President Obama's Palpable Empathy with the Working Class February 2, 2012Matthew Cochrane
There’s a lot of talk in these parts about the electability of the various GOP candidates. Do we think Romney can relate to the public? Is Santorum too socially conservative for the American public? Does Newt Gingrich provide the Democrats with too much material for negative ads? These are all legitimate concerns, but we do have one thing going for us: President Obama isn’t exactly the walking embodiment of a smooth politician either.
Earlier this week, President Obama hosted an online townhall meeting on Google Plus. One woman asked him the U.S. was issuing H1B visas to foreign engineers when American engineers were still unemployed and looking for work. Like, you know, her husband for example. How did Obama respond? Did he sympathize with her plight and tell her things are getting better but that we still have a long way to go? Uh, not exactly. First, he expressed disbelief that her husband couldn’t really find work. Then he wondered what type of engineer he was. When she told him he worked in semiconductors, he erroneously told her that that sector was healthy and that her husband really should be able to find work. (In truth, the sector has lost 21,500 jobs since Obama took office, about 5% of the overall sector.) Finally, Obama said he found the woman’s claims “interesting.”
The RNC has already released an online ad highlighting the incident.
Let’s face it, none of our guys might be ideal but neither is the opponent. It won’t be easy, but we shouldn’t be despairing yet either. Game on.
Here's a bonus video for you as the weekend draws near:
The Susan G. Komen Foundation's Noble Decision to De-Fund Planned Parenthood February 1, 2012Rebecca Kachuriak
Update: There has been an INSANE amount of backlash in favor of Planned Parenthood in the last 48 hours.
The SGKF's top public health official, Mollie Williams, resigned, and the National Journal reports that her former senior communications adviser says it's because she can't stay with an organization that bows to the anti-abortion right. PP has raised over $1million online since the announcement of the SGKF defund. SGKF's web site has been hacked, switching a banner on the organization's web site from a call for people to join a race to "help us run over poor women on the way to the bank." You can't go on Facebook or search the news without seeing somebody comment about "poor Planned Parenthood" or the "evil Susan G. Komen Foundation" that doesn't care about women, just money. Even Judy Blume has come out against the SGKF! What?! Talk about Superfudge.
Also being called into question is Planned Parenthood's capacity/ability to effectively provide the breast-health services they claim to. According to Commentary Magazine:
While debates over Planned Parenthood’s federal funding were taking place, the organization claimed that without governmental grants, women would no longer have access to “basic family planning, mammograms…” Problem is: Planned Parenthood doesn’t provide mammograms. Or advanced breast screenings. The only breast health services Planned Parenthood provides women is teaching them how to do a self-exam at home, and performing that same exam for them in the office. If any abnormality is detected, Planned Parenthood immediately refers their patient elsewhere, as they are unable to provide medical care outside of what a woman could do at home with a basic fact sheet.
Nice. Here's the thing, now that the SGKF has roughly $680K freed up, it can direct those funds to organizations who are better equipped to fufill their mission: Defeat breast cancer. Looks like everyone's true motives are on the table...
********************
Yesterday, it was announced that the Susan G. Komen Foundation (SGKF) will be defunding Planned Parenthood. Last year they donated roughly $680,000 to the controversial organization. The public response to this decision has baffled me. People who formerly supported SGKF are now backing away from the organization because they believe the decision was politically motivated.
Ok.
I just don't get it.
It offends me that SGKF would back an organization like Planned Parenthood. It offends others that they wouldn't. Why? My reasons are moral--I am opposed to the practice of abortion. Planned Parenthood is the nation's leading abortion provider and in NO WAY do I want to support their activities. There are plenty of other free or low-cost options out there for women to get breast cancer screenings and other healthcare. Why does SGKF have to give money to the most controversial if, as the people who are outraged by the foundation's decision claim, this is all about breast cancer screenings and not about abortion? Why do they have to give their money to Planned Parenthood? Would it satisfy if they gave the $680K to a different medical outfit that provided breast cancer screenings? Preferably one that is not under congressional investigation? Again, why does it have to be Planned Parenthood?
The fact that SGKF gave money to Planned Parenthood has been an issue for me in the past. It has caused me not to support their cause because they were aligned with an organization that I am morally opposed to. Of course, I am not opposed to fighting breast cancer. I don't know anyone who is morally opposed to fighting breast cancer. My moral misgivings about Planned Parenthood outweighed my conviction to support SGKF. I know I'm not the only one here. So now people are up in arms saying that they will be unsupportive of SGKF because of their decision. This is crazy. These are the same people who say that it's "just about breast screenings". If that is the truth, then this decision shouldn't matter to them! By their actions, we can deduce that it isn't about women's healthcare or breast cancer detection, because if it were, they would continue to be supportive of the SGKF, regardless of their ties (or lack thereof) to Planned Parenthood. Sure, they could be bummed out about it, but if it were truly NOT political to them, but only about women's health, they would continue to stand behind what the SGKF is doing.
I think it is noble of the SGKF organization to distance themselves from organizations like Planned Parenthood that are currently under congressional investigation, and that have had some particularly horrible reports come out recently with regard to covering up sex abuse. The travesty is not that Planned Parenthood won't be getting money from SGKF--I am sure that they will send their money to other organizations that exist to truly help women. The real travesty is that the SGKF is being demonized for this decision despite all of the good that they have done for women in the fight against breast cancer. They exist to combat breast cancer--to "Fight for the Cure." They can do this with a far greater reach and across more political boundaries because they chose to cease giving to Planned Parenthood. After all, no matter where any of us stand with regard to Planned Parenthood's practices, we would all like to see a cure to breast cancer.
After Florida: Quick Thoughts on the Florida Primary Results February 1, 2012Matthew Cochrane
Last night, Romney scored a huge victory in Florida, taking all fifty delegates and winning by double digits over Newt Gingrich.
Quick Thoughts: I keep telling myself that the next contest will be decisive but, every time the next contest comes and goes, I feel like more has to play out before a candidate can claim they have this nomination in the bag. That might be because I’m having a hard time believing the GOP electorate really wants to choose between two candidates with so many inherent weaknesses and ideological shortcomings. Call me crazy, but I still think Santorum is going to get a second look by GOP voters before all is said and done. Is that my evident bias overcoming my good sense? Maybe. I just feel like conservative voters aren’t yet completely sold on a Romney candidacy and, huge win in Florida aside, Romney has more work to do before they settle on him.
All that being said, let’s state the obvious: Romney is in the driver’s seat after last night’s results. He has the money, the organization, the momentum, the delegates…basically, he has all the earmarks of a successful campaign. Do I believe he will win the nomination? Yeah, I do. I just think Santorum is going to emerge as a serious threat before all is said and done.
Mitt Romney: Left dazed and confused after South Carolina’s stinging defeat, Romney rebounded with a vengeance in the Sunshine State. Rich Lowry writes:
According to exit polls, he won by 20 points or more both among voters who cared most about the issue of the economy (60 percent of the electorate) and voters who cared most about defeating President Obama (45 percent of the electorate). He held Gingrich's margin of victory among voters who strongly support the Tea Party down to 46-34.
How did he do all of this? Through a combination of organization, an avalanche of negative television ads, out-performing Gingrich in the two Florida debates, and out-messaging Gingrich. How negative was Mitt’s and Newt’s intraparty battle? According to CNN, the most negative campaign ever:
The 2012 Republican contest in Florida has been the most negative campaign on record, according to a group tracking political ads in the Sunshine State.
The analysis from Campaign Media Analysis Group (CMAG) shows a whopping 92% of ads airing in Florida over the past week were negative. The organization said Tuesday that was a record rate for political campaigns.
"I spent much of my academic career telling reporters, 'Relax, this is not the most negative campaign ever,'" CMAG President Ken Goldstein said. "Well, this IS the most negative campaign ever."
Numbers from CMAG show a total of 11,586 television spots aired in Florida between January 23 and January 29. Of those spots, 10,633 were negative and 953 were positive.
Indeed, NRO’s Robert Costa thinks Romney’s campaign might have crossed a line and that there will be negative consequences down the road from the barrage of negative ads Romney released:
Mitt Romney galloped to victory in Florida, but it was an expensive coup. He took a hit at the bank, outspending his rivals. He also paid a political price. Romney landed a devastating blow to Gingrich’s candidacy, but the bruise from the fight remains, and it may sting as he scrambles to assert himself as the probable nominee.
Conservatives, already skeptical of Romney’s politics, are grumbling about his internecine aggression. Granted, Gingrich is hardly an angel, and simmering discomfort over Romney’s ruthlessness will not derail him. But a growing unease with Romney’s big-dollar blitz may stir sympathy for Gingrich and encourage the former House speaker to carry on with vengeance.
All that being said, negative ads have a proven track record of working and Romney used them to a devastating effect in Florida. Gingrich, it might also be said, is the source of nearly endless material for this type of campaign, and should give conservatives pause before nominating someone like him to go up against Obama’s billion dollar war chest. In some ways, I found the barrage of negative attack ads reassuring, showing me Romney has what it takes to conduct a rough-and-tumble campaign.
In his victory speech, Romney returned to general election themes, meaning he bashed Obama instead of his remaining GOP opponents:
Newt Gingrich: There are three things to take away from Gingrich’s loss in Florida: 1) He can’t win women voters; 2) He does not respond well to pressure; and 3) If you live by the debates, you can die by the debates.
I have never been so stumped when Gingrich won South Carolina convincingly just days after his second ex-wife’s interview aired on ABC’s Nightline airing out the dirty laundry from the failed marriage. Exit polls show he even won among women, something I found to be inexplicable. South Carolina appears to be an outlier, however, as proper order was restored in the Florida primary. In the Sunshine State, Romney won men over Gingrich by a relatively narrow margin, 41% to 36%. Among female voters, however, Romney trounced Gingrich 51% to 29%. This appears to be an emerging trend across the nation:
But subsequent general-election national polling showed a gargantuan gender gap, indicating that while South Carolina Republican women may not have had much of a problem with Gingrich, women in other states and outside the GOP did. An NBC/WSJ poll suggested that Gingrich has big problems with women, losing them 21 percent to 69 percent in a head-to-head matchup with President Obama. Rasmussen’s numbers weren’t much better — “Among women, the president leads Romney by 11 and Gingrich by 22” — and CNN showed an 18-point spread between Obama and Gingrich…
The Wall Street Journalreported that, “asked by reporters on Sunday why a gender gap had appeared in recent Florida polls, Mr. Gingrich said: ‘I have no idea.’”
Ooh, ooh, pick me! I know the answer! Pick me!
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that Gingrich is going to have massive problems going forward in both the remaining primary contests and a potential general election matchup against Obama. Does the GOP really want to nominate someone who has such a built-in disadvantage with the fairer sex?
The Florida primary also showed, for the second time, that Gingrich does not respond well to pressure. After lopsided defeats in Iowa and New Hampshire, Gingrich attacked Romney for his success as a businessman at Bain Capital. After he lost his lead in the polls in Florida, he responded by releasing this despicable ad:
The charges are roundly and completely debunked here. Say what you want about Romney’s negative ads, nothing stooped to this level. Gingrich is showing a habit of acting erratically and wildly when down, not exactly what you want to see from the candidate whose former colleagues accuse him of being…well…erratic, wild and undisciplined.
Finally, Florida proved that one cannot base a campaign solely on debate performances and charisma. Organizational infrastructure is needed. Gingrich soared when he won the debates in South Carolina, but his campaign quickly plummeted after his lackluster performances in Tampa and Jacksonville. The New York Times’ Ross Douthat emphasizes the same point:
The promise of a Lincoln-Douglas-style showdown with the president has been one of Gingrich’s more effective rhetorical flourishes, and his showstopping performances in South Carolina were crucial to his upset victory.
But it’s hard to see how Gingrich’s Master Debater reputation recovers from his poor showings in the debates in Florida. Even if he stays in the race long enough to get another crack at Romney, voters will always remember that he can be bested – that if you prick him, he might just bleed. Once lost, an aura of invincibility is an awfully hard thing to regain.
Rick Santorum: What more can I say that hasn’t been said? I still do not understand why his candidacy has yet to catch on more with GOP voters given his three competitors. That being said, it is what it is. He is gamely promising to go on, and actually leads in polls in Missouri and Ohio. After South Carolina, I wrote:
If he can somehow stick out the race until Pennsylvania and other Rust Belt states vote, he might be able to pull off a string of victories that catapults him back into contention, but his road seems long and hard right now.
This remains true and I continue to believe Santorum is Romney’s only long term threat in this race. The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol agrees:
In the Gallup tracking poll today, Gingrich is at 28 percent, Romney at 27, and Santorum at 17. Romney will surely move up several points over the next few days--but couldn't Gingrich fall enough and Santorum rise enough that Santorum's number approaches or passes Gingrich? Couldn't Santorum move into second place?
In sum: Could we be heading towards a Romney-Santorum contest on February 28 in Michigan and Arizona, and then in March and beyond? Romney would certainly be a strong favorite in such a contest, given his lead in votes, delegates, money and organization. But wouldn't Santorum ultimately have a better chance than Gingrich to upset Romney, even if it's still a slim one?
Well, that’s all I got. A few caucuses are approaching and there is only one debate later this month, so we might be able to take a break from the horse race and look at a few other issues over the upcoming days. Let me know what you think!
As the voting begins in Florida today, let’s look at a few of the endorsements Santorum picked up in in recent days…
Conservative columnist and bestselling author Michelle Malkin:
Rick Santorum opposed TARP.
He didn’t cave when Chicken Littles in Washington invoked a manufactured crisis in 2008. He didn’t follow the pro-bailout GOP crowd — including Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich— and he didn’t have to obfuscate or rationalize his position then or now, like Rick Perry and Herman Cain did. He also opposed the auto bailout, Freddie and Fannie bailout, and porkulus bills.
Santorum opposed individual health care mandates — clearly and forcefully— as far back as his 1994 U.S. Senate run. He has launched the most cogent, forceful fusillade against both Romney and Gingrich for their muddied, pro-individual health care mandate waters.
Santorum is strong on border security, national security, and defense. Mitt the Flip-Flopper and Open Borders-Pandering Newt have been far less trustworthy on immigration enforcement.
Santorum is an eloquent spokesperson for the culture of life. He has been savagedand ridiculedby leftist elites for upholding traditional family values — not just in word, but in deed.
There is another candidate whose record is far more conservative than the others despite having represented a purple-blue state. He didn't flip-flop his positions to please voters or garner media attention; instead, he remained true to his family and ideals because of inner convictions. He was and is a proud pro-lifer and a supporter of traditional marriage, lower taxes, and smaller government. He actually listened to the voices of those who sent him to Washington prior to voting and didn't originally support amnesty for illegals or federal action to curb global warming, as Newt and Romney have. And unlike Newt, this candidate actually supported some Tea Party conservatives over RINOs in the 2010 primaries.
This candidate is none other than Rick Santorum, who, as a newcomer to Congress, joined six others and fought corruption in both parties in what became known as the Gang of Seven while Newt -- the old-timer -- said nary a word. Rick Santorum has never linked hands with the left to destroy conservatism or grow liberalism, as Newt has. As a freshman in the Senate, it was Rick Santorum who led the fight for welfare reform and has been credited for its success, and it is Rick Santorum who continues to champion for entitlement reform. On the flip-side, although Newt supported welfare reform in the House, he also led the successful fight against entitlement reform, and again, he expressed his ardent support of Medicare in Florida this past week.
I am the first to say that once the GOP nominee is chosen, we must unite around the candidate to defeat Barack Obama. Until then, I refuse to surrender to pressure to abandon my passion for true, reliable conservatism, especially from those whose idea of electability is highly debatable and from others whose assessment is hopelessly skewed by their own preferences.
In this volatile season, dark horses have skyrocketed to lead the field, and some might have remained there but for alleged scandals or other factors. I don't believe that the science of electability is as certain as those promoting it would have us believe. We can't even agree on whether the key is wooing the center or igniting the base. It is complex and fluid and largely unknowable. Even current polls hypothetically matching Obama against different candidates tell us very little, because the Democratic attack machine has yet to unleash its $1 billion assault on, say, Mitt Romney.
I reject the conventional wisdom that Rick Santorum could not win the general election, because I believe he represents the best contrast to Obama and is the least vulnerable to attack, among other reasons. I have varying concerns about the other candidates, but I respect their respective supporters and realize that some of them even believe their candidate is the most conservative of the group, though I disagree. I will support whoever emerges as the Republican nominee, but I do not apologize for supporting Rick Santorum.
