Allahpundit, writing at Hot Air [about the proposed Koran burning]: “Glenn Beck’s against it too, of course. The grand irony of this crank pastor’s publicity stunt is that he’s trying to force the public to confront a difficult issue — when, if ever, is it appropriate to offend Muslims? — but doing it in such a grotesque,notoriously fascist manner that he’s guaranteed a united front against him among pols and pundits. Denouncing a book-burning is as easy a litmus test for decency as it gets in American politics.”
Look, here’s a handy rule for Pastor Pyro in South Florida: If the act you’re contemplating has never been portrayed as noble, heroic, or moral in the entire history of popular culture or literature, your moral compass has probably run afoul of a magnetic field comparable to a black hole. Reread Fahrenheit 451, pal, the book-burning firemen were the bad guys.
And on Obama’s speech in Ohio:
The Minority Leader’s office asks, ‘Who, us? “The fact that President Obama and the White House are so focused on what John Boehner is saying shows just how out-of-touch they really are,” says Boehner spokesman Kevin Smith. “Americans are concerned about jobs, spending, and health care, yet this White House is flailing because it has no answers.”
You know why conservative bloggers can’t figure out why Obama is suddenly paying enormous attention to John Boehner? Because conservative bloggers don’t pay enormous attention to John Boehner. In fact, the last people to pay enormous attention to John Boehner were probably his family. This is not to knock him, but to illustrate the inanity of the Obama camp’s last-minute demonization effort. It’s tough to gin up a good Two Minutes Hate after the Two Minute Warning. The economy’s a shambles, and Obama wants Americans to focus their ire on… that guy? Him? The orange fella who looks like a hardware store owner who’s managing a House caucus small enough to meet in a phone booth? If he reaches any further, Obama’s next scapegoat will be an actual goat.
The problem with this cycle is that early in the year, you pick an upset special that almost no else has noticed or is paying attention to, and then by the time Labor Day rolls around, nobody’s surprised to see the challenger ahead.
(Some folks say the tables are loused up, although it looks fine in my browser. Overall, Republican Schilling leads, 41.15 percent to 38.41 percent with the Green party nominee getting just under 4 percent. Both have 70some percent of their parties; independents prefer Schilling to Hare at a 2-to-1.
I’m telling you, folks, this really was a long-shot at one point.
CNN has some new poll numbers out in some key Senate races; earlier in the day, they touted them as being “surprising.”
They’re surprising because they’re different from other polls in these races. And they’re different, I suspect, because much of the other polling is among likely voters, while the guys at CNN still haven’t applied a likely voter screen.
They find Kentucky tied. Most of the other polls of likely voters put Rand Paul up by a healthy margin.
In Florida, they find Rubio 36 percent, Crist 34 percent, Meek 24 percent. I’m sure the Rubio folks will warmly greet any poll that has them in the lead, but again, I can’t help but suspect that a likely voter screen would weed out a lot of unmotivated Democrats and independents.
Finally, in California, Barbara Boxer leads Carly Fiorina, 48 percent to 44 percent. But there are some quite odd numbers in the internals. Boxer is winning men, 47 percent to 46 percent. Boxer is winning independents, 45 percent to 40 percent. Perhaps most strangely, 18 percent of self-identified conservatives are backing Boxer; 77 percent back Fiorina. Meanwhile, 88 percent of liberals back Boxer, only 5 percent back Fiorina.
UPDATE: For contrast, Survey USA’s most recent California poll had conservatives backing Fiorina 87 percent to 8 percent.
I’ve had a few readers in Maine write in, raving about GOP gubernatorial candidate Paul LePage, saying his life story sounds like Oscar-winning movie material.
Today, Public Policy Polling puts him ahead: “Republican Paul LePage leads Democrat Libby Mitchell 43-29 in PPP’s first look at the race with independent Eliot Cutler pulling 11%.”
Now the Republican Governors Association is putting up an ad, touting him:
The New Hampshire Senate race is one that made a lot of noise early in the cycle, and has slid back out of the headlines as Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Nevada, Ohio, Florida and other states have generated more fireworks.
