A Contrast in Style

In a desperate move to shift American politics away from the economy, Obama took a controversial idea from Sen. Marco Rubio and made it his own.  In fact, he made it so much his own that he decided to leave Congress out of the law making process altogether.  Obama enacted the Dream Act by Presidential, unconstitutional executive order.  But the real story in the President’s announcement was the blunder of a press conference where a reporter shouted out a question and was quickly shut down by Obama.

The question was whether this unilateral decision, dubbed the right thing to do by Obama, was right for the American workers.  Obama was visibly upset about the question and asserted his right to speak without interruption.  Meanwhile, MSNBC reporters wet themselves with excitement at the opportunity to declare Obama to be the only President to have ever been heckled, and of course to tie it in to his race.

But of course we know that other Presidents and candidates have been heckled.  George W. Bush saw it as evidence of a free society that treasures the freedom of expression and dissent.  I thought it was an interesting contrast to watch Bush’s reaction to two shoes being thrown at him by a foreign reporter in Iraq compared to Obama being questioned while passing down dictates from on high.  I’ve posted them both here.  You can decide which President handled it with more class.

 

Is Bachmann’s Immigration Stance Electable?

One of the keys to winning the Social Conservative vote is electability.  Many voters out there aren’t asking which candidate has the best ideas.  They are asking which candidate can beat Barack Obama.  On the Social Conservative side, they are asking which candidate can beat Mitt Romney first.

Bachmann has chosen not only to level questionable attacks against Newt Gingrich for his immigration policy, but she has also taken the hardline stance that as President 11.2 million illegal aliens should be deported no matter how long they have been here, their other legal history, or their family and community ties.  With the intensity that Bachmann has attacked Gingrich, I would be comfortable assuming that this would be a national priority for her.

Mitt Romney tried to come down hard on Gingrich in the debate, but admitted himself that there must be exceptions to the rule for mass deportations.  Bachmann, who has played the role of attack dog against more than one candidate, was far more rigid in her approach.  But can a zero tolerance, deport them all approach to Illegal Immigration win in 2012?

Amnesty was a big loser for Republicans in the past.  McCain’s involvement in a potential bill to grant a path to citizenship for illegal aliens nearly ended his career.  But far too often this complex issue is reduced to a soundbite, or single word (such as “amnesty”).  What would happen in a debate between Michele Bachmann and Barack Obama where Bachmann was asked if she would make deporting 11.2 million illegal aliens a national priority and how she planned on doing that?

This issue is a loser all around for Conservatives.  Not because they are wrong, but because like so many other issues there is no easy solution, but they are willing to try.

So far, Mitt Romney has dodged a huge bullet.  No one seems to have noticed his exception caveat to his immigration hardline.  Bachmann has managed to stay on the attack, but it won’t take the media forever for someone to ask her how she plans on deporting 11.2 million illegal immigrants.  For now though, Gingrich is taking the heat just as he predicted in the debate.  As far as what Conservatives actually want, many want Michele Bachmann’s hardline and may stay home if they see weakness in a candidate on this issue.  Others will see Bachmann’s stance as making her unelectable and will avoid her because of it.  Either way, the best thing for the GOP right now is for this issue to run its course in the media cycle and go away soon.  With Bachmann’s perceived chance at spoiling another rival’s campaign, don’t count on it.

Trunkline 2012: Saturday Political Opinions and the Cinema Politico Movie of the Week: 11/26/11

