Michele Bachmann Predicts Republican Victory in California Presidential Vote

I'm still not convinced, but Obama's losing his base even in the Golden State, so we'll see.

At LAT: "Bachmann predicts a GOP win in California in 2012."

Speaker John Boehner Speech at the Economic Club of Washington

At New York Times, "Boehner, in Washington Speech, Reaffirms No-Tax-Increase Position."

After New York Race, G.O.P. Sees Ripple in Jewish Vote

Now get this, at New York Times:

WASHINGTON — Not since Jimmy Carter in 1980 has a Democrat running for president failed to win a lopsided majority of the Jewish vote. This has been true during times of peace or war, and even when there has been deep acrimony between the White House and the Israeli government.

Republicans see a chance to change that in 2012, with President Obama locked in a tense relationship with Israel’s leaders and criticized by many American Jews as being too tough on a close and favored ally. Tuesday’s Republican upset in New York’s Congressional election, they say, is a sign of bad things to come for Mr. Obama.

Sensing trouble, the Obama campaign and Democratic Party leaders have mobilized to solidify the president’s standing with Jewish voters. The Democratic National Committee has established a Jewish outreach program. The campaign is singling out Jewish groups, donors and other supporters with calls and e-mails to counter the Republican narrative that Mr. Obama is hostile to Israel.

More at the link.

And from the editors, who aren't please by developments, natch: "Israel and New York’s Ninth District."

Democrat Hopes Collapse Following Turner Win in New York Special Election

I've used the 1992 comparison previously. George H.W. Bush was defeated for reelection just 22 months after having record approval ratings of near 90 percent. With last night's breathtaking GOP win in NY-9, the left's utter freak out over 2012 has now hit gale force.

There's lots of stuff on this. See Caitlin Huey-Burns, at RealClearPolitics, "GOP Scores Major Upset in NY-9." Also David Seifman at New York Post, "Disaster looms for O in 2012" (via Memeorandum), and Peter Wehner at Commentary, "Panic, Then Rage Ahead for Democrats."

And at Politico, "Dems schvitzing over NY-9 results," and "Twin defeats spark Democratic fears."

BONUS: From Andrew Breitbart, "After Turner Earthquake in Weiner District, Democrats’ Civil War Against Obama Begins."

Michele Bachmann Slams HPV Vaccine Mandate at GOP Debate

She did fine in the debate: "Rick Perry's HPV mandate returns to haunt him."

It's the post-debate comments that weren't Bachmann's best moments. Ed Morrissey's got the main story, "Bachmann: Gardasil causes “mental retardation”." (Via Memeorandum.) And Los Angeles Times has a medical report, "GOP debates HPV vaccine, but medical community gives it OK."

I'll bet Bachmann recovers on this sooner than Perry. The mandate calls into question his bona fides as a small-government conservative. And the debate got heated today among right bloggers and on the Twittersphere.

AoSHQ has this: "Bachmann: I'm A-Goin' to Go Ahead and Push This Lunatic Vaccines=Autism Lie":

Michelle Bachmann is desperate. She's an ambitious, egotistical woman who started running for President just two short years after she first ran for Congress. In the past two months her support went from 13% and rising to 4% and falling.

So she needs something, doesn't she, and Rush Limbaugh warned her off her planned Social Security demagoguery.

So, instead, this bullshit.

And Dan Riehl's got this: "Perry Doesn't Look Ready to Lead America," and "So Much For NRO Being Conservative."

And Tabitha Hale on Twitter: "I think maybe I should abandon Twitter until primary season is over so I still have friends."

It's gonna get heavy like this on the right for a while. Folks are starting to really dig in behind their favorites.

Obama Proposes 'American Jobs Act' (VIDEO)

The main story's at New York Times, "Obama Exhorts Congress on Jobs Plan":

WASHINGTON — Faced with a stalling economy, a hostile Congress and a disenchanted public, President Obama challenged lawmakers in a blunt address Thursday evening to enact a sweeping package of tax cuts and new spending designed to revive the stagnant job market.

Speaking to a joint session of Congress, Mr. Obama ticked off a list of measures he said would put money in people’s pockets, encourage companies to begin hiring again, and jolt an American economy at risk of relapsing into recession. And he all but ordered Congress to pass the legislation.

“You should pass this jobs plan right away,” the president declared.

With Republicans already lining up to condemn the plan, Mr. Obama said, “The question is whether, in the face of an ongoing national crisis, we can stop the political circus and actually do something to help the economy.”

Though Mr. Obama’s proposals were widely expected — an extension and expansion of the cut in payroll taxes; new spending on schools and public works projects; and an overhaul of unemployment insurance — the overall package was considerably larger than expected, with an estimated $447 billion in stimulus money.

Also at Los Angeles Times, "Obama to Congress: Americans want action now on jobs." The text is available via Memorandum.

All the "pass this jobs bill" agitation is Obama begging the Congress to act. What's interesting is how this sounds like just one more big porkulus, despite Obambi's denials and claims that "everything in this bill is paid for." Amazingly, he still announces that we need higher taxes!!