Republicans have a surplus of good choices here. Early on, there were some conservative worries that frontrunner Kelly Ayotte, a popular state attorney general for five years, might be a bit less socially conservative than some Republican grassroots would prefer; a lack of a voting record in a legislature and fans in Washington are potential points of concern in a year like this. But it’s hard to argue that a Sarah Palin-backed candidate is some sort of closet liberal.
I had a chance to meet Ovide Lamontagne* a few months ago, and it’s easy to make the case that he’s the near-dream candidate for conservatives. “Toomeyesque” comes to mind.
But when the other options, you begin to wish the ballot was a buffet instead of a menu, and you could order a bit from this one and a bit from that one. Bill Binnie’s business experience, LeMontagne’s encyclopedic knowledge of conservative policy ideas, Ayotte’s sterling record as a prosecutor kicking tail on crime and corruption, and Jim Bender’s life story of an inspiring rise from modest means.
Today, the Susan B. Anthony List announced the launch of a $150,000 independent expenditure campaign highlighting the pro-life leadership of Kelly Ayotte, endorsed Republican primary candidate for the U.S. Senate in New Hampshire. The SBA List campaign includes $50,000 in radio ads, $50,000 in Google web ads and $50,000 in voter mobilization efforts leading up to the Tuesday, September 14th primary.
“Kelly Ayotte’s heroic efforts at the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of 37 parental involvement laws on the books across the nation that help protect children from abortion,” SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser said. “She showed courageous leadership when she stood up for New Hampshire parents and fought to protect young girls from abortion despite facing a hostile environment fueled by a Democratic governor and unfriendly state legislature.”
“Ayotte made a judgment call that potentially saved New Hampshire taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars by complying with a court order to pay the legal fees of Planned Parenthood,” Dannenfelser said referencing a court-ordered settlement to refund the legal fees of Planned Parenthood following a repeal of the parental notification law by the state legislature. “Had Ayotte appealed, it is likely that the higher court would have ruled against her, resulting in taxpayer dollars going to pay even more Planned Parenthood legal fees.”
The primary winner will have a good chance in November, with Democrat Paul Hodes trailing just about everybody, and swimming against a strong anti-Obama tide in the Granite State.
Hodes, who voted for the stimulus, is now running an ad declaring, “I approve this message because you deserve a senator who’s a real fiscal conservative – and who gets rid of the pork.”
* UPDATE: Did I write “Ovide LeMontagne” before? Yes, but that’s what his friends call him.
I wasn’t sure if my schedule would leave much room for BlogCon, a big blogger get-together in Washington sponsored by FreedomWorks, but I will be able to make an appearance Friday afternoon in a debate session:
4:30 pm: How to be effective going into Nov. Debate between major left and right leaning sites held at Newseum.
As I understand it, the plan is for Erick Erickson of RedState and myself to go up against two folks from the left side of the aisle.
Alex Cortes, chairman of DeFundIt, had a chance to ask Rep. Tom Perriello a question at a town hall meeting Sept. 7.
Perriello began with the predictable assertion that, “we have cut taxes for 98 percent of Virginia families.”
Cortes is unimpressed, noting the new cost of the Obama individual mandate, the enacted new tax on tobacco, the new tax rates on over-the-counter medicines, indoor tanning, medical prosthetics, special needs tuition, HSA distributions, and catastrophic medical expenses.
You know what surprises me? The number of empty seats.
The sparse turnout might mean Perriello’s constituents aren’t even angry with him any more. That’s not a good sign for the incumbent; his constituents may figure he won’t be a problem much longer.
Via Politico: “DNC CHAIRMAN TIM KAINE‘s speech at Penn today (before he scoots back to NYC to tape “The Daily Show,” followed by Vice President Biden on “Colbert”): ‘President Harry Truman had a phrase for the Republican Party. He called them the ‘do-nothing’ party. It’s been more than 50 years since President Truman leveled that charge, but the name still fits. … On Election Day, it will be Americans’ turn to choose. They can choose Republicans who drove our country into a ditch. … Or they can choose Democrats who are helping us climb out of that ditch.’”
