Reckless Hope

Karl Rove Tries To Convince Donors He’s Not The GOP’s Solyndra 

Rove told Fox that Obama won by “suppressing the vote.” Not by, say, imposing voting restrictions that disproportionately affect certain demographics, but by running mean ads about Bain Capital. And while Rove did the best he could (“The first group to respond to attacks on Bain was American Crossroads”)

Let me get this straight…so we somehow suppressed the vote by highlighting that Romney attacked the auto bailout, called 47% of Americans degenerates, and questioned his record at Bain, which ultimately drove Republicans, Undecideds, and moderate democrats to exercise their right to participate in the electoral process by casting a ballot for the guy that Rove and a bunch of billionaires didn’t want people to vote for? Well, I guess we really did suppress the vote…if that means we informed and organized the electorate to turn out in vast numbers to vote against billionaires and idiotic lies, then yep…I’d say that’s precisely what we did.

On a positive note, under president Obama, we’ve increased funding for community colleges something “the architect” may want to look into as he looks for a new line of work. 

Well, he was kind enough to defend Bain, maybe someone over there will throw him a bone. 

You finally got what you deserve and you are finally going to be seen for the political hack that you are. Good luck Mr. Rove!

“There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…these are people who pay no income tax…”

Here is what you don’t get Mitt:

Government involvement does not simply equate to entitlements, or handouts, or any other term used to cast a broad net over any and all taxpayer funded program.

First, lets gets some basic facts out of the way.

Entitlement transfers to individuals have increased by more than 700 percent over the last 50 years. So yes, both parties are responsible, but this spending has actually increased faster under Republican administrations than Democratic ones.

Some sensible conclusions to be drawn from these facts:

The welfare state is growing at an unsustainable rate. Billions are siphoned off by our enormously bloated defense budget. Spending on senior citizens continues to skyrocket while investments in America’s young families, and educating future generations has been on the decline.

Yet, these are not the sensible arguments Mitt Romney made during a closed-door fundraiser earlier this year. The standard bearer for the Republican brand has effectively divided the nation into two groups: the makers and the takers. If anyone is guilty of engaging in class warfare, it’s the man that just dropped the atom bomb.

Moreover, Mr. Romney’s comments suggest that he doesn’t know much about the nation that he hopes to govern. Who are these government freeloaders—this 47 percent who believes they are victims? Is it the Iraq war veteran that goes to the V.A., or the college student that applies for a loan? Maybe its all those senior citizens that rely on Medicare after a lifetime in the labor force.

His comments suggest that he doesn’t understand our nation’s culture, or history. America’s welfare state has expanded. Still, America remains one of the hardest working nations on earth. Americans work longer hours, take fewer vacation’s, and retire later in life than nearly anyone else. And Americans overwhelmingly believe that hard work is the key to success.

Mitt Romney believes his comments are directed at the 10 percent of undecided voters in the middle. Again, Romney’s beliefs show a gross misunderstanding off American political culture. The people who actually receive the lion’s share of government spending are not big government lovers. They are Republicans! They are senior citizens, and middle-class white men with high school degrees. The people who have benefited the most from government entitlements are middle-class workers, not the dependent poor Obama supporters that Mr. Romney would like you to believe are the beneficiaries.

If Ronald Reagan were still alive today, he would be accused of being a socialist. I say this because Mitt Romney, and the Republican brand have lost all sense of the social compact. A notion embraced by President Reagan and the Republican Party in 1987 when 62 percent of Republicans believed that government has a responsibility to provide a safety net for those who suffer for no fault of their own.

Finally, Romney’s remarks suggest that he knows absolutely nothing about ambition and motivation. According to his formula, people who are forced to make it on their own without any help whatsoever have drive. People who receive help have dependency.

This is absolutely ludicrous. No parent believes that they should deprive their children of benefits so they can learn to struggle on their own. Most parents try to shower their children with benefits so they have the opportunity to succeed, to do better than they did.

It is no mystery that people are motivated when they feel competent. They feel competent when provided with opportunities that result in success. Not when they are deprived of those opportunities. So you are wrong Mr. Romney, and you don’t have the slightest clue who the American people are.

The incumbent advantage is a concept used by political analysts to describe the inherent benefits associated with those seeking re-election. It is a concept that also relates to career politicians. For example in the 112^th Congress, the average congressman has been in office for 9.8 years; the average senator has served 11.4 years. Clearly, there are some advantages to not being the new guy.

Like all politicians present and past, President Obama has the unique ability to meld his national mission, as the current president, with his candidacy to remain in that position. Prior to George H. W. Bush and Jimmy Carter, there had not been a president that sought re-election and lost in over forty years.

One of the greatest advantages comes from an Incumbent President’s ability to define the debate for his own re-election. While the opposition can talk about the economy, foreign affairs, domestic policy, and basically what they would do if elected, the current President can actually implement policy. In the eyes of the voter, actions speak louder than words.

George H.W. Bush lost his campaign for re-election in 1992 because he failed to define the debate on his own terms. Bush senior successfully organized a U.N.-authorized coalition force of 34 nations against Iraq in response to Saddam Hussein’s invasion and subsequent annexation of Kuwait. The first Gulf War ended in a decisive victory for coalition forces that liberated Kuwait and advanced into Iraqi territory forcing a cease-fire only 100 hours after the campaign had begun. Yet, despite a successful foreign policy record, a little known Governor from Arkansas was able to capitalize on the infamous phrase: “Read my lips: no new taxes,” spoken by candidate George H.W. Bush at the 1988 Republican National Convention. Once President, Bush signed the notorious Budget enforcement Act of 1990, otherwise known as PAYGO in an attempt to reduce deficit spending. Democratic nominee Bill Clinton pointed to the famous quote and subsequent legislation as evidence of Bush’s untrustworthiness. Thus, Clinton re-defined the debate. He put Bush on the defense and forced him to discuss a campaign promise made four years earlier rather than allowing him to campaign on his achievements as President.

Oppositely, George W. Bush did not win re-election because American’s overwhelmingly supported his presidency; his 2004 victory can be attributed to successfully shaping his re-election bid around the nation’s “War on Terror.” He used voter fear of another terrorist attack combined with portraying John Kerry’s war record as unpatriotic to gain re-election.

In the summer of 2004 Bush was trailing Kerry by an average of 5 points in most national polls. Kerry’s poll numbers peaked in August; precisely the same time that the Bush campaign released a major media blitz, the notorious “swiftboat ads.” Kerry’s poll numbers steadily declined as Election Day approached. Ultimately, Bush won because he re-defined the issue and framed it around Kerry’s war record. While the ad’s claims were false and even Republican supporters like John McCain denounced them, the tactic paid off for Bush.

Thus, President Obama is running with a large historical advantage that he is well aware of. Candidate Obama has an unprecedented ability to raise vast sums of money and gather enormous crowds on any given day. President Obama can strategically implement policies that allow him to define the debate on his terms. That is something that the opposition is incapable of. Also, given that the election is less than a year off, and the two Republican frontrunners have some major issues in terms of appealing to a majority of voters, let alone the majority of their own party, leaves Mr. Obama with a sizable advantage

Finally, in a prelude to my analysis of the current opposition in light of the incumbent advantage, consider the following: in 2008, Barack Obama beat John McCain in the Electoral College by a tally of 365-173. Now fast-forward to Election Day 2012, if Mr. Obama loses Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, Indiana, and New Mexico, 95 electoral votes from states he carried in 2008, he would still win!

He would be right at that magic number of 270 votes, but he’d win. Yet, since he won New Mexico in 2008 by 7.3 points; Nevada by 6.5; and Colorado by 5.5, he is giving the opposition an enormous hill to climb.