Jennifer Rubin has more, "Obama: Pay it now, pay for it later":

What was remarkable was the whiff of desperation conveyed by Obama, and the utter lack of interest by the Republicans. The speaker of the House looked bored. The Republicans neither booed nor applauded. No one thinks this grab bag, a mini son of the Stimulus Plan, is going to work. But Republicans must be relieved: Obama said nothing that would either win over independents or exert any pressure on them to pass it.

And back over to LAT, "Republicans' reaction to Obama speech is lukewarm -- and that's a start," and "Economists give Obama's jobs plan mixed reviews.

Added: See what I mean? From Associated Press, "FACT CHECK: Obama's jobs plan paid for? Seems not."

Wall Street Journal Not Thrilled With Romney's Jobs Plan

See, "Mitt Romney's 59 Economic Flavors." After the praise, some criticism:

On taxes, Mr. Romney would immediately cut the top corporate income-tax rate to 25% from 35%. His advisers say there's already a bipartisan consensus that the U.S. rate hurts American companies, and they're right. Even Mr. Obama agrees.

But on other taxes, Mr. Romney shrinks from a fight. He says he favors tax reform with lower individual tax rates but only "in the long run." His advisers say that means in the first two years of his Presidency, but then why not sketch out more details?

The answer may lie in his proposal to eliminate the capital gains tax—but only for those who earn less than $200,000 a year. This eviscerates most of the tax cut's economic impact and also suggests that he's afraid of Mr. Obama's class warfare rhetoric. He even picked Mr. Obama's trademark income threshold for the capital gains cut-off.

If Mr. Romney thinks this will let him dodge a class warfare debate, he's fooling himself. Democrats will hit him anyway for opposing Mr. Obama's proposal to raise taxes on higher incomes, dividends and capital gains in 2013. Perhaps Mr. Romney feels that his wealth and background make him especially vulnerable to the class charge, but if he won't openly make the economic case for lower tax rates he'll never get Congress to go along.

On spending, Mr. Romney joins the GOP's "cut, cap and balance" parade, setting a cap on spending over time at 20% of GDP. What Mr. Romney doesn't do is provide even a general map for how to get there, beyond cutting spending on nonsecurity domestic programs by 5% upon taking office.

That does sound a bit timid.

RTWT.

Erick Erickson: Dude Picks Fight With Sarah Palin Supporters, Loses Badly

Erick Erickson goes after Sarah Palin by attacking her supporters as "The Palin Fan Cult," and tops it off with a few juicy digs against the Governor herself. To bolster his case he cites Ann Coulter's comments with Laura Ingraham on Fox News.

The Fox hotties are not my concern, as they're supposed to be critiquing the candidates and pumping the ratings. Erick Erickson's purportedly about building a movement. And it seems to me the last person you'd want to bash in that regard is Sarah Palin. Has she held out too long? Probably. I wish she would've announced early this year so she could've been amassing a war chest to rival Barack Obama's expected $1 billion haul. And that's not counting the possibility that Palin could lose the nomination despite being the ultimate conservative rock star. Fact is, Palin's more in tune with the values of more conservatives than anyone else out there. Frankly, it doesn't matter when she announces, except as a matter of strategy. No doubt the waiting is hard, but it'd still be worth it if she came out in November or December with a major policy speech declaring her candidacy. I'd be behind her in a second. I've said all along that as much as I like and support Michele Bachmann, I throw my support to Palin without batting an eye. (Now, thinking about it, a Palin/Bachmann dream team would put me over the top.) But at this point we don't know, so faulting her for "teasing" only arms Palin's divisions of enemies on the progressive left. And Erick Erickson should know better, but then again, he's obviously not too bright.

In any case, see William Jacobson, "Erick Erickson: “moving on from Sarah Palin is like leaving Scientology”, and Linkmaster Smith, "Not Enough." And more commentary at Memeorandum.

Oh, and don't forget Dan Riehl, "Erick Erickson All Wee Weed Up Over Palin," and "For All The Brave Whiners On Palin."

The Myth of Conservative Purity

From Peter Berkowitz, at Wall Street Journal (and Google):

With the opening of the fall political season and tonight's Republican candidate debate, expect influential conservative voices to clamor for fellow conservatives to set aside half-measures, eschew conciliation, and adhere to conservative principle in its pristine purity. But what does fidelity to conservatism's core convictions mean?

Superstar radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh has, with characteristic bravado, championed a take-no-prisoners approach. In late July, as the debt-ceiling debate built to its climax, he understandably exhorted House Speaker John Boehner to stand strong and rightly praised the tea party for "putting country before party." But then Mr. Limbaugh went further. "Winners do not compromise," he declared on air. "Winners do not compromise with themselves. The winners who do compromise are winners who still don't believe in themselves as winners, who still think of themselves as losers."

We saw the results of such thinking in November 2010, when Christine O'Donnell was defeated by Chris Coons in Delaware in the race for Vice President Joe Biden's vacated Senate seat. In Nevada Sharron Angle was defeated by Harry Reid, who was returned to Washington to reclaim his position as Senate majority leader. In both cases, the Republican senatorial candidate was a tea party favorite who lost a very winnable election.

The notion of conservative purity is a myth. The great mission of American conservatism—securing the conditions under which liberty flourishes—has always depended on the weaving together of imperfectly compatible principles and applying them to an evolving and elusive political landscape.

William F. Buckley Jr.'s 1955 Mission Statement announcing the launch of National Review welcomed traditionalists, libertarians and anticommunists. His enterprise provides a model of a big-tent conservatism supported by multiple and competing principles: limited government, free markets, traditional morality and strong national defense.

That's a long time ago. I don't know if we've got big tentyness these days. Besides, I have a hunch Republicans will may well nominate Romney. Perry's giving Romney a run for his money, and I'm not discounting Bachmann. But I'd be surprised if a purity candidate got the nod. That said, maybe purity is what the voters want, or at least in California? We'll know in due time.

RELATED: At LAT, "The real Ronald Reagan may not meet today's GOP standards."

Bachmann Campaign Shake-Up

Ed Rollins is out. (Good thing too.)

See Los Angeles Times, "Michele Bachmann's campaign sees major shake-up."

And from Chris Cillizza, at Washington Post, "Michele Bachmann’s rise and fall in the 2012 Republican primary":

In politics, things change fast.

Less than a month ago, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann sat atop the political world fresh off her win at the Ames Straw Poll.

Today, two new polls show Bachmann’s support badly eroding — a finding that when coupled with a Labor Day staff shakeup raise serious questions about her ability to recapture the momentum that shot her into the top tier over the summer.

In a new Washington Post/ABC News poll, Bachmann now stands at six percent in a hypothetical 2012 Republican primary ballot, well short of the 13 percent she took in a mid-July Post/ABC survey of registered voters

The latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows a similar decline with Bachmann now winning 8 percent — half of the 16 percent she received in July.

There appear to be a few reasons for Bachmann’s slippage.

Keep reading.

Rick Perry's surge came primarily at Michele Bachmann's expense. That said, Cillizza sounds a bit too bearish on Bachmann. She needs to stay focused on Iowa. Obviously her Ames victory got buried in the sensation of Rick Perry, but we've got a debate tomorrow and lots more retail politics before Iowa, where Bachmann remains the favorite daughter.

Polls Find 3 of 4 Americans Saying Country's On Wrong Track

People keep talking about how dissatisfaction hasn't been this high since 2008 and the Wall Street bailout. But I'm thinking back to 1991, when President George H.W. Bush went from almost 90 percent approval on the Persian Gulf War to being defeated by Bill Clinton in 1992. At the Los Angeles Times a whopping 60 percent disapprove of President Obama's handling of the economy. There is no doubt that economic issues will be the number one priority for voters next year, so in California, a reliably blue state, those are horrible numbers for the Democrats. See: "Poll illustrates California voters' anger." Especially noteworthy about the Times' poll is that partisans on both sides are digging in their heels against compromise, with 57 percent of Democrats and 50 percent of Republicans backing a stand-firm position for their party's priorities. That's the anger factor right there. There's speculation that the summer's budget battle in Washington --- which Democrats lost --- has helped create a hardening of positions. This seems to go against suggestions that we should all just get along and work for the common good.

And today's Wall Street Journal poll is a keeper. See, "Voter Discontent Deepens Ahead of Obama Jobs Plan." (At Google as well.) Seventy-three percent say the country's headed in the wrong direction. But picking up on my discussion from yesterday on the Electoral College, this bit on Ohio is devastating for the White House:

Voters appear to be looking for a new direction. By 44% to 40%, Americans now say they are more likely to vote Republican next year than for Mr. Obama's re-election. In June, the president held the edge, 45% to 40%. The president is losing support from key groups including political independents, women and Hispanics.

In the Mahoning Valley of Northeast Ohio, a Democratic stronghold that Mr. Obama must win handily next year, the president can find all the hurdles that will impede his path: 10% unemployment, collapsing incomes, private-sector payrolls that have begun creeping back from the depths of early 2010 but which remain roughly 19,000 jobs down from a decade ago for the metropolitan area here.

The lukewarm support Mr. Obama finds here not only endangers his hopes in Ohio, one of the country's key swing states, but shows the erosion in enthusiasm for the president even among voters he should be able to reach and who he will need badly next year.

Bill Hiznay—a registered Democrat who voted for John McCain in 2008 and says he's currently undecided—says the president inherited the terrible U.S. economy, "But we're still going to blame Obama for our misfortunes." Mr. Hiznay, a 58-year-old pipe-mill worker, added: "He's in trouble, no question about it."

Among blue-collar workers nationally, the president's disapproval rating reached 56% last month. Some 49% of union members and union households disapprove of the job Mr. Obama is doing, vs. 45% who approve.

Blue collar America is turning against this administration. Not even three years after Barack Obama