After a stimulus that spent a bunch but didn’t create many jobs, passage of a massive and Byzantine health care law that a majority of Americans opposed, bailouts of every troubled industry down to AIG bonus checks, one expensive failed housing rescue effort after another, broken promises on tax hikes, runaway deficits, lawsuits against Arizona, applause for Mexican President Calderon denouncing one of our states, a retracted defense of the Ground Zero mosque and then a retraction of the retraction… doesn’t a “do-nothing” party sound pretty good right now?
By the way, it’s pretty striking to see a party chairman, whose side has 59 seats in the Senate and 253 seats in the House, complain that the opposition isn’t getting enough done.
Small confession: I kind of like Chicago. The city, I mean, not the band.
I speak mostly as a tourist, as I’ve never lived there. But from a distance, Chicago seems pretty great. (I haven’t been there since… 1998, I think.) There’s a lot to love: giant skyscrapers, all kinds of entertainment including the SNL farm team known as Second City, all kinds of food usually served in gargantuan portions, a crazy quilt of ethnic neighborhoods, a sports-crazy town where people care about how the local baseball teams perform, even though one is legendary for making their fans suffer. Pizza, brats, cold beer, mustaches. It’s easy to be tempted to live there…
…and then you hear about how the city is run, and you wince. Beijing has a healthier two-party system than the Windy City. Graft, corruption, bribes, egos and authority run amok – apparently the city puts enormous effort into looking normal and functional to outsiders. Look a bit closer, and you see all the Morlocks who make sure the wheels greased, far away from the Eloi lifestyle that makes up the sitcoms and tourist sites. Like a movie with an unsympathetic protagonist, it often seems that there’s nobody to root for in Chicago politics.
But change is coming to the city that generated the guy who pledged change: “Mayor Richard Daley says he will not run for re-election in 2011, saying it’s “time for me, it’s time for Chicago to move on… The truth is I have been thinking about this for the past several months,” Daley said at a City Hall news conference that stunned the city. “In the end this is a personal decision, no more, no less.’”
Seven terms. This guy could look at a six-termer like Orrin Hatch and say, “rookie.”
The Hill’sSam Youngman said on Twitter: “Daley not running for reelection. Rahm-shaped hole in the wall of the West Wing.”
… One of my regular readers in Illinois wrote in with his take: “Not a surprise about Daley not running again. His wife has been fighting cancer, his poll numbers (lower 30s approval) are terrible, and more and more he looks and sounds tired and clueless at what to do about the violence. (His Police Chief is a moron.)
Don’t measure the 5th floor at City Hall for Rahmbo either. Dem Congressman from the city (Danny Davis and Luis Guitierrez) have been in Congress forever, and they know being in the minority means showing up to vote and no power they won’t give Rahm a free pass. The African American vote in the City is overwhelming, and they will pick the next Mayor. We’ll have to see if see if the Dear Leader annoints Rahm or stays neutral. (Maybe he’ll resign and run……Mayor for LIFE, ha ha ha.)” A few progressives seem determined to make sure Rahm never becomes mayor. The Progressive Change Campaign Committee declared, “Rahm is unfit to represent Democrats in office. He’s a cancer on the Democratic Party. Democrats’ current 2010 situation is due to a weak Rahm Emanuel mentality that says water down real reform at the urging of Republicans and corporations, thus making Democratic reform less popular with voters than the real deal would have been.”
Then there’s this classic exercise in self-delusion: “If Democrats had passed the overwhelmingly-popular public option and broken up the big banks when they had the chance, they’d be cruising for a landslide victory right now.”
No matter how far in one direction a White House goes, there will always, always, always be some grassroots organizer insisting that they were just one more lunge away from phenomenal popularity.
How big of a problem is Obama’s unpopularity for Democratic candidates? We’re finding that almost no one who disapproves of the President is planning to vote Democratic for key offices this year . . . We’re finding that Democratic candidates are doing only as well as the President’s approval numbers. And with a majority of voters disapproving of Obama in most states that’s a really, really big problem for the party this fall.
I’m reminded of Rep. Marion Berry, Arkansas Democrat, and his recollection of Obama’s analysis of why Democrats wouldn’t experience another 1994-like blowout: “Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.”
