if Reid had violated Senate Ethics rules by essentially campaigning on the Senate floor.

More recently, Townhall’s Guy Benson hammered Reid for using his Koch brothers obsession as an excuse to block amendments to the unemployment insurance that is set to pass the Senate on Monday. As Guy put it in his headline: “Old Man Still Muttering Incoherently About Koch Brothers”

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough attached Reid’s tactic as “the stupidest strategy” he has seen, but most mainstream and liberal media outlets have taken Reid seriously. They’ve done this despite the probable abuse of power Reid’s statements are, and Ed’s point that at least one of Reid’s anti-Koch efforts likely violates Senate Ethics rules.

Of course, it’s not just the Kochs Reid has gone after recently. He’s also gone after the people sharing how the Affordable Care Act is hurting them – and then denied doing so. If you want to read about how arrogant and abusive of power this is, check out Guy’s excellent takedown of Reid here. Justifiably and rightly, Guy is and was furious, and so should the rest of us be.

Reid’s Koch habit — yes, yes, I used the cliched term; I couldn’t help it — includes accusing the Koch brothers of associating with companies that circumvent sanctions on Iran. Lachlan Markay of the Washington Free Beacon showed that Reid has taken campaign donations from companies doing the exact same thing.

And, finally, Reid recently said the minimum wage Democrats want — $10.10 per hour — was not picked arbitrarily, but to bring people out of poverty:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid reiterated his “no negotiations” stance on the Democratic proposal to boost the minimum-wage to $10.10 per hour, despite calls for a deal from some red-state Democrats up for reelection in 2014.

“No, there are none. Nope,” Reid told reporters following a minimum-wage rally with union members and other Democratic leaders. “The reason we picked that number, $10.10, gets you out of poverty — $10 doesn’t. $10.05 doesn’t. We didn’t pick that number just to be fun.” The current federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour.

You know what would actually help people get out of poverty? Eliminating the minimum wage so low-skilled minorities could work more, or repealing the Affordable Care Act, or tax reform, or cutting the budget, or pretty much anything else that wouldn’t increase the cost of employees for employees. And does anyone believe Reid picked a $10.10 hourly wage because that’s the way to help people out of poverty, rather than reasons of political gamesmanship? Why not go to $20/hour, Senator?

Like the lies of President Obama on pretty much everything — whether his views on spying on Americans; war without authorization from Congress; fiscal responsibility; and the alleged benefits of the Affordable Care Act — the media would actually be doing its job to not report on what Reid says. But if it must report, fact-checks should accompany what is said in its articles and editorials, not simply an unchallenged and uncorrected reporting of these lies and other brazen violations of the public trust.

Tags: Guy Benson, Harry Reid, Mitt Romney

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Romney:IhatetosayItoldyou

Romney: I hate to say I told you so, but …

posted at 10:41 am on March 18, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

… actually, Mitt Romney doesn’t, not explicitly anyway. However, the context of this op-ed from Barack Obama’s 2012 opponent could not be clearer. After Obama and Democrats ridiculed his worldview in that campaign, calling it a relic of the 1980s, Romney warns that what America and the West need now is leadership that anticipates events and sees the world realistically so as to seize opportunities when they arise:

Why, across the world, are America’s hands so tied?

A large part of the answer is our leader’s terrible timing. In virtually every foreign-affairs crisis we have faced these past five years, there was a point when America had good choices and good options. There was a juncture when America had the potential to influence events. But we failed to act at the propitious point; that moment having passed, we were left without acceptable options. In foreign affairs as in life, there is, as Shakespeare had it, “a tide in the affairs of men which, taken at the flood leads on to fortune. Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries.”

When protests in Ukraine grew and violence ensued, it was surely evident to people in the intelligence community—and to the White House—that President Putin might try to take advantage of the situation to capture Crimea, or more. That was the time to talk with our global allies about punishments and sanctions, to secure their solidarity, and to communicate these to the Russian president. These steps, plus assurances that we would not exclude Russia from its base in Sevastopol or threaten its influence in Kiev, might have dissuaded him from invasion. …

Able leaders anticipate events, prepare for them, and act in time to shape them. My career in business and politics has exposed me to scores of people in leadership positions, only a few of whom actually have these qualities. Some simply cannot envision the future and are thus unpleasantly surprised when it arrives. Some simply hope for the best. Others succumb to analysis paralysis, weighing trends and forecasts and choices beyond the time of opportunity.

