Karl Rove

The President's GOP Outreach Comes too Late

Thu, 04 Feb 2010 00:00:00 -0600

Last Friday, President Obama met with House Republicans in Baltimore. He took questions, parried criticisms, and allowed all of it to be put on television.

Framed as an opportunity for the president to hear from the other side, Mr. Obama's real aim was to portray Republicans as obstructionist and boost his own public standing in the process.

Afterward, Gallup found that Mr. Obama's approval hit 51%, up from 47% after the State of the Union address two days earlier. But in winning that small victory, Mr. Obama also further poisoned his relationship with Republicans by repeatedly saying things that are demonstrably not true.

FULL ARTICLE: http://bit.ly/b03STZ

The State of the Union Is No 'Reset' Button

Thu, 28 Jan 2010 00:00:00 -0600

It was a tense moment in the West Wing. Less than a year into a new president's term, a Senate seat was slipping to the opposition and taking with it the balance of power in the upper chamber. The president's agenda was suddenly at risk.

If this sounds like Republican Scott Brown's upset victory in Massachusetts last week, it was actually Vermont Sen. Jim Jeffords's defection in 2001. Mr. Jeffords's decision to bolt the party cost the GOP not the 60th vote, but a razor-thin majority. Yet following the defection, George W. Bush passed his signature tax-cut package, No Child Left Behind education reform, and a budget that cut in half the growth of discretionary domestic spending from the sizzling 16% rate of President Bill Clinton's last budget.

As congressional Democrats back away—for now—from Mr. Obama's health-care agenda, it is worth asking if this president's agenda is really aligned with what Americans want. This was supposed to be a historic presidency. But if it's undone by the loss of the 60th Senate Democrat, was Mr. Obama actually prepared for the challenges of governing?

FULL ARTICLE: http://bit.ly/djGlBQ

Obama Versus Bush on Spending

Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:00:00 -0600

"If Massachusetts puts Brown in, it's a message of 'that's enough.' Let's stop the giveaways and let's get jobs going."

Marlene Connolly is a 73-year-old Massachusetts Democrat who cast her first vote for a Republican in supporting Scott Brown. Her quote and story comes to us via the New York Times, but she stands out for this reason: She shows us that those who actually cast ballots in the Bay State did so because they are frustrated with the administration's unrestrained federal spending and failed economic recovery policies.

And here's what Washington needs to keep in mind as it debates the meaning of Massachusetts. Ramming health care through now won't insulate Democrats from voter ire in November. It will feed a fire over spending that is already blistering them.

But don't take my word for it. Consider that the administration is now busy scrambling to find a way to dodge responsibility for its own reckless fiscal record. That much was on display recently when David Axelrod, a political strategist for the president, penned an opinion piece in the Washington Post that took aim directly at me.

FULL ARTICLE: http://bit.ly/7Nlw6S

The President's Bait-and-Switch Operation

Thu, 14 Jan 2010 00:00:00 -0600

Americans learned last year that President Obama discards campaign promises like most people discard used Kleenex. Among the pledges he cast aside were reducing the deficit, reining in federal spending, not allowing lobbyists to work in his administration, increasing taxes only on those who make more than $250,000, and opposing "government-run health care" because it is "extreme."

This year, Mr. Obama is picking up where he left off.

Consider presidential signing statements. Since Andrew Jackson, presidents of both parties have told Congress that while they are signing a bill into law, they intend to ignore specific provisions because they involve unconstitutional restrictions on the executive branch or are otherwise problematic. A president's power to do this springs from his oath of office, through which each new chief executive promises to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution."

FULL ARTICLE: http://bit.ly/7zd9Jf

Topic A

Sun, 10 Jan 2010 00:00:00 -0600

Congressional Democrats pushed through ineffectual legislation such as the stimulus that didn't produce the promised results.

They raised discretionary spending by 24 percent from President George W. Bush's last full-year budget and will run up more debt by October than Bush did in eight years.

They made a priority of the unpopular cap-and-trade energy tax while Americans were worried about jobs and the economy.

They squandered every opportunity for the bipartisanship President Obama promised in his campaign.

Then they ended the year with a pork-filled monstrosity of a health-care bill that's increasingly detested.

The solid support that Democrats enjoyed at the start of 2009 among independents and college-educated voters is gone: They and seniors have propelled the GOP to a nine-point lead in Rasmussen's generic ballot.