Yes . . . indeed they do, Mr. President. Indeed they do.
Oh, and PPP finds a majority of likely voters in Maine disapprove of the job Obama is doing.
So, that’s why, Milwaukee, today, I am announcing a new plan for rebuilding and modernizing America’s roads and rails and runways for the long term. (Applause.) I want America to have the best infrastructure in the world. We used to have the best infrastructure in the world. We can have it again. We are going to make it happen. (Applause.)
Over the next six years, over the next six years, we are going to rebuild 150,000 miles of our roads — that’s enough to circle the world six times. That’s a lot of road. We’re going to lay and maintain 4,000 miles of our railways –- enough to stretch coast to coast. We’re going to restore 150 miles of runways. And we’re going to advance a next-generation air-traffic control system to reduce travel time and delays for American travelers. (Applause.) I think everybody can agree on that.
But broadly speaking, the package is the right size, it has the right scope and it has the right priorities: To create 3 to 4 million jobs and to do it in a way that lays the groundwork for long term growth, by fixing our schools; modernizing health care to lower costs; repairing our roads, bridges, levees, and other vital infrastructure; move us toward energy independence.
Starting today, our administration will be working day and night to provide more aid for the unemployed, create immediate jobs building our roads and our bridges, make long-term investments in a smarter energy grid, and so much more.
We passed the recovery plan less than two months ago. Two weeks later, I came here to DOT to announce that we would be investing $28 billion to rebuild and repair our highways, roads and bridges.
Across the state, roughly 20,000 transportation jobs will be supported by the Recovery Act so that Missourians rebuilding your roads, your bridges, your rails.
We followed the gospel of Governors Rendell and Schwarzenegger and invested in our infrastructure, creating private-sector jobs, rebuilding today’s crumbling roads and bridges, but also constructing the smart grids and the high-speed rails that are so critical to our future.
I didn’t realize that even White House speechwriters have summer reruns.
To his credit, this is the first time the president has emphasized “runway restoration” as a central element of the economic recovery.
Today the Caligiuri Campaign released poll results showing that Sam Caligiuri, the Republican Nominee for Congress (CT-5), is a single point behind Chris Murphy. This amounts to a statistical tie. In a head-to-head matchup, 39% of respondents favored Caligiuri while 40% favored Murphy. This represents a huge gain for Caligiuri and a significant loss for Murphy, as Murphy was leading Caligiuri 49% to 28% in an October 2009 poll conducted by the same firm. . . . In the hard re-elect question, only 36% believe Chris Murphy has performed his job in Congress well enough to deserve re-election, while 45% think it’s time for a new person. In an ominous sign for the party in power, only 29% of voters believe the county is heading in the right direction, while 63% believe things are off on the wrong track. This number has gotten worse over the past 10 months: In October, 2009, the right direction/wrong track number was 35%-54%. The generic ballot favors Republicans, 41%-38%. Among unaffiliated voters, the generic Republican leads 38%-32%.
In Virginia’s 5th congressional district, incumbent Democrat Tom Perriello is trailing. He’s either down by 26 percentage points, as Survey USA indicates, or down by 2, as the DCCC internal poll indicates.
The options for Delaware Republicans on September 14 are nominating Christine O’Donnell or Mike Castle to be their Senate nominee.
O’Donnell, if nominated, will have (cough) an uphill climb in a state where registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans roughly 329,000 to 179,000.
Castle has consistently led all polls and his voting history suggests he will vote with conservatives 52 percent of the time or so. If Democrat Chris Coons is elected and votes in a pattern similar to Delaware’s other senator, he will vote the conservative position 12 percent of the time; if he emulates current Democratic senator Ted Kaufman, he will vote the conservative position 4 percent of the time.
Over his 17 complete years in the U.S. House of Representatives, Castle has voted the conservative position, as defined by the American Conservative Union, about 52 percent of the time. In 2009, ACU scored Castle at 56. So how did he get that rating from the group last year?
