Moe Lane

David Paul Khun, in the course of writing a reasonably clear-headed analysis of the 2012 Democratic electorate (and why the Democrats are messing it up):

America is the only Western nation where the liberal party consistently loses the workingman (and woman). No comparable European democracy has seen the conservative party unfailingly win the Archies and Ediths for more than three decades. Now Democrats seem to be on the verge of resigning themselves to this trend.

There are myriad macro reasons for this exceptional fact of American politics: a center-right nation, the two-party system, the modern contest for identity blocs, the unusual eminence of cultural issues in American politics on both the right and the left.

It also doesn’t precisely hurt that, by and large, the Democratic Establishment kind of publicly loathes and despises middle and lower class white voters.

Well, it doesn’t precisely hurt us.

CNN, starts at 8 PM. There are three people that matter: Cain, Perry, Romney. Cain… it may be messy for Cain tonight; whom the media gods would destroy, they first make the temporary anti-Romney. Perry needs to do something.  Romney needs to man up; because if you think that the media and other Democrats have any intention of letting him coast until November 2012 (assuming that Romney gets the nomination, which is not actually assured at the moment), I suggest that you look up what happened to John McCain.

(more…)

But I’m sure that Barack Obama means well.

Isn’t this just the cutest thing?

If the video doesn’t load, Breitbart TV pulled the relevant quote:

“My plan says we’re going to put teachers back in the classrooms, construction workers back to work… Tax cuts for small businesses, tax cuts for hiring veterans, tax cuts if you give your worker a raise. That’s my plan. Then you got [the Republican's] plan which is ‘let’s have dirtier air, dirtier water, less people with health insurance’… So far I’m feeling better about my plan.”

(more…)

It’s been reported that Jon Huntsman has decided to boycott the Nevada CNN debate next Tuesday as part of a larger pushback against Nevada’s moving up its caucus date. I applaud this act of principle, and encourage all other Republican candidates** to follow suit immediately.

In fact… this problematical situation vis a vis the creeping primary dates have gotten so out of hand that the only reasonable thing to do at this point is to have all Republican candidates*** refuse to do any more debates at all until the state GOP parties resolve this issue.

Moe Lane
(more…)

And I wish them joy of the attempt.  The Hill, musing on why beleaguered Montana Senator Jon Tester opposes Obama’s latest attempt to be relevant on job creation:

…those facing tough reelection fights will smell the same danger Tester has: that President Obama’s latest jobs bill is less a real jobs program with any chance of passage than a reelection strategy that could end up pushing Obama’s remaining congressional majority – the Democrat-held Senate – over a cliff.

House Democrats fell into this trap in 2010: putting their careers on the line for Obama initiatives like “cap and trade” that had no chance of becoming law. One term later, Senate Democrats are poised to do the same for a stimulus and tax plan that has no chance of becoming law – but serves up a useful sound bite for a president “running against Congress.”

(Via Instapundit) Frankly, Senate Democrats might as well line up behind Obama’s plan: it’s not like doing otherwise will save them.  Tester, both Nelsons, McCaskill, and Manchin are in serious trouble this cycle.  Heck, Casey, Stabenow, and Brown of Ohio aren’t exactly sitting pretty right now, either?  And that’s not even bringing up the half dozen Democrats who are retiring, thus making most of those seats prime pickup territory.  Under the circumstances, well, show some party loyalty.  Maybe it’ll get you a nice lobbying job in 2013.

Or not.  Either way, to dispute the Hill story title: Tester isn’t the canary.  The canaries were Jimmy Webb of Virginia and Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, both of whom have already looked at the map of 2012 and decided that it just wasn’t worth the aggravation…

Moe Lane

(H/T: Instapundit) Scott Rasmussen is getting a little vexed with the punditry’s apparent need to settle the field now:

“I am somewhat irritated with the desire to pick a winner now,” says Rasmussen.  “Most voters still have the quaint notion that the election will be held in 2012, not 2011…My view of the GOP race is that Romney has won the establishment semi-finals by beating Pawlenty and Huntsman.  Now, the outsider candidate has to be selected.  GOP voters would prefer to vote for an outsider, but want to make sure it’s the right outsider, and no one has closed that sale yet.  Establishment Republicans (and some Democrats) seem puzzled that GOP voters aren’t flocking to Romney, and that’s probably causing some of the stories you’re hearing about.”

Admittedly, Scott runs a business that’s pretty explicitly politics-based and politics-driven, so take his vexation – and mine, come to think of it – with a grain of salt.  Still, this is why we have primaries, folks: just because nine is too many up there on the debate podium doesn’t mean that we have to winnow the actual field down to one quite just yet.

I should note right from the start that I like Stu Rothenberg as a pundit and a political handicapper: he’s a pretty bright person and he has a lot of experience.  But Rothenberg is also very much plugged into the professional political establishment… and sometimes, it shows.  Case in point: Rothenberg’s otherwise spot-on analysis about the travails of Barack Obama these days has what I will charitably call a ‘howler.’

This president, like Presidents Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush before him, learned the lesson that every investment fund manager knows: Evidence of past performance doesn’t guarantee future results.

And now the president, who is expected to raise close to $1 billion for his re-election campaign, who faces a Republican field widely mocked as undistinguished and who can rely on the same team of brilliant political gurus who masterminded his 2008 victory, suddenly finds his re-election in doubt.

Two howlers, actually: the first is the frankly unsupported-by-historical-evidence assumption that Barack Obama ever learns a lesson on anything.  The second is that Barack Obama’s past performance should have justified any expectations in the first place. (more…)

Which apparently is news to the New York Times.  What it is not news to is anybody who happens to be on Barry Obama’s OfA mailing list: the tone of the begging emails has gotten steadily less ‘hope and change’ and steadily more ‘hope you’ll spare some change.’  Hard to tell that from the usual ‘give us money or the universe will end’ that you get from these kinds of email solicitations, but these days the Obama campaign seems particularly eager to get as many individual donors as possible.   Which makes sense, given that said campaign is essentially trying to bluff the country into thinking that their man-god is just as popular in 2011 as he was in 2008…

…by running for office.  Specifically, he’s running for Supervisor of Elections for Lake County, Florida – which is, of course, one of the kinds of jobs that we always need candidates for, and we always will.  No election or donation site yet, but BG5 is of course a long-time reader both here and at RedState, so I’m sure that he’ll let us know when that changes.

Obviously, I wish him luck and success, and I look forward to hearing from him (and anybody else doing the same thing) about what it’s like to run for office on the county level.

Moe Lane

PS: Seriously, the GOP and conservatism in general needs more like this; people who will run for offices.  We can’t win if we can’t show up.  I’m not saying that people are bad people for not doing that – after all, I’m not running for anything right now, either – but if you have the time and the inclination, tossing your hat in the ring would be a mitzvah.

…and [expletive deleted].

I wanted to quote something from it, but this has to be one of the whiniest whines from what has become one of the whiniest whining magazines on the Whining Left (yeah, repeat that word enough times and it looks weird to me, too).  The gist?

• Just wait!  Whichever person beats Obama next year...

[Yup, that means that Ed Kilgore thinks that Obama's going to lose.  Oops.] (more…)

I’ve noticed that folks like Jim Geraghty and Legal Insurrection are pointing out that the President’s fund-raising team is currently acting as if they’re absolutely desperate for last-minute contributions to Obama’s reelection campaign.  Like Jim, I’d like to remind folks that back in 2008 the Obama campaign notoriously poor-mouthed its fundraising every month… so don’t be surprised if they try this sort of thing again.  As I’ve noted before, these people aren’t what you’d call real original.  We’ll know in a couple of weeks what the real totals are.

Not that it matters as much this go-round, thanks to the Supreme Court reestablishing some basic free-speech sanity with Citizens United…

…in one handy sentence:

Their questions, about Obama’s economic appointments and about his messaging problems, all began with some variation of “I’m going to vote for Obama again, and work for him, but …”

Let me channel the administration’s effective response to any question that starts in such a fashion:

• Really?
  
• Then shut up.
  
• Get out your wallet.
  
• Sit down.
  
• Do as you’re bid.
  
• Say “Thank you” afterward.

(more…)