Southern Baptists cozy up to GOP after pulling back

When it comes to political partisanship in the 2016 presidential race, it might be said that Southern Baptists have taken one step forward and two steps back.

The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, the political arm of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), announced in a press release that its president Russell Moore would be interviewing Republican candidates Jeb Bush (live) and Marco Rubio (via video) before 13,000 attendees at the denominations’ missions conference on August 4. Leading candidates from each major party were invited, the release states, but only Rubio and Bush accepted.

But in April, denominational leaders disinvited Republican candidate Ben Carson from speaking at their annual pastor’s conference after a group of young leaders and bloggers decried his invitation. They raised theological concerns because Carson is a Seventh Day Adventist, and said having him speak would send a message of partisanship that could compromise the denomination’s prophetic witness to both parties.

It’s difficult to understand how giving Bush and Rubio a voice at this conference is sufficiently different from allowing Carson to speak at the previous one. The Southern Baptist Convention has been a vocal ally of the Republican party in recent years, and this latest move indicates that they are having a difficult time breaking from their past behavior.

Given Southern Baptists’ strong support of Republican candidates in years past, many were surprised by the criticism to Carson’s invitation this past Spring. The denominations’ gatherings throughout the ‘90s and 2000’s often featured appearances or video messages from Republican politicians and even presidents. But times have changed, and some younger voices in the denomination seem to have less tolerance for using the denomination pulpit for politicking.

“Younger Southern Baptists…are less likely to be enthusiastic about a pastors’ conference lineup that may, in some way, communicate unity around a political platform rather than the gospel of Jesus,” Baptist blogger Trevin Wax wrote after Carson was removed from the program.

Wax added that “Younger Southern Baptists fear that a display of partisanship will sacrifice the meeting’s ability to be a prophetic voice in relation to both parties.”

After it was initially announced that Carson would be speaking, a group of young voices on the “Baptist21” blog led the movement opposing the invitation. They did not mince words: “Our suggestion is that we believe it would be prudent for future SBC leaders to stop inviting politicians to our meetings. Period.”

But were they really offering a period or was it more of an asterisk? Those bloggers have remained mum following the latest announcement that Moore, a figure these young Baptists consistently celebrate, would be doing the very thing they claimed would “mute our voice in this culture” and compromise their ability to “keep a prophetic voice with both parties.” (The original post at the “Baptist21” blog is not currently live, but it has been widely cited elsewhere.)

In conversations with multiple denominational employees, all said they felt varying degrees of discomfort with the decision to host Bush and Rubio but cited an unspoken policy against criticizing other denominational agencies and declined to comment publicly.

Via: Religious News

Continue Reading.....

Lies, Damn Lies and John Kerry

Benjamin NetanyahuVerified account‏@netanyahu

Today: • Khamenei tweeted video calling for Israel's destruction • UN voted to lift sanctions on Iran Says it all. https://youtu.be/cMJinyFFmsw 

Just to bring you up to date in the ongoing efforts of the Obama administration to provide Iran with $150 billion and the ability to make a nuclear weapon. These are developments over the weekend:

Via Washington Examiner

Secretary of State John Kerry deflected bipartisan criticism of the Obama administration’s move to take the Iran nuclear deal to the United Nations before the U.S. Congress has the opportunity to vote on it, saying the U.N. has a right to go first and to suggest otherwise was “presumptuous.”

Obama had previously signed legislation that would give Congress 60 days to review and vote on the deal struck over Iran’s nuclear program. But since agreeing on the deal with the other world powers, the administration has announced its intention to bring the deal to the United Nations first.

Thus, by the time Congress votes, the administration will argue that were the body to reject the deal, they’d be blowing up a U.N.-approved agreement.

What this means is that by the time Congress gets around to voting on the deal, international sanctions on Iran will have been lifted. The only remaining sanctions are those which Obama has the authority to modify. While there remains the theoretical possibility of ‘snap back’ sanctions if Iran breaches the agreement (this, by the way, is virtually certain as they are already in violation of the interim agreement), for this to happen would require an affirmative vote of the UN Security Council. Russia and China are Iran’s allies. Both have veto authority.

One is left to wonder what in the hell Congress is voting on.

It is Bush’s fault.