Castle opposed the Lilly Ledbetter pay act, which the ACU described as a “new Pandora’s Box for trial lawyers.” He voted for a January 2009 bill that would prevent the Treasury from spending the $350 billion that remained in the TARP program. He opposed the Obama stimulus. He voted against efforts to water down legislation barring federal funds to ACORN or other organizations that employ people who have been convicted of election-law violations. He voted to eliminate the earmark for the airport near Johnstown, Pa., named after Rep. John Murtha. He voted to cut discretionary government spending in the appropriations for the Departments of Housing and Transportation by 5 percent.
He supported an amendment to the health-care bill that would ban using taxpayer funds to provide abortion services, an interesting vote for a self-described pro-choice Republican. He voted against the health-care bill.
A central point of the O’Donnell folks is that Mike Castle is unacceptable because he doesn’t support the repeal of Obamacare. But that’s only half his stated position. Castle thinks trying to repeal Obamacare while Obama is president is a waste of time, but he’s open to the idea if the GOP can regain control of the White House:
(This is not some new position shift, spurred by the impending primary; the video above is from April. Ironically, if Castle is nominated, it is possible Delaware Democrats will urge voters to oppose Castle because of his willingness to repeal Obamacare.)
Now, we can argue about whether this is a wise strategic assessment or a poor one, but Castle’s sense that any repeal effort would be unable to overcome a presidential veto does not make him a de facto Obamacare supporter. For what it’s worth, I don’t see this as an either-or proposition; if the GOP tries and fails to overcome an Obama veto, they can always try again in January 2013 if a Republican wins the presidency two years from now.
He voted to extend the repeal of the estate tax and opposed making the new estate-tax rates permanent. He voted for a bill to repeal the TARP program and lower the federal debt limit. Finally, he voted against the financial-industry-regulation legislation backed by Barney Frank.
Because Delaware has only one representative in the House of Representatives, we have no House Democrat from that state to compare against Castle’s voting record, but in all of the above votes, the vast majority of Democrats took the opposing position.
Jeff Lord argues, “Mike Castle plays for the other side [meaning Democrats] wearing the Republican jersey.” But the terms “not as conservative as I would like” and “Democrat” are not synonyms, no matter how much we pound the table or how loudly we insist it is so.
O’Donnell fans complain about Castle by pointing to his record. We know what kind of a legislator Castle will be, warts and all, because of his record. With Christine O’Donnell, all we have are promises. We can’t evaluate her on her record in elected office because she has no record. O’Donnell seems determined to begin her political career by winning a U.S. Senate seat; she has never served in a local board of education, town or city council, state legislature, etc. Her next general-election victory will be her first.
Delaware is holding a special election for the unexpired four years of Vice President Joe Biden’s term, and insurgent tea party candidate Christine O’Donnell has made a promise to stop the lame duck-agenda a centerpiece of her primary campaign against moderate Republican Mike Castle. O’Donnell has been vocal in her opposition to policies like cap and trade, card check, and tax hikes which are on the lame-duck agenda. She has made a clear public commitment to oppose any major policy changes in a lame-duck session.
Castle recently matched her promise to stop the lame-duck agenda. I asked his staff for a statement from Castle on the lame-duck session and they provided this very strong statement from the congressman: “The only business that should be conducted during a lame-duck session of Congress is keeping the government running until the newly elected legislators are sworn in. I do not agree with those who say this period of time should be used for passing controversial legislation and would not play a role in helping to circumvent the will of American voters.”
. . . Democrat Chris Coons has been silent on the lame-duck issue.
The National Republican Congressional Committee makes its first independent-expenditure ad of the year, aiming to refute — or is it refudiate? — the claims of Indiana Democrat Joe Donnelly that he’s an independent:
Well, perhaps Donnelly is independent except for the voting part.
I suspect that Christine O’Donnell supporters know the risk of losing the seat if she is nominated, and have determined that she is worth the risk. The risk of losing the seat, however, is substantial:
The latest Rasmussen Reports statewide telephone survey of Likely Voters [in Delaware] shows [Republican Senate candidate Mike] Castle earning 48% of the vote, while [Democrat Chris] Coons gets 37% support. Six percent (6%) prefer some other candidate, and nine percent (9%) remain undecided.
The race is little changed from early last month, when Castle held a 49% to 37% edge over Coons, a county executive who has never sought statewide office. July was the first time in Rasmussen Reports surveying of the race this year that support for Castle dipped below the 50% mark.
Prior to July, Castle earned between 53% and 56% support, while Coons’ support fell in a 27% to 32% range.
Coons leads conservative activist Christine O’Donnell, who is challenging Castle for the GOP Senate nomination in a primary next Tuesday, by a 47% to 36% margin. Given that matchup, eight percent (8%) prefer another candidate, while nine percent (9%) are undecided.
Last month, Coons held a similar 46% to 36% lead over O’Donnell after the candidates were virtually tied in July.
Castle captures 71% of the GOP vote, while O’Donnell earns 63% support among voters in her own party. While Coons is backed by 70% of Democrats against O’Donnell, he earns the vote from just 55% of Democratic voters when matched against Castle. Voters not affiliated with either major party prefer Castle over Coons but favor the Democrat if O’Donnell is his opponent.
O’Donnell’s campaign manager Matt Moran thinks that this poll isn’t accurate, calling it “more of a push poll.” “Scott Rasmussen has to pay his bills,” says Moran. “We understand that the RNC and NRSC have long tentacles.”
She produced an old poll in which she led the Democrat in the general election, even though we pointed out a more recent one in which she trails by double digits.
Oh, this screams confidence: The chairman of the House Budget Committee, incumbent Democrat John Spratt of South Carolina, is perfectly willing to debate . . . as long as there are no cameras.
This leads to interesting slogans, though: Mick Mulvaney: Because he’s not hiding from voters.
President Barack Obama’s approval rating hits 51 percent . . . in Illinois.
Enthusiasm for Barack Obama’s presidency in his home state has cooled as Illinois voters have grown increasingly uneasy over stewardship of the sputtering economy, a new Tribune/WGN-TV poll has found. A majority of the 600 Illinois registered voters surveyed still gave a positive review to Obama’s performance as president — but it is barely a majority. In all, 51 percent said they approved of the job he has done as president while 39 percent disapproved.
More than 6 in 10 lack confidence in Democratic-run Springfield, though the angst isn’t limited to Illinois borders. Fully 55 percent of the voters say they don’t have much or any confidence that the federal government will make the right decisions affecting them, according to the poll of 600 registered Illinois voters conducted Aug. 28-Wednesday. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
. . . Six in 10 independent voters had little faith in the decisions of the federal government, and nearly 7 in 10 felt the same way about state government. Predictably, out-of-power Republicans were even more pessimistic about government decisions at the federal and state levels.
. . . While Illinois remains a Democratic state, the advantage Democrats have held over Republicans has fallen significantly from previous Tribune polls. Currently, 37 percent of voters identify themselves as Democrats and 27 percent say they’re Republicans — a 10-percentage-point differential that is about half the advantage Democrats had entering the 2008 election. Another 31 percent call themselves political independents.
Change has come to Illinois’s electorate.
Notice all of these numbers are among registered voters, not likely voters.
If Connecticut Democrats’ pick for the Senate, Dick Blumenthal, is such a favorite, and if the GOP’s Linda McMahon is so unelectable . . . why is Obama heading to Connecticut for an event for Blumenthal?
Ninety-two percent of Americans say the economy’s in bad shape. A mere 24 percent believe it’s improving. And for the first time numerically more say Obama’s economic program has made the economy worse, 33 percent, than improved it, 30 percent. Views that he’s helped the economy have dropped by 9 points since spring.
A majority, 52 percent, now disapproves of the way Obama is handling his job overall, another first in ABC/Post polls. Intensity increasingly is against him, with those who disapprove “strongly” outnumbering strong approvers by 14 points. A record 57 percent rate him negatively on handling the economy, “strongly” so by an even wider margin, 2-1.
Seventy-eight percent now describe themselves as dissatisfied with the way the federal government is working, up 14 points just since July to the most since October 1992. That includes 25 percent who are “angry,” tying the record. Among likely voters, 30 percent are angry and they favor Republican candidates by a vast 47-point margin.
National and local polls continue to show further deterioration in Democratic prospects. Given that, we are increasing our target of likely Republican gains from 28-33 seats to 37-42 seats, with the caveat that substantially larger GOP gains in the 45-55 seat range are quite possible. The next few weeks will be crucial, as Democratic incumbents seek to drive up Republican challengers’ negatives and strengthen their standing in ballot tests.
How many House seats will the Republicans gain in 2010? To answer this question, we have run 1,000 simulations of the 2010 House elections. The simulations are based on information from past elections going back to 1946. Our methodology replicates that for our ultimately successful forecast of the 2006 midterm. Two weeks before Election Day in 2006, we posted a prediction that the Democrats would gain 32 seats and recapture the House majority. The Democrats gained 30 seats in 2006. Our current forecast for 2010 shows that the Republicans are likely to regain the House majority. Our preliminary 2010 forecast will appear (with other forecasts by political scientists) in the October issue of PS: Political Science. By our reckoning, the most likely scenario is a Republican majority in the neighborhood of 229 seats versus 206 for the Democrats for a 50-seat loss for the Democrats. Taking into account the uncertainty in our model, the Republicans have a 79% chance of winning the House.
From this morning’s Jolt, which has gone to the . . . canines:
Nonsense, Mr. President. Americans Love Dogs.
Hey, remember throughout 2007 and 2008, when a bunch of us kept arguing that nothing Obama had done in his life was remotely as challenging as the presidency, and that he would be strikingly unprepared for the job’s daily hard decisions, complaints and criticism that comes with the territory?
I’m starting to wonder if the job is getting to him: “President Obama strayed from his prepared remarks at a Labor Day rally Monday to accused his opponents of talking about him “like a dog.” . . .
Man, so many punchlines, so little space — “his bark is worse than his bite,” “this dog has had its day,” “we’re on to his dog and pony show,” “he’s made a dog’s breakfast of the economy,” “this explains why he always acts like he ate his own homework,” “the White House has gone to the dogs,” he’s howling at the moon, something about a ruined carpet, we feel like a fire hydrant, chasing the mailman, we’re all dog-tired of him, and finally, who let this dog out? . . .
Aw, heck, I should have just gone straight to the pro, Jim Treacher: “Who’s a good president? Obama’s a good president, isn’t he? Yes he is! . . . I certainly wouldn’t compare Obama to a dog. Dogs are capable of learning.”
Ed Driscoll finds this John Podhoretz column prescient, and I think he’s on the right track: “Something weird happens when presidencies go wrong — presidents become incompetent at doing the things they were always able to do in their sleep, and their aides follow suit . . . When this president next week begins proposing expensive new measures to save us from a crisis he has just told us we are emerging from, he is going to compound the growing sense that he has no idea what he is doing or where to go to fix the mess. And he is going to convince many more people that the mess in which we are now mired is of a different order from the mess he inherited, and that it belongs to him and his party, and that somebody else is going to have to clean it up.”
There’s an interesting lesson in retrospect: From 2000 to 2008, many of us on the right spent a lot of time complaining about criticism of President George W. Bush that we thought was unfair, outlandish, unhinged, so bilious and incendiary that it damaged public discourse, etc. Yet President Bush himself rarely if ever complained, and ignored it, particularly through those rough final years from 2006 to 2008. There was never much evidence of a widespread public backlash against Michael Moore agit-prop at the multiplex, the assassination chic, the zombie-like “plastic turkey” myth thrown against Bush for years (seriously, how do you kill that thing?), the credulous reporting of a Bush IQ test hoax. The unfair criticism rarely got in the way of the American people’s steady disenchantment with Bush — weariness with Iraq, spending indistinguishable from most Democrats, well more than one too many scandals on Capitol Hill, a panned Supreme Court nominee, an inexplicable infatuation with amnesty, etc. Perhaps the American people don’t really care what partisans say about a president of the opposing party; they figure unfair, overwrought, and even hateful venom is par for the course.
If that’s the case . . . Attention 2012 candidates: wear a helmet.