Congressional Democrats can't reverse their midterm fortunes by trying to pass itsy-bitsy pieces of insignificant but popular legislation. Voters will stay fixated on their existing mistakes. So Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi should push for big things:: In for a penny, in for a pound. It would be hard to come up with less popular causes than they've already embraced. So find something that might redirect voter anger, especially if Republicans cooperate by failing to offer a positive alternative. Good luck: You made the mess.

FULL ARTICLE: http://bit.ly/8Z0tHx

Obama's Fiscal Fantasy World

Wed, 06 Jan 2010 00:00:00 -0600

After President Obama devoted much of 2009 to health care and global warming—two issues far down Americans' list of concerns—the White House says he will pivot to jobs and deficit reduction in his State of the Union speech in a few weeks. The White House is considering dramatic gestures, perhaps announcing a spending freeze or even a 2% or 3% reduction in nondefense spending.

But Americans shouldn't be misled by the election year ploy: Mr. Obama rigged the game by giving himself plenty of room to look tough on spending. He did that by increasing discretionary domestic spending for the last half of fiscal year 2009 by 8% and then increasing it another 12% for fiscal year 2010.

So discretionary domestic spending now stands at $536 billion, up nearly 24% from President George W. Bush's last full year budget in fiscal 2008 of $433.6 billion. That's a huge spending surge, even for a profligate liberal like Mr. Obama. The $102 billion spending increase doesn't even count the $787 billion stimulus package, of which $534 billion remains unspent.

FULL ARTICLE: http://bit.ly/8wJ3B1

New Year's Resolutions for Washington

Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:00:00 -0600

President Obama not only left Washington, D.C., for the holidays, but the lower 48 as well. So I thought I'd offer a few New Year's resolutions for him and others to come back to in the coming year.

First, to Mr. Obama's staff: The Norwegian Nobel Committee didn't want to wake the president to tell him about his prize earlier this year, but there shouldn't be any reluctance to reassure the nation after a terrorist attack. Also, why not resolve to have a few less "historic" moments? How many can one president really have, anyway? A little more grace toward his predecessor would help him, as would less TV time. He is wearing out his welcome and his speechwriters—judging by the quality of their work lately.

FULL ARTICLE: http://bit.ly/7cuVEo

The Real Price of the Senate Health Bill

Thu, 24 Dec 2009 00:00:00 -0600

By now Majority Leader Harry Reid's explanation for how he is getting his health-care bill through the Senate has pinged its way across the country. "I don't know if there is a senator that doesn't have something in this bill that was important to them," he said this week. "And if they don't have something in it important to them, then it doesn't speak well of them." But take these comments two steps further and it becomes clear that how Mr. Reid reached unanimity in his caucus could hurt Democrats more than they realize.

First, taking Mr. Reid at his word means every Democratic senator got something. That implies there are even more howlers to discover that will dog Democrats next year.

FULL ARTICLE: http://bit.ly/86qtOV

The President Is No B+

Thu, 17 Dec 2009 00:00:00 -0600

Barack Obama has won a place in history with the worst ratings of any president at the end of his first year: 49% approve and 46% disapprove of his job performance in the latest USA Today/Gallup Poll.

There are many factors that explain it, including weakness abroad, an unprecedented spending binge at home, and making a perfectly awful health-care plan his signature domestic initiative. But something else is happening.

READ ARTICLE: http://bit.ly/5jM6HV

Topic A

Sat, 12 Dec 2009 00:00:00 -0600

The sketchy outline of Sen. Harry Reid's latest "deal" is progress all right, but only for those who want a single-payer system, full-speed ahead and damn the fiscal torpedoes. Opening Medicare to everyone ages 55 to 64 is expanding government-run health care. Government sets the payment rates. This price-fixing means hospitals and doctors get paid much less than they would be paid by insurance companies. Government decides whether patient claims are allowed: Medicare's refusal rate is twice the average of insurance companies. And does it really make sense to expand a Medicare program that's already going to be broke by 2017, when its revenue is projected to be less than its annual outlays? The Reid bill does expand coverage by roughly 31 million people, but 15 million of them get coverage by being dropped into Medicaid, which is second-class health care and is already busting most state governments' budgets. New numbers from the Joint Committee on Taxation show 11 percent of middle-class Americans will be better off through a combination of subsidies and tax changes, but 41 percent will be worse off, suffering premium and tax increases. No wonder public opinion continues swinging against proposals being shoved through Congress.

FULL ARTICLE: http://bit.ly/5IZuVc

Can Republicans Retake the Senate in 2010?

Thu, 10 Dec 2009 00:00:00 -0600

Democrats began the year as masters of the political universe, winning the White House and increasing their majorities in Congress. But the year is ending badly for them. Their top initiative, health care, is deeply unpopular. Congress's approval rating is 26%, Speaker Nancy Pelosi's is 28%, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's is an anemic 14%.

Political currents are running against the party of Barack Obama. Democrats now trail Republicans by four points in Gallup's generic ballot poll. In 1994, the year the GOP took control of Congress, it wasn't until March that Republicans took the lead in that poll—and then only by one point and for a short period of time.

With a good environment this election cycle, Republicans have recruited competitive candidates who could turn otherwise close contests into runaway victories, likely defeats into wins or at least close contests that, if things break right, tip to the GOP.

FULL ARTICLE: http://bit.ly/6ot04t

Obama Can Win in Afghanistan

Thu, 03 Dec 2009 00:00:00 -0600

President Barack Obama's speech on Tuesday night deserves to be cheered. Over the objections of his vice president and despite opposition from his political base, the president is sending an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan to fight terrorists.

But praise for Mr. Obama's decision needs to be qualified. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, had said he could use as many as 40,000 troops, a figure he arrived at after carefully evaluating what would be needed to accomplish the mission Mr. Obama assigned him in June.

Mr. Obama hopes NATO can make up the difference between troops he's sending and the top number Gen. McChrystal asked for. So far, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen has rounded up 5,000 additional forces that can be sent to Afghanistan, but they may not have the combat capabilities Gen. McChrystal needs.

FULL ARTICLE: http://bit.ly/4NkNfe

Voter Anger Is Building Over Deficits

Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:00:00 -0600

After engineering an unprecedented spending surge for nearly a year, President Barack Obama now wants to signal that he takes deficits seriously. So this week the White House announced that it is considering creating a commission to figure how to fix the budget mess.

Eureka!

Well, almost. What seems to concern the president is not the problem runaway spending poses for taxpayers and the economy. Rather, what bothers him is the political problem it poses for Democrats.

Last year, Mr. Obama made fiscal restraint a constant theme of his presidential campaign. "Washington will have to tighten its belt and put off spending," he said back then, while pledging to "go through the federal budget, line by line, ending programs that we don't need." Voters found this fiscal conservatism reassuring.

However, since taking office Mr. Obama pushed through a $787 billion stimulus, a $33 billion expansion of the child health program known as S-chip, a $410 billion omnibus appropriations spending bill, and an $80 billion car company bailout. He also pushed a $821 billion cap-and-trade bill through the House and is now urging Congress to pass a nearly $1 trillion health-care bill.

FULL ARTICLE: http://bit.ly/4qe9OM

The Permanent Campaign Continues

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:00:00 -0600

Every modern White House has put out news on contentious issues late on Friday in the hope that doing so will bury it, or reduce the amount of critical scrutiny it would otherwise receive. What is unusual is the degree to which this White House has relied on this tactic.

On Friday, Jan. 30, President Obama revoked the ban on giving taxpayer dollars to international groups that promote or perform abortions abroad. The president released his executive orders on detainee interrogations, closure of the Guantanamo prison, and new ethics rules during the previous week, his first in office.

On Friday, Feb. 27, Mr. Obama announced he would end U.S. combat activities in Iraq in 18 months. This was a much longer combat presence than his antiwar base wanted.

On Friday, April 17, Mr. Obama lifted some limits on the use of federal funds for the creation and subsequent destruction of human embryos for stem-cell research. The move won applause from some research advocates but also disappointed many "scientists who had expected a more liberal policy," according to the New York Times.

FULL ARTICLE: http://bit.ly/tRFqF

'A Referendum on This White House'

Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:00:00 -0600

Republican victories in New Jersey and Virginia governors' races last week—despite eight campaign appearances in the two states by President Barack Obama—have unnerved Democrats.

Over the weekend, White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod tried to calm jittery Democrats who might go wobbly on the president's ambitious agenda by telling NBC's Chuck Todd that next year's congressional elections will be "nationalized." Because they "will be a referendum on this White House," he said, voters will turn out for Mr. Obama. Mr. Todd summed up Mr. Axelrod's plans by saying, "It's almost like a page from the Bush playbook of 2002."

I appreciate the reference. Only two presidents have picked up seats in both houses of Congress for their party in their first midterm elections. One was FDR in 1934. The other was George W. Bush in 2002, whose party gained House seats and won back control of the Senate.

But those midterm elections might not be a favorable comparison for this White House. The congressional elections were nationalized seven years ago largely because national security was an overriding issue and Democrats put themselves on the wrong side of it by, among other things, catering to Big Labor.

FULL ARTICLE: http://bit.ly/3lkXnG