CNN State of the UnionQUESTION: I’ve spoken to a lot of experts, ones who wanted this deal to be good, who were rooting for you. And they say the best case scenario is that over the next 15 years… the Iranians will be closer to the capacity to build a nuclear weapon… and they’ll have done it all under the guise of international law.
KERRY: … Guess what, my friend: Iran had 12,000 kilograms of highly enriched uranium, and that’s enough if they enriched it further for 10 to 12 bombs. They had it. That’s what Barack Obama was dealt as a hand when he came in: 19,000 centrifuges already spinning; a country that had already mastered the fuel cycle; a country that already was threshold in the sense that they are only two months away from breakout.

Fox News SundayQUESTION: Secretary Moniz… why didn’t [President Obama] keep his pledge to the American people that we would end Iran’s program?
MONIZ: Well, first of all, the issue of Iran having a nuclear program was already established in the previous administration.

My gosh, when will this excuse ever wear out.

When he took office the Iranians had less than 4,000 centrifuges spinning and experts were still arguing over whether they had enough uranium for a bomb. He almost immediately began to reach out to the Iranians with confidence-building measures. They also didn’t have “19,000 centrifuges already spinning” they had 3,936 centrifuges spinning. And they were not 2 months away from breakout but instead were just getting around to stockpiling enough uranium for a single bomb [e].

In short, every thing Kerry and Moniz said was a lie and they knew it was a lie.

The administration is lying about Iran’s break out time.

Fox News Sunday
QUESTION: But the President said in April:
OBAMA: In year 13, 14, 15, they have advanced centrifuges, they can enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero.
QUESTION: That’s not ending the program.
MONIZ: The breakout time, in fact, will not be going to zero at that time.
QUESTION: So the President was –
MONIZ: The – I’m just telling you we have the agreement has – the final agreement has the one-year breakout time securely for 10 years and then there will be a soft landing after that for several years.
QUESTION: Right. So by year 13, 14 it’s –
KERRY: It never, ever goes to zero. Ever.
MONIZ: No, it will never go to zero.

This is balderdash translated into gibberish then blown out of Kerry’s ass. Back in April, the administration said the break out time was two months. Now it is a year. Logic tells you that this can’t be true. Assuming that break out time is a year, it means that Iran will have a nuke within a year because there is no mechanism available to monitor their progress or curb their development.

Anytime-anywhere inspections are dead.

Iran has already said that it will not allow inspections of military nuclear facilities and it will not allow US inspectors on the IAEA teams. Without unannounced inspections we are back to playing a shell game. Kerry is trying to gaslight everyone by claiming there is no such thing as ‘anytime-anywhere’ inspections because that isn’t an official term.

CBS Face the NationKERRY: There’s no such thing in arms control as anytime, anywhere. There isn’t any nation in the world – none – that has an anytime, anywhere.

Fox News SundayKERRY: The fact is that in arms control there is no country anywhere on this planet that has anywhere, anytime. There is no such standard within arms control inspections… we never, ever had a discussion about anywhere, anytime. It’s called managed access. It’s under the IAEA. Everybody understands it.

This is actually a lie. Everyone knows what the term means and the administration has guaranteed Congress that it will have that access.

The arms embargo is dead.

ABC This Week
KERRY: The United Nations resolution which brought about the sanctions in the first place said that if Iran will suspend its enrichment and come to negotiations, all the sanctions would be lifted. Now, they’ve done more than just come to negotiations. They’ve actually negotiated a deal. And three of the seven nations thought they shouldn’t therefore be held to any kind of restraint. We prevailed and insisted, no, they have to be.

CBS Face the Nation
KERRY: … [T]he reason that we were only able to limit them to the five and eight, which is quite extraordinary that we got that, was that three of the nations negotiating thought they shouldn’t have any and were ready to hold out to do that. And we said under no circumstances, we have to have those…

Fox News Sunday
KERRY: This is a nuclear negotiation about a nuclear program. The United Nations, when they passed the resolution, contemplated that if Iran came to the negotiation and they ponied up, all the sanctions would be lifted. We didn’t lift all the sanctions. We left in place despite the fact that three out of seven countries negotiating wanted to do away with them altogether. We won the five years for the arms and eight years for the missiles.

A majority of the negotiators wanted to retain an arms embargo. He refers to seven countries but keep in mind one of those is Iran. The US caved on this. If the US had stood with Britain and France and Germany it would have put Iran in the position of sacrificing everything for the sake of ending the arms embargo.

Summary.

John Kerry is a liar. He’s not a particularly skilled one… I don’t know whether this is good or bad, I rather think it is bad because he practices the skill regularly but never improves. The US position on the Iran negotiations is on our hands and knees squealing like a pig.

Via: Red State

Continue Reading....

Blame It on Global Cooling? Obama Has Lowest Average 1stQ GDP Growth of Any President on Record

 Even if you leave out the first quarter of 2009—when the recession that started in December 2007 was still ongoing--President Barack Obama has presided over the lowest average first-quarter GDP growth of any president who has served since 1947, which is the earliest year for which the Bureau of Economic Analysis has calculated quarterly GDP growth. 

In all first quarters since 1947, the real annual rate of growth of GDP has averaged 4.0 percent.

In the seven first quarters during Obama’s presidency, it has declined by an average of -0.43 percent. And if you leave out the first quarter of 2009 and look only at the first quarters of the six years since the recession ended, it has averaged only 0.4 percent.

In the six years of Harry Truman’s presidency for which the BEA has calculated quarterly GDP, the annual rate of growth in GDP in the first quarter averaged 4.5 percent.

During President Eisenhower’s eight years, it averaged 3.2 percent. During Kennedy’s three years, it averaged 4.9 percent. During Johnson’s five years, it averaged 8.3 percent. During Nixon’s six years, it averaged 5.3 percent. During Ford’s two years, it averaged 2.3 percent. During Carter’s four years, it average 2.4 percent. During Reagan’s eight years, it average 2.1 percent. During George H.W. Bush’s four years, it average 2.9 percent. During Clinton’s eight years, it averaged 2.6 percent. And during George W. Bush’s eight years, it averaged 1.7 percent.

President Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009. In the first quarter of 2009, GDP declined at an annual rate of -5.4 percent. In the first quarter of 2010, it grew by 1.7 percent. In the first quarter of 2011, it declined -1.5 percent. In the first quarter of 2012, it grew 2.3 percent. In the first quarter of 2013, it grew 2.7 percent. In the first quarter of 2014, it declined -2.1 percent. And in the first quarter of 2015, it declined -0.7 percent.

In these seven first quarters that Obama has been president (2009 through 2015), the annual rate of growth in GDP has declined at an average rate of -0.43 percent.

But the National Bureau of Economic Research says the last recession, which began on December 2007 did not end until June 2009. If you leave out the first quarter of 2009, and only count the six years (2010-2015) since the recession ended in June 2009, real annual rate of growth of GDP in the post-recession first quarters of Obama’s presidency has averaged 0.4 percent.

Via: CNS News

Continue Reading....

Large GOP field has party leaders anxious about their chances in ’16

DES MOINES — To take back the White House after eight years in the political wilderness, Republicans think they must soften their image and expand their appeal in particular to women and Latino voters. As Jeb Bush, a leading presidential contender, puts it, “We’re going to win if we show our hearts.”

But the GOP’s strategic imperative is running headlong into its structural reality.

Party officials are growing worried about a wide-open nominating contest likely to feature a historically large and diverse field. At best, they say, the Republican primaries will be a lively showcase of political talent — especially compared with the relative coronation taking shape on the Democratic side. But officials also acknowledge just how risky their circumstance is for a party that hasn’t put on a good show in a long time.

With no clear front-runner and Bush so far unable to consolidate his path to the nomination — his fumbles over the Iraq war and his brother’s legacy further exposed his vulnerabilities — the GOP’s internecine battle could stretch well into the spring of 2016.

This could cost presidential aspirants tens of millions of dollars; pull them far to the right ideologically, from hot-button social issues to foreign policy; and jeopardize their general-election chances. And in such a muddled lineup — officials are planning to squeeze 10 or more contenders onto the debate stage — candidates will be rewarded for finding creative ways to gain notice.

Via: Washington Post

Continue Reading....

O’Reilly, Stossel Pile On ‘Astronomical’ Cost of Obama Trips: ‘This Is the Royal Presidency’

John Stossel and Bill O’Reilly went off Thursday night on exactly how much money is being spent on vacations for the First Family, with Stossel remarking, “This is the royal presidency.” Both men were astounded by the “astronomical” cost of travel alone for presidential trips, though Stossel mockingly suggested the plane cost is so high because “they have to be in constant communication if they want to declare nuclear war.”

Stossel did not that it’s “no worse than Bush or Clinton,” but he and O’Reilly still found the high cost outrageous, and Stossel detected some hypocrisy in how the government spends money.

“What upsets me more is when they were stopping White House tours ‘cause they said sequester was so awful, Sasha and Malia did spring break on Paradise Island in the Bahamas with Secret Service.”

O’Reilly also noted how taxpayers are, in essence, paying for trips President Obama takes when he goes to do fundraisers.

Via: Mediaite.com

Continue Reading.....

Rothman: NBC News State of the Union Coverage Identical to MSNBC

There was a time when there was a cleardistinction between NBC News and MSNBC. While MSNBC’s editorial slant was obvious, NBC News made an effort to ensure that its news coverage remained neutral enough so that they did not alienate non-liberal viewers. That distinction is seemingly gone.

During Brian Williams’ Tuesday night State of the Union Address coverage for NBC Nightly News, reporters Chuck Todd and Andrea Mitchellmade no effort to broadcast neutral commentary. Instead, they echoed themes that had previously been broadcast on MSNBC, only to a much larger audience.

Discussing the importance of the State of the Union, Mitchell took the opportunity of this coverage to repeat a dubious and unambiguously offensive assertion she had made earlier in the day on her own MSNBC show.

“One quick historic note,” she allowed herself. “It was the State of the Union back in 2002 whenGeorge W. Bush said those three little words, ‘Axis of Evil,’ including Iran, which was aligned against us with the Taliban and that blew up any hope of diplomacy with Iran until now.”

Disregard the fact that Mitchell seeks to conflate Iran’s post-9/11 risk-mitigating behavior as the equivalence of an alliance; or that Mitchell seems content to take the word of the administration that the White House’s push for diplomacy today is fruitful in spite Iranian officials’ statements to the contrary; or the fact that the administration has refused to release the text of a supposed breakthrough deal.

Even overlooking these points, Mitchell might have shown some respect for the hundreds of Americans killed as a result of Iranian-sponsored terrorism from 1979 – 2002 in her tenacious effort to litigate a 12-year-old political gripe.

RELATED: Andrea Mitchell: ‘Iran Was More or Less an American Ally’ Before Bush’s ‘Axis of Evil’ Remark

Moving on, NBC News’ chief White House correspondent Todd lamented a lack of dignity shown by Republicans who invited Duck Dynasty star Willie Robertson to the event.

“Three years ago after the shooting with Gabby Giffords, and for a couple State of the Unions in a row, everybody found a bipartisan date,” he recalled. “There was more of a dignified feeling about the guests you would invite. Boy, you can tell things are a lot different now when you’re inviting Duck Dynasty stars.”

Never mind that, as National Review’s Kevin Williamson scathingly observed, the pomp surrounding the State of the Union presently has all the dignity of walking backwards out of the queen’s chambers and is unbecoming of a republican government. For Todd, it is the invitation of a reality show star –- a conservative one at that -– to the sacred House chamber that has sapped dignity from this event.

Judging from this two-minute segment, the distinction between MSNBC and NBC News that was once self-evident has seemingly vanished. It makes you wonder how long it will take for NBC executives to recognize the redundancy and simply consolidate the two entities.

Via: Mediaite.com

Continue Reading.....

Dem Rep. Jumps Out of Chair, Explodes at GOP’ers During Obamacare Hearing

Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) rose from his seat on Tuesday during a congressional hearing into the Affordable Care Act’s problematic roll-out. He accused his Republican colleagues in the House of dishonestly seeking to identify the problems with the ACA because they would prefer to see it repealed entirely. 

Pascrell began by insisting that, even though Democrats opposed Medicare Part D in the Bush Era, they worked to make sure that the program was a success.

He became animated as he said that Democrats put aside their opposition to Bush in order to make a policy objective work for the good of the American public. “And how many of you stood up to do that,” Pascrell said exploding out of his chair. “None. Zero.”

“What are you going to do about the approximately 17 million children with preexisting conditions who can no longer be denied health insurance coverage,” Pascrell asked his Republican colleagues. “We want to go back and want to say you are no longer covered any longer. Are you going to tell the parents of those kids?”

Pascrell blew up at Rep. Tim Griffin (R-AR) who insisted that the GOP has put forward a number of proposals to ensure that low-income people in need of care receive it.

“Are you really serious?” Pascrell shot back. “After what we’ve gone through and what we’ve gone through in the last three and a half years?”

“We’ve gone through 44 votes, 48 votes now of you trying to dismantle the legislation,” he concluded. “You call that cooperation?”

Watch the clip below via C-SPAN 3:

Via: Mediaite.com

Continue Reading.....

OBAMA PRIVATELY TOUTS SEQUESTER AFTER DENYING RESPONSIBILITY IN DEBATE

At Monday's third presidential debate, President Obama pointedly promised that sequestered budget cuts that will affect defense spending "will not happen." 

OBAMA: First of all, the sequester is not something that I've proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed. It will not happen. [emphasis added]

The next morning, in an off-the-record interview with the editors of the Des Moines Register, President Obama reversed course, taking credit for a sequester that he anticipates will be "in place.":

OBAMA: "So when you combine the Bush tax cuts expiring, the sequester in place, the commitment of both myself and my opponent -- at least Governor Romney claims that he wants to reduce the deficit -- but we’re going to be in a position where I believe in the first six months we are going to solve that big piece of business." [emphasis added]

After loud complaints from new and mainstream media alike, the transcript of the President's interview with the Des Moines Register was made public today. Since these comments on the sequester represented a complete reversal of the position he took at the debate less than 24 hours earlier, it's easy to understand why the President's campaign initially wanted to keep them off the record.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading...

Charles Krauthammer on the Third Presidential Debate: “It’s Unequivocal Mitt Romney Won”

Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer reacted to the third presidential debate at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida. He said, “I think it’s unequivocal Mitt Romney won.”

Krauthammer told Megyn Kelly on Fox News that Romney won both tactically and strategically. He assessed that Romney had to show the American people that he was someone they can trust as commander in chief.

During the debate, he said, “Romney went large. Obama went very, very small – shockingly small. Romney made a strategic decision not to go after president on Libya or Syria or other areas where Obama could accuse him of being a Bush-like war monger.”

---

Off-Topic: Bob Schieffer Tries to Veer Foreign Policy Conversation Back From … Everything But

DEBATE QUOTE: “Horses and Bayonets” at the Debate

Mitt Romney to Obama: Attacking Me Is Not an Agenda

Mitt Romney: We Can’t Kill Our Way Out of This Mess

Follow Fox News Insider, the official blog of Fox News Channel on Twitter and Google+!

---

The highest point for Romney, Krauthammer identified as the point when he “devastatingly leveled the charge of Obama going around the world on an apology tour.”

Via: Fox News Insider

Continue Reading...

When desperation strikes incumbents

It’s been a while since we’ve had an incumbent President lose an election.  In fact, it was 20 years ago, when George H. W. Bush lost in a three-way fight to Bill Clinton.  What made that election remarkable was that Bush had enjoyed some of the best-ever job approval ratings of any modern American President just a little over a year earlier, into the 80s — unthinkable these days for anyone, Republican or Democrat.  Bush, a decorated veteran of World War II and a longtime player in diplomacy and national security, lost the election to an upstart Governor when the economy turned somewhat sour.

I recall the moment when I realized for the first time — not feared, but realized — that Bush would lose the election.  Bush was campaigning in Michigan at the end of October, trying to whip some energy back into his campaign in the home stretch, a task that would fall far short just a few days later.  Then-Governor John Engler told the Warren, MI crowd that the Bush campaign was “hot” and the Democrats “dead in the water,” which was merely the kind of fantasy all campaigns spin toward the end.

Bush then spoke, and went after Clinton and Al Gore in a personal, demeaning wayI’d not heard from the President before then:

At a midday GOP rally at Macomb Community College, the president unleashed a rhetorical fusillade on Bill Clinton and running mate Sen. Albert Gore Jr., attacking their fitness for office, their character and charging, “My dog Millie knows more about foreign policy than these two bozos.”

In particular, Bush targeted Gore, whom he now calls “Ozone Man,” or just plain “Ozone.” “You know why I call him Ozone Man?” Bush said. “This guy is so far out in the environmental extreme, we’ll be up to our neck in owls and outta work for every American. He is way out, far out, man.”

When I heard that, I thought to myself, “What President talks like that?”  Part of the advantage the office gives an incumbent is its gravitas.  Bush’s own history as a diplomat, intelligence executive, and war hero gave him plenty more of that.  Bush abandoned that in the final week in schoolyard name-calling. That’s not why Bush lost the election, of course.  It was, however, the moment that I knew he’d lost it — and was pretty sure he knew he was losing, too.

Via: Hot Air

Continue Reading...

Third debate could be dated before it’s over

President Obama and former Governor Mitt Romney will meet for the third and final presidential debate Monday night to discuss foreign policy. It is a broad topic that was sidelined in the first debate on domestic issues and engendered only one question at the candidate's subsequent tete-a-tete, a town-hall meeting.

At last, we will hear the candidates' uninterrupted views on America's security. The debate's topics have already been disclosed by moderator Bob Schieffer. They include the usual cast of ominous characters: the long war in Afghanistan, the red lines of Iran and Israel, the rising power of China, and the changing Middle East. Another query, on ”America's role in the world,” could be a softball or a snoozer, but might also be quite revealing.

Nonetheless, the night may not be greeted with the rapt attention that attended the other two. The foreign policy debate is fighting an uphill battle for relevance not only because of the condition of our economy, the fight over our taxes, and the looming fiscal cliff. It is because, for those who remember other recent debates on international affairs, the gap between what was asked and what the winning candidate actually faced as president has been wide.

A candidate's policy towards Iran, Afghanistan, or China will have to share center stage with the unpredicted, the incidental, and the utterly dramatic once he becomes president or wins a second term. The stylized theatrics of a debate stand in sharp contrast to the randomness of the world.

”I am not going to make unilateral cuts in our strategic defense systems or support some freeze when they 1 / 8the Soviet Union 3 / 8 have superiority. I'm not going to do that, because I think the jury is still out on the Soviet experiment,” Vice President George H. W. Bush stated on Sep. 25, 1988, when he faced Governor Michael Dukakis. The jury would soon rule; the Berlin Wall fell just over a year later. Eastern Europeans realized they were being governed by a spent ideology and weak captor. The Soviet empire would dissolve by the end of Bush's presidency. Strategic defense debates were replaced by diplomatic challenges in a new, open Europe.

Via: Heraldonline.com

Continue Reading...

Read more here: http://www.heraldonline.com/2012/10/20/4351191/third-debate-could-be-dated-before.html#storylink=cpy

Administration can't get its story straight on taxes

President Obama says he will raise taxes on "the rich" at year's end - even though his vice president contradicted him during the debate.

Reuters:

The Obama administration said on Friday it has not changed its stance on letting tax rates rise at year-end for high-income Americans, despite comments from Vice President Joe Biden in Thursday night's debate that seemed to suggest a shift.

"Our position on the Bush tax cuts has not changed," White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters on Friday, referring to the expiration in 2013 of tax cuts enacted a decade ago under Republican President George W. Bush.

President Barack Obama, a Democrat, favors letting the Bush-era rates expire for families making $250,000 or more. For these taxpayers, income above that level would be taxed at 36 percent and then, if their income reaches another threshold, at 39.6 percent under the Obama plan. That income is now taxed at 33 percent and 35 percent under the Bush-era rates.

Biden said in the debate that tax cuts could sunset for taxpayers making $1 million or more a year.

Describing the administration's tax plan, Biden said: "The middle class will pay less and people making a million dollars or more will begin to contribute slightly more."

"Just let taxes expire like they are supposed to on those millionaires," Biden said later in the debate.

"We can't afford $800 billion going to people who (are) making a minimum of $1 million," he said.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading... 

Weekly Standard: The $4.351 Trillion Difference Between Obama & Clinton

Always looking "forward," President Obama has asked Bill Clinton—who was elected to the presidency 20 years ago—to speak tonight and suggest to the American people (whether explicitly or implicitly) that this is really a choice between Clinton and George W. Bush, rather than between Obama and Mitt Romney. If you're Obama, this beats running on your record.

The only problem with this—in addition to the fact that Romney isn't Bush (and Paul Ryan isn't Dick Cheney)—is that Obama's record doesn't bear much resemblance to Clinton's.  One could point to the rather obvious differences between the strong Clinton economy and the anemic Obama economy, between Clinton's signing welfare reform into law and Obama's undermining it via executive order, between Clinton's tacking to the center to work with Republicans and Obama's not moving to the center but playing to his base (rejecting the Keystone Pipeline, embracing gay marriage, making it illegal for Americans to offer or to choose health plans that don't include "free" birth control, "free" sterilization, and "free" access to the abortion drug ella).

But one thing perhaps highlights the difference between Clinton and Obama most clearly: The increase in the national debt on their respective watches. Both men enjoyed two years of single-party control in Washington before they subsequently lost one (Obama) or both (Clinton) houses of Congress.  In this way, their circumstances have been similar, but their results have not.

Via: Weekly Standard

Continue Reading....

Dissatisfaction with Obama Isn't Enough

"Throw the bums out," the vernacular for incumbent fatigue, is the emotional response to the analytical dissatisfaction with the status quo.  Yet a bum can survive if a challenger can't promise a compelling vision of the new order.

Obama understands how this calculus of organization change applies to his re-election.  He knows that this election is a referendum on his record, his stewardship of the resources under his command, and how well he mitigated inherited messes.  Obama has been a failure on all three counts.  No, he has been spectacularly dreadful -- his record, stewardship, and mitigation -- leaving a legacy of despair and divisiveness. 

Thus, Obama loses the referendum.  And he knows it.

It is no surprise, then, that Obama's campaign has been devoted to framing Mitt Romney -- and Paul Ryan -- as unfit to lead the nation.  Nullification of Romney/Ryan legitimacy denies the challengers' standing to present a compelling vision of their new order.  Students of organizational behavior know that resistance against or invitation to change is a function of how well a compelling vision of the new order can be asserted and be convincing enough to outweigh the risks of dumping the status quo.

This simple mathematical formula -- (f) R = D+V (rough symbolism) -- is far from novel or profound.  Barack Obama beat John McCain because of Bush fatigue and Obama's compelling vision as the messiah.  Likewise, the 2010 Tea Party sweeps in the U.S. House and in state capitols reflected the deep unhappiness with the tax-and-spend, recklessly irresponsible fiscal policies of the Democrats.  And compelling new faces such as Marco Rubio and Scott Walker provided the vision for the safe bet in rejecting the status quo.

Of course, a few 2010 candidates failed miserably in presenting a compelling -- indeed, competent -- vision of the new order.  To wit: Christine O'Donnell in Maryland and Sharron Angle in Nevada.  Thus, resistance to change triumphed in some cases.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading...

The Lost Decade of the Middle Class

CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW

As the 2012 presidential candidates prepare their closing arguments to America’s middle class, they are courting a group that has endured a lost decade for economic well-being. Since 2000, the middle class has shrunk in size, fallen backward in income and wealth, and shed some—but by no means all—of its characteristic faith in the future.

These stark assessments are based on findings from a new nationally representative Pew Research Center survey that includes 1,287 adults who describe themselves as middle class, supplemented by the Center’s analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau and Federal Reserve Board of Governors.

Fully 85% of self-described middle-class adults say it is more difficult now than it was a decade ago for middle-class people to maintain their standard of living. Of those who feel this way, 62% say “a lot” of the blame lies with Congress, while 54% say the same about banks and financial institutions, 47% about large corporations, 44% about the Bush administration, 39% about foreign competition and 34% about the Obama administration. Just 8% blame the middle class itself a lot.

Their downbeat take on their economic situation comes at the end of a decade in which, for the first time since the end of World War II, mean family incomes declined for Americans in all income tiers. But the middle-income tier—defined in this Pew Research analysis as all adults whose annual household income is two-thirds to double the national

Via: Pew Research Center

Continue Reading...