The difference is between seeing the world as it is, and living in a “fantasy,” as the Washington Post remarked about Obama’s five years in charge of foreign policy. No comment in this regard was as telling as John Kerry’s absurd riposte about Vladimir Putin acting like a “19th-century” leader rather than one in the 21st century. The only difference until now between the two was a powerful Western military presence, mainly Anglospheric, that imposed a Pax Americana on the world after causing the Soviet Union to collapse. Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Kerry set about dismantling that Pax Americana and now are shocked, shocked to see world leaders acting like they’ve always acted since long before the rise of nation-states.

In my column today at The Week, I argue that the sanctions applied by Obama against Putin still suffer from this fantasy, although his allies are probably not allowing him to go much further anyway:

The statement and sanctions send a clear signal to Russia, but not necessarily a daunting message. While Obama clearly preferred to allow Putin a path to retreat, it was equally clear two weeks ago that Putin didn’t want to retreat. The announcement of the referendum should have prompted these expanded measures immediately, rather than Obama waiting for the fraudulent vote to be taken before imposing penalties for the attempt to legitimize the occupation.

But it’s not just the timing. The target and teeth of these sanctions leave something to be desired, too. Russia essentially invaded Ukraine, and yet still seems to be a member of the G-8. “I think Vladimir Putin must be encouraged by the absolute timidity” of the sanctions, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told NBC’s Andrea Mitchell.

That timidity may have more to do with Europe than with the Obama administration, however. The EU trades heavily with Russia and is particularly dependent on natural gas imports from Gazprom. They may be willing to talk tough and impose some personal sanctions in coordination with the U.S., but so far seem unwilling to go much farther. France appears set to go forward with the $1.7 billion sale of two helicopter carriers to Russia, John Fund reported for National Review on Monday. One ship, the Vladivostok, has already completed its sea trials and is ready for delivery, while the second — ironically named Sebastopol after Russia’s Crimean naval base — will be ready by the end of next year. …

Now, Putin is neither Adolf Hitler nor Joseph Stalin. He isn’t doing this out of ideological extremity, or to try and take over the world. Instead, he wants the Russian empire back for its own sake, and to make those republics subject to Moscow once more. That has been obvious since Putin invaded Georgia and “liberated” South Ossetia and Abkhazia in 2008, and then recognized their independence on the same basis that Western nations recognized Kosovo’s similar declaration a few months earlier. It’s no accident that Putin explicitly cited Kosovo to legitimize the Crimean referendum this weekend. Putin plans to use the Western pretexts of self-determination and ethnic identity to reassemble Greater Russia.

The West may have finally awoken to this threat. They still act like they’re sleepwalking, two to three weeks behind developments and under the impression that Putin shares the same concept of 21^st-century leadership as they do. Until Putin’s policies produce Western responses that cause widespread economic pain in Russia, the former Soviet republics in Asia and Europe have plenty to fear, and little reason to trust Western strength for their long-term security.

If you want a taste of that sleepwalking abroad, look no further than France. Despite the annexation of Crimea, they’re still not sure whether to complete the sale for those warships:

The E.U. sanctions list targets members of the parliament and mid-level government officials. But the E.U. ambassador to Russia, Vygaudas Usackas, told the Interfax news agency that the sanctions list could soon be expanded. France announced that it may halt the $1.8 billion sale of two Mistral class warships to Russia, the foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, told France’s TF1 television channel.

The ships were due to be delivered in 2015, to become part of Russia’s Black Sea fleet, based in Crimea.

“If Putin carries on like this, we could consider canceling these sales,” Fabius said.

Maybe they’ll cancel it if the Russian navy shows up in Marseilles, eh? It’s difficult to put all of the blame on Obama for weak Western sanctions when France is still considering whether to sell Putin the noose he’d put around their necks. Still, this is why times like these call for leaders with a clear view of the world and the ability to out-think their opponents. So far, we’re seeing very little evidence of this in the West.

Tags: Barack Obama, Crimea, foreign policy, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Mitt Romney, Russia, Ukraine, Vladimir Putin

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair