This blog continues the discussion we began with Epic Journey: The 2008 Elections and American Politics (Rowman and Littlefield, 2009).The next book in this series is The Comeback: the 2024 Elections and American Politics (Bloomsbury, 2025).
KROFT: I'm not saying this as fact, and hindsight is always 20-20. But there's [a] general perception that the stimulus was not enough. That it really didn't work. That...
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Let me stop you there, Steve. First of all, there's not general perception that the stimulus didn't work.
On balance, a majority of Americans (62%) believe that the stimulus bills that Congress has approved in recent years have ‘just created debt’ (as opposed to helped the economy), but there is a strong division here by party:
Democrats are equally divided on the issue, with 44% believing it has helped the economy, and 45% that it has created debts
The vast majority of Republicans, on the other hand, believe the stimulus bills have created debt (82%).
Mitt Romney, the millionaire who has tried again and again to try to show voters that he’s just another everyday Joe, may have given his GOP rivals and President Obama a gold-plated gift in Saturday’s debate in Iowa.
While sparring with Rick Perry over healthcare at the debate in Des Moines, Romney challenged Perry to a wager. The stakes? A cool 10 grand.
That’s not exactly your typical bar bet.
Perry had accused Romney of altering a paperback version of his book to delete a line that had Romney wanting to make his Massachusetts healthcare plan a model for the rest of the nation, suggesting that Romney is a champion of an individual mandate to force people to purchase health insurance.
Romney said that wasn’t true.
“I'll tell you what. 10,000 bucks? Ten-thousand-dollar bet?” Romney said.
“I’m not in the betting business,” Perry replied.
Romney, who likes to talk about his work creating jobs as a venture capitalist in the private sector, is estimated to be worth between $190 million and $250 million.
Gingrich’s debate strategy became, of necessity, his campaign strategy. He would not attack his fellow Republican candidates, directing his criticism instead at President Obama and the press. It proved a remarkably effective political gambit. The debate crowds were far more raucously partisan than in the past, a fact that Gingrich immediately sensed, and exploited. “You’ve got these media guys, and behind them are 2,000 right--wingers who are waiting to beat them up.”
Ever the analyst, Gingrich recites the key moments of his comeback, locating them within the long string of debates. The first, and perhaps most important, came in Iowa in August, during an event hosted by Fox News and The Washington Examiner. Gingrich arrived mired deep in the lower tier. When Fox News anchor Bret Baier opened the evening by encouraging the contestants to “put away their talking points” and prepare for a substantive discussion of issues, Gingrich noted Baier’s words and waited. His chance came when Fox’s Chris Wallace asked him, “How do you respond to people who say that your campaign has been a mess so far?”
Gingrich blasted Wallace for “playing Mickey Mouse games,” and the audience roared its approval. (Gingrich notes that he got lucky by getting the question from Wallace, “because he may be the most disliked person on Fox.”)
In the Washington meeting with Newsweek, Gingrich asked, “Did you see my speech last night? I think it’s on -C-Span. You really ought to get a copy of it.” In the speech, he said that when the Wright brothers were experimenting with the first airplane, they’d bring extra wood along for repairs, because they knew there would be lots of crashes along the way. That, he says, is how a Gingrich administration would approach an intractable problem like poverty. “So, we’re gonna help the poor?” he asks. “Truth is, we don’t know how to help the poor. We’re gonna experiment and experiment and experiment until we break through.” That may not please the ear of a small--government conservative, but it is the essential Gingrich. “It makes me, in some ways, like the two Roosevelts,” he says.
Gingrich, who is already thinking beyond the presidential election, says that his larger project is the creation of a “new majority,” which will derive partly from the conservative movement, but “will be much bigger.”
“You take brain science, you take personal and Social Security savings accounts, you take offering the poor the opportunity to work and have a paycheck instead of food stamps, you take Lean Six Sigma”—a management-efficiency doctrine, his latest fascination—“and suddenly you have a Gestalt that is in many ways conservative, but in many ways very moderate.”
A "super PAC" backing Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney launched the most expensive ad campaign in the GOP primary to date with a 30-second spot touting Romney’s record.
Restore Our Future, a committee formed by several former Romney aides, including Republican operative Carl Forti, will spend $3.1 million airing pro-Romney ads in Iowa, the group announced on Thursday.
...
To put the $3.1 million in perspective, Barack Obama spent $9 million on paid media in Iowa during his campaign for the Democratic nomination. Hillary Rodham Clinton spent $7.2 million, and John Edwards spent $3.2 million, according to tabulations by CNN.
But the ad now links to a site run by the group: newtfacts.com. Officials with the group said the site going live would be an indication that the ad has begun running.
According to officials at the group, which is run by former associates of Mr. Romney, the ad was not “finished” when it was released on Thursday. That caused some to speculate that it had been released only briefly to generate news coverage.
But for maximum impact in Iowa, where voters will gather to caucus on Jan. 3, the group had to pay to air it on television. It is unclear how much money the group is spending on that ad alone.
One non-issue in the campaign so far is Newt Gingrich's age. On Election Day 2012, he will be 69 years old, the same age as Ronald Reagan in 1980. Though there was some talk of Reagan's age in 1980 --and a great deal of talk about McCain's age four years ago -- Gingrich's senior status has gotten scant attention. The Pew Research Center reports:
By all appearances, Gingrich is healthy and vigorous. But there are other reasons why age may end up being less of an issue for the soon-to-be septuagenarian. For one thing, he would not be breaking any age barriers. In 1984, Reagan had to overcome the stigma of being the oldest presidential candidate in the nation’s history. Dole and McCain had the unwelcome distinction of being the oldest to run for a first term. Gingrich’s age also does not particularly distinguish him from current GOP candidates. At 64, Mitt Romney is only four years younger than Gingrich; at 76, Ron Paul is eight years older.
Moreover, the population itself is aging. The fastest-growing segment of the population over the past decade, according to the latest Census, is people age 45 to 62. The next fastest growing segment? Those 62 and older.
The Republican base also is getting older. A 2009 analysis of party identification trends by the Pew Research Center found that the percentage of all Republicans who are 50 and older increased by 10 points – from 36% to 46% – between 1990 and 2009; the percentage of Democrats 50 and older held steady over this period (44% in 2009).
...
Even in a general election against Barack Obama, who will turn 51 in August, it is hard to imagine Gingrich’s age making much difference. Certainly, to young adults, Gingrich might seem old in comparison to Obama. A 2009 report by the Pew Research Center’s Social and Demographic Trends Project found that more than half of those under 30 say the average person becomes old even before turning 60. But that view is not shared by older age groups: For those in their 30s and 40s the mean age at which someone becomes “old” is 69. It is even higher –in the early 70s – for those in their 50s or older.
Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies (Crossroads GPS) today released a new round of TV ads focused on the economy, jobs, wasteful stimulus spending and government regulations in four key states.
The new buys will run for two weeks and total nearly $1.1 million across the five states on broadcast TV and with targeted internet placements. Ads begin running today in Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, and Nebraska.
...
This latest Crossroads GPS initiative comes one day after the launch of a new ad targeting liberal U.S. Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-Iowa). Crossroads GPS has invested nearly $20 million on issue advocacy in 2011.
The Missouri spot accuses Sen. Claire McCaskill and the president of "reckless spending," the Montana spot highlights Sen. John Tester's support of Obama's stimulus and health care plans and the Nebraska ad accuses Sen. Ben Nelson of selling out to the president during the health care negotiations.
"He demanded a pay-off, accused of selling his vote, cynical what's in it for me type politics," the ad in Nebraska says. "Look at the damage he did- higher taxes, cutting Medicare spending and embarrassing Nebraska. Ben Nelson sold out to Obama when it mattered most."
The commercial targeting Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts ties the former consumer protection advocate in the Obama administration to the bank bailout and "bigger government."
...
Nonpartisan political handicapper Charlie Cook lists the four Senate races as "toss up." Stuart Rothenberg lists the races in Massachusetts, Missouri and Montana as "toss up" and the race in Nebraska as "toss up/tilt Republican." Nelson, the Nebraska incumbent, has yet to decide if he will run for reelection in 2012.
The first case involved a leadership PAC affiliated with Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah). Leadership PACs are affiliated with candidates or officeholders, and gather donations that are, in turn, contributed to other candidates. So while Lee could not receive any of his PAC’s funds, he could direct that money to the campaigns of allied candidates.
Lee’s leadership PAC seized on this distinction, and asked the FEC whether it could raise unlimited contributions for use in IEs. Lee’s camp argued that IEs don’t give funds directly to candidates’ campaigns so they can’t be corrupting. Why should it matter, the Lee camp’s thinking goes, if the funds went to a leadership PAC? They still couldn’t be used for any of Lee’s election activity, and so they couldn’t corrupt him or anyone else.
The FEC disagreed—in a unanimous vote. And because a federal statute was directly on point, capping contributions not only to federal candidates but also their agents and any affiliated entities, the commission had little choice.
A technical scuffle broke out over whether such ads were covered “communications,” a debate that is interesting almost exclusively to lawyers. It caused a split decision. Three commissioners viewed these ads as clearly favoring and benefitting candidates, and three viewed them as constitutionally protected attempts to discuss the issues of the day. The end result is, once again, a regulated community left without helpful guidance.