Bookmark and Share    With less than 40 days to go before the Iowa Caucuses take place, this first holiday weekend of the holiday season is one of those rare times when we see and hear little news coming from the campaign trail. Iit will also be the last weekend for such little political news to report on for quite some time.  But in light of this brief lull, today’s Trunkline 2012 focuses on the opinions being offered from our fellows bloggers across the blogosphere.  And as is the case with every Saturday, we also offer you our movie of the week at White House 2012’s Saturday Cinema Politico.
  • If Romney doesn’t energize his campaign soon, somebody might actually try to win this race besides him.”
  • “Occupy The White House” Now In Full Throttle
  • Another victory for “smart power”
  • On Reversing the Immigration Magnet’s Polarities
  • Ron Paul is nuts
  • Will Congress try to duck the automatic cuts?
  • Moonbats Still Blame Sarah Palin for Gabby Giffords Shooting
  • Site of the Week2012Twit.com :  Most social media platforms are only as good as those who use them, nut some are still better than others.  For instance, Facebook is going through a transition which is currently making it less useful.  Twitter is however becoming more and more valuable when it comes to gathering useful information without a ot of chatter.  2012 Twit is a platform that enhances the use of Twitter, especially in the area of political information.  It provides a real time analysis of the 2012 presidential election on Twitter and if you don’t know about it yet, you should.
  • Sunday Morning News Programming: ABC -This Week With Christiane Amanpour The deficit-reduction talks; volunteerism; and access to clean water. Guests include Sen. Pat Toomey (R.-Pa.); Colin Powell; Matt Damon; Gary White (cofounder of water.org); and Bill Gates. – Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace: One on One” series of interviews featuring the Republican presidential field with former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman.Then, with the super committee failing to reach an agreement to cut $1.2 trillion dollars from the nation’s debt, how will Capitol Hill move to put our fiscal house in order? We’ll hear from two key Senate party leaders. Sen. Dick Durbin, (D) Illinois / Majority Whip. Sen. Jon Kyl, (R) Arizona / Minority Whip.  CBS Face the Nation: Authors Walter Isaacson, Michael Lewis, Condoleezza Rice and Kathryn Stockett.  NBC – The Chris Matthews Shows: A panel discusses American politics and whether talk-show host Rush Limbaugh used racially tinged language about first lady Michelle Obama.
  • File this under “I’m Sorry”: If White House 2012 is anything, it is honest, and it is that honesty which allows me to share this reader comment from Lou who writes;

“Love your site, but I’m finding the “typos” and missspelllings disconcerting. For no charge, I’ll review your copy before you post it. Isn’t it worth five minutes more to get it out “clean and sober”? I’m serious, guys. I’ll do it for no charge, in the interest of getting the message out without the annoying distractions. I hope to here from youse.”

-Lou F.

Lou is right and while I can try to offer excuses, any such attempts would be just that……excuses.  I myself have often found errors in the stories of others and thought to myself “how stupid”.  I recently read a piece from a prominent columnist who was writing about the flu season and wrote, “I hate how I always get dick”.  He meant “sick”.  That one slipped by (no pun intended….okay, maybe it is intended) the columnists, the editors, and the proofreader.  And they all get paid handsomely for their work.  Here at White House 2012, no one gets paid.  Ours is a labor of love and done out of passion for our beliefs.  However, finances or the lack thereof, are no excuse for sloppy work.  So to Lou and everyone else out there, I offer my apologies for typos, and misspelled words.  We may not be the New York Times but that is still not reason enough to not be better than them,……….which shouldn’t be too hard to do.

  • White House 2012′s Cinema Politico: This week’s feature presentation is Atomic Cafe.

This 1982 flick  provides a slight release of comic energy. The film recounts a defining period of 20th century history and serves as a chilling and often hilarious reminder of cold-war era paranoia in the United States.  At least it’s considered paranoia now.

Click here to see the Movie. Registration with Hulu is required, but it is quick, easy, and free. Like White House 2012

 

Bookmark and Share

Foreign Policy Reveals Different Strengths

Whether or not you think the GOP has a strong field, one thing is for sure.  Any of these candidates would be better than Obama when it comes to foreign policy.  That came across clearly from more moderate voices like Jon Huntsman in addition to the two front runners.  Overall it was a great performance by all the candidates.  The contrast between the GOP field, including Ron Paul, and Barack Obama was clear.  So, here are the winners and losers:

Mitt Romney won the debate because of his smooth ability to introduce ambiguity on some issues to give all Conservatives a cushion of comfort.  See Newt’s performance below.  Mitt also took on Ron Paul and I think Mitt won that debate.  It seems pretty clear that Al Qaida terrorists and Timothy McVeigh do not represent the same sort of threat.  In fact, I would argue that lumping McVeigh, a disgruntled anti-American government citizen attacking the system, in with the 9/11 hijackers, foreign terrorists attacking and targeting United States civilians, is a very dangerous way of looking at foreign and domestic terrorism.  I sure hope we would treat a foreign terrorist crossing our border illegally differently than a citizen radical trying to build a bomb in their basement because the IRS just sent them another tax notice.

Jon Huntsman demonstrated his firm control of foreign policy issues.  I think he overcame some fears when he affirmed our strong relationship with Israel.  Huntsman also expressed sentiments on Afghanistan that have been felt by many Conservatives who were mislabeled as “neo-cons” over the last decade.  Many Conservatives supported both wars, but do not support something for nothing nation building in nations that don’t respect us and don’t appreciate the sacrifices we have made.  Huntsman turned again and again to the economy and the failures of Obama and Congress to solve the problem.  Huntsman’s point on how we leave North Korea alone because they have a nuke, but invaded Libya after they gave up their nuclear ambitions is a great diagnosis of the inconsistency in America’s position towards nuclear ambitious countries.

Newt had a great, issue free performance.  Here is the problem.  Newt comes across hawkish, and he is far too honest.  In the end, Mitt agreed with him on long-time illegal immigrants, but Mitt said it in such a way that will be taken better by anti-illegal alien Conservatives.  Newt also hurt himself by endorsing and calling for an expansion of the Patriot act.  This could help guarantee that Ron Paulites stay home and let Obama get re-elected in 2012.  What Newt should have said was that he supported the Patriot Act, but recommends examining it for things that could be eliminated or added.  I think Newt is too straight forward on a subject that honestly Americans would prefer some ambiguity on.  Same with covert operations.  His answer regarding opening our oil resources is not new, but continues to be a very strong point for him.

Ron Paul continued to solidify his base and add some fringe Conservatives who are weary enough of the wars to want to radically change America’s relationship with the world.  For these people, Paul’s angry old man persona, scoffing and reacting to opponents’ answers, and idea that if we leave terrorists alone, they will realize the error of their ways and leave us alone, will not affect his support.  Still, Paul would make a better foreign policy President than Obama.  At least his disengagement would be total, not mixed with war hawkishness like Obama’s.

Rick Perry’s substance earned him a higher spot after this debate.  I still think his idea of zero based budgeting for foreign aid resonates with Americans.  His refusal to dabble in hypotheticals about illegals who have been here more than a quarter century is going to help him as people weed out Romney and Gingrich’s immigration comments and discover the softness there.

Herman Cain did well not to hurt himself in this debate.  He has come across as unknowledgeable on foreign policy.  In this debate he showed he has a recognizable set of foreign policy principles, although he kept things pretty vague.  He didn’t hurt himself and that is a victory for him on foreign policy.

Rick Santorum comes across as a neo-con.   This debate didn’t really change that, and only a change in that perception would cause his status to change as a result of this debate.  No mistakes, but also no movement for him after this debate.  He continues to maintain that we should be paying Pakistan for friendship.

Michele Bachmann is either a career politician or has issues with comprehension.  On multiple occasions she seemed to not be able to grasp her opponent’s position.  A glaring example was when she interpreted Newt’s soft approach to long-time established illegals as some sort of call for general amnesty to 11 million illegal aliens.  She played the same role in Rick Perry’s demise, but now it seems more like a desperate cry for relevance.  Rising and falling as the Social Conservative choice at this point will require superiority on the issues, not loud misunderstanding of opponents, even though that usually produces success with the general electorate.

No matter who the nominee is, what is clear from last night is that we cannot afford four more years of Obama’s foreign policy.

Trunkline 2012: Friday’s Campaign Trail News – 9/30/11

Bookmark and Share 

  • Mitt Romney takes on Rick Perry in his own illeghal immigration ad.  See a pattern here?
%d bloggers like this: