The Obama White House probably watched the Republican primary season with some dismay as a series of candidates including Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul, each more bizarre and unelectable than the others, briefly donned the mantle of front-runner before giving way to Mitt Romney.
Romney, the likely Republican nominee, feels like a generic representative of his party from a generation ago. He was born to privilege, made a lot of money, is committed to making his rich friends richer, uncomfortable with the more radical social conservatives who constitute the Republican Party base, awkward when confronted with ordinary working Americans, but extremely comfortable with the financial and foreign policy power elite.
With Romney as the Republican nominee, Obama will have a serious opponent. Romney, like Obama, is not a perfect candidate, but he is good enough to muster a strong campaign. There are, however, several things which could break Obama's way, and over which the campaign has some control, that would sharply improve the president's reelection chances.
First, while much attention has been paid to the declining enthusiasm felt towards Obama particularly by young voters who do not see 2012 as a crusade or cause comparable to Obama's historic 2008 campaign as well as by many on the activist left who feel disappointed or even betrayed by Obama's centrist governance and unwillingness to genuinely take on the right wing and Republican Party, Obama remains very popular among African American voters. High African American voter turnout was an important element of Obama's success in 2008. Because Obama is now running for reelection, 2012 cannot compare to the excitement Obama generated in 2008 during his bid to become the first African American president.
The Obama campaign can, and must, still devote resources and time to bringing out as many African American voters as possible. Republican attacks on Obama have not resonated much with African American voters who generally do not even consider voting for the GOP. Similarly, these attacks made against an African American president can be used to demonstrate the urgency of voting in 2012.
A strong African American turnout can help ensure that America's first African American president is not drummed out of office by relentless extremists on the right. The Obama campaign spent millions of dollars mobilizing African American voters in 2008 and must be prepared to do the same in 2012. The campaign has the financial resources and can activate many of the same networks and individuals who helped bring out African American voters in 2008. This strategy will be critical in swing midwestern states as well as a handful of border states that could be in play in November.
Obama also should not run only against Romney, but against his party as well. Romney presents as a reasonable and moderate person, but in this respect he is different than the rest of his party. If voters see the choice as between Romney and Obama, some swing voters will give Romney more thought than if the choice is posed as between the Tea Party and Obama. For this reason, Romney should not be allowed to distance himself from the extremist wing of his party or some of the radical things he will continue to do as he secures the Republican nomination. Obama has already started to do this as he has turned his criticism to the unpopular Republican controlled House of Representatives, but the campaign should also seek to join Romney with Bachmann, Perry and other right wingers who are very unpopular with most voters.
Obama also needs to change the way he speaks of the presidency. In 2008, Obama, probably unrealistically, presented the presidency as an office from which the country could be changed and hope could be restored. Since taking office, Obama appears to have viewed the presidency as a highly constrained office, limited by political opposition in Congress and by the difficult economic and international political environment which existed in 2009 when Obama took office.
There is a fair amount of truth in this assessment, but it is not a politically wise way to discuss the office. Voters are unlikely to be enthusiastic about a candidate who does not think he can do much as president. Most voters simply don't agree with this analysis, while those who agree still are likely to see it as depressing and hardly a good reason to elect somebody president.
Accordingly, Obama needs to inject his campaign with some of the optimism which characterized his successful 2008 bid for the White House. Rather than explaining to voters why being president is difficult, Obama's reelection bid would be better served if the president explained why the presidency is important and what he wants to do in his second term.
Obama cannot recreate the 2008 campaign because he is now the incumbent, but he should not run from it entirely. Bringing out a strong African American vote and running as the optimistic forward looking candidate worked in 2008 and can play a key role in 2012 as well. If he does these things, and portrays his opponent as linked to the radical right that has taken over much of the Republican Party, Obama may be able to get reelected despite the economy.
Lincoln Mitchell is an Associate at Columbia University's Harriman Institute. From 2006-2009, he was the Arnold A. Saltzman Assistant Professor in the Practice of International Politics at Columbia University. Before joining Columbia’s faculty, Lincoln was a practitioner of political development and continues to work in that field now.
How could these poll respondents think that our "Anointed One" is a radical? Let's take a quick look at Obama's "stellar" record so far.
Obama waives ethics rules for eligibility lawyer White House: Restrictions on top attorney 'not in public interest'. President Obama has waived ethics rules for White House counsel Robert Bauer, his personal and campaign lawyer – and the same attorney who has defended Obama in lawsuits challenging his eligibility to be president.
Next, Obama says America is one of the largest Muslim countries in the world. In an interview with France’s Canal Plus, Obama suggested that the United States might be a Muslim country. “And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.
Next, Obama Freezes Budget for Program Designed to Stop Terrorists from Getting U.S. Visas
“The visa security process is our first line of defense against terrorists and others who wish to do us harm,” Rep. Lamar Smith, the lead sponsor of the Secure Visas Act, told CNSNews.com. “But under President Obama, new Visa Security Units ground to a halt.”
Next, Obama's Envoy "Rashad Hussain" to Islamic Bloc Admits Controversial Statements About Supporter of Terror Group.
Next, we have the three Navy SEALs who faced assault charges for capturing one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq. Why?
Next, President Obama appointed Ron Bloom, "Manufacturing Czar" who cites Chairman Mao as a political guide.
Next, President Obama appointed Anita Dunn, White House Communications Director. She stated in an address to high school students this past June that Chairman Mao Tse-tung was one of the two "philosophers" she most often turns to.
Next, WASHINGTON, Dec. 23 /Christian Newswire/ -- Christian faith leaders stunned by reports that President Obama would have an ornament of the image of Mao Zedong hanging on the White House Christmas tree.
Next, Valerie Jarrett helped to hire Van Jones, the self admitted Communist.
Next, Valerie Jarrett also recruited Cass Sunstein into the administration. Obama appointed Sunstein as "regulatory czar" to direct the White House Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. You remember, this is the guy who wants to establish legal 'rights' for livestock, wildlife and pets, which would enable animals to file lawsuits in American courts.
Next, it's John Brennan, President Obama’s national security deputy, thinks Gitmo jihadi recidivism is “not that bad.”
Next, Obama's relationship with Anti-Israel activism people like Rob Malley (Foreign Policy Advisor). Malley is the Director of the Middle East/North Africa Program at the International Crisis Group (ICG). Malley's Camp David propaganda has also become fodder for Palestinians, Arab rejectionists, and anti-Israel activists across the world.
Next, Obama had met the leaders of a collection of Jewish groups, ostensibly to quell their concerns about his approach towards Israel. Barely two weeks later, he gives The Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson, an enemy of Israel AND the host and mastermind of the Durban Conference (anti-Semitic, anti-Israel). By bestowing of the Medal of Freedom on Mary Robinson it is a slap in the face to the pro-Israel community.
Next, George Soros a man who has made clear his goal is to break the close bonds between America and Israel; a man who has also been a key financial backer of President Obama's; Soros is a funder of the ICG through his Open Society Institute; Other members of the Board include Zbigniew Brzezinski (whose anti-Israel credentials are impeccable) and Wesley Clark (who called US support for Israel during the Hezbollah War a "serious mistake".
Next, Daniel Kurtzer another State Department official, blamed the Israeli response to terror attacks for "the radicalization of those Palestinians to violence". He does not characterize the perpetrators as terrorists but as "guerillas". accepts a false premise: that the Palestinian problem is the core of the conflict in the Middle East.
Next, What does it say about Obama's judgment that he appointed a man like Malley to be a top foreign policy advisor? He seems to have a proclivity to pick fights with the Jewish community. He or his team have chosen people like Samantha Power, Chas Freeman, Mary Robinson and Bishop Desmond Tutu to either occupy important positions in the policy apparatus or receive prestigious awards. They all have long histories of anti-Israel activism.
Next, truthfully it has been a horrible mess for DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano. Beginning with her embrace of the impotent euphemism "man-caused disasters" to the hit job on conservatives and veterans that she was forced to apologize for, to her assertion that crossing the border illegally, "isn’t a crime per se", to her claim that 9/11 terrorists came in through the Canadian border, Ja-No has confirmed time and again that she’s not ready for prime time. Let's face it, she’s as effective as HS Sect as she was as Governor at stopping the invasion in her home state.
Next, Eric Holder has been busy. H.R. 2159, the Disarming American Citizens Act allowing anti-gun Attorney General Eric Holder to revoke the Second Amendment rights of ANY American he chooses based on pure “suspicion”; A new so-called “Assault Weapons” Ban, targeting ALL semi-automatic rifles and shotguns -- which, unlike the Clinton ban, will NEVER expire; H.R. 45, the “Catch-All” Obama Gun Control Bill, which would create a national gun registry, require a two-day waiting period, hike taxes on gun sales, federally ban ALL private firearms sales, and FORCE you to take a written exam just to prove you’re “fit” to own a firearm; The U.N.’s so-called “Small Arms Treaty,” which would confiscate and destroy ALL “unauthorized” civilian firearms and set the stage for INTERNATIONAL gun confiscation. You know, it's like what the police and National Guard did during Katrina.
Next, President Obama Appoints John Holdren as Science Advisor. Despite his strong scientific credentials, he advanced theories in the 1970’s and 1980’s that have become the paradigm of ideologically motivated junk science. He and his collaborators (such as co-author Paul Ehrlich) predicted world-wide famine as a consequence of over-population by the late 20th century, and they advocated radical coercive public policies to avert catastrophe. These predictions were explicit, public, and were published under professional imprimatur. In 1977 Dr. Holdren and his colleagues Paul and Anne Ehrlich published the book Ecoscience. In it, Holdren and his co-authors endorse the serious consideration of radical measures to reduce the human population, particularly third world populations, such as India, China and Africa. The measures include: • People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized. • Women — particularly women of insufficient means due to poverty, nationality, marital status, or youth — could be forced to abort their children and undergo sterilization. • Implementation of a system of “involuntary birth control,” in which girls at puberty would be implanted with an infertility device and only could have it removed temporarily if they received permission from the government to have a baby. • Undesirable populations could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into drinking water or in food. • Single mothers and teen mothers who managed to have their children despite measures to prevent fertility should have their babies seized from them and given away to others to raise.• A transnational “Planetary Regime” and a transnational police force should be assembled to enforce population control.
Next, everyones favorite organization, ACORN. Barack Obama's ties with the highly corrupt ACORN organization have been extensive over the years, a fact almost entirely unreported by the liberal mainstream news media. The Obama campaign, according to the "Times," paid ACORN $800,000 to register voters and do other work. Obama, when serving on the board of the Woods Fund in Chicago, gave ACORN money. "Investor's Business Daily" had called Barack Obama "ACORN's Senator." And the Obama administration got up to $2 billion of taxpayer funding in Obama's first 60 days for organizations such as ACORN.
Anyone see a pattern here?
Obama is not a Muslim?
What If Bush Did This?
by Jason Mattera 08/31/2010
Thought experiment, folks. What would the reaction be from the media and leftist agitator groups if the Bush Administration were buying thousands of copies of C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity and distributing them overseas? Moreover, how apoplectic would those usual suspects behave if they also learned that the Bush Administration was denying that Mere Christianity was in fact a religious-based book, while at the same time deeming it an acceptable diplomatic tool to engender tolerance and interfaith dialogue? I think we all know what reaction would be, don’t we?
A blitzkrieg of front-page stories from the New York Times accusing President Bush of embarking on a modern-day Crusade. The ACLU would fire off press release after press release screeching about the 1st Amendment being under an unprecedented assault. Blowhard Ed Schulz at MSNBC would yell unintelligibly for an hour, then cry afterward because no one watched MSNBC to see him yell unintelligibly for an hour. And Al Sharpton would find a way to blame everything on Glenn Beck.
Now, the truth. The State Department did buy bulk copies of a religious book, but it wasn’t Mere Christianity. Nope. It was the Ground Zero Imam’s, What's Right with Islam: A New Vision for Muslims and the West. Can you guess how many copies were bought? That would be none other than 2,000! The State Department also accepted another 1,000 at no cost, for a total dispersion of 3,000 copies of What’s Right with Islam. Behold, your tax dollars at work! But it gets worse.
The State Department doesn’t see any problem handing out Rauf’s Islamic book because they don’t consider it religious material. Seriously. A State official told HUMAN EVENTS that “We don't characterize them as religious books per se. I know it's an issue of semantics. But we would consider a religious book to be something like the Koran and the Bible. We look at these as books on religion or books about religion. It's certainly not limited to any one religion.”
In fact, the spokesperson likened Rauf’s work to that of other literary works which the State Dept. distributes, including Cold Mountain—a book about the Civil War—and a book on the Wright brothers. No Christian material, however.
Members of the media don’t see anything wrong with the government acting like Rauf’s personal Barnes & Noble either. The New York Times casually mentioned how the State Dept. buys What’s Right with Islam, but that particular mention was buried at the bottom of an article and, subsequently, there were no follow-up questions on why taxpayers should be on the hook for Rauf's screed to begin with.
Like I said, just imagine the uproar and fury if a government official defended the state-sponsored circulation of Mere Christianity.
In total, the government unloaded $16,000 on Rauf’s junket to the Middle East and another $10,000 on his book.
The reckless spending of tax dollars aside, the Obama White House was elated to give its blessing to an imam who won’t condemn Hamas, argues that the U.S. is worse than al-Qaeda, and encourages the implementation of Sharia law right here in America.
A State spokeswoman told HUMAN EVENTS that Feisal is “an American Muslim voice to the Middle East.”
It's not hard to figure out why some people are confused about Obama's religious affiliation.
Barry Hussein Obama claims to be a Christian, but doesn't act like one. He claims not to be Islamic, but he does act like one.
WE WANT A DIVORCE
DIVORCE AGREEMENT; THIS IS SO INCREDIBLY WELL PUT AND I CAN HARDLY BELIEVE IT'S BY A YOUNG PERSON, A STUDENT!!! WHATEVER HE RUNS FOR, I'LL VOTE FOR HIM.
Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al: We have stuck together since the late 1950's for the sake of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course.
Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all, so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.
Here is a model separation agreement:
--Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.
--We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them.
--You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.
--Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military.
--We'll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and you can go with wind, solar and bio-diesel.
--You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell. You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them.
--We'll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street.
--You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps, homeless, homeboys, hippies, druggies and illegal aliens.
--We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks.
--We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood .
--You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us.
--You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.
--We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.
--You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N. but we will no longer be paying the bill.
--We'll keep the SUV's, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Volt and Leaf you can find.
--You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors.
--We'll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right.
--We'll keep "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and "The National Anthem."
--I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute "Imagine", "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing", or "We Are the World".
--We'll practice trickle down economics and you can continue to give trickle up poverty your best shot.
--Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.
Would you agree to this? If so, please share it with other like-minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you answer which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.
Sincerely,
John J. Wall
Law Student and an American
P.S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin Sheen, Barbara Streisand, & Jane Fonda with you.
P.S.S. And you won't have to press 1 for English when you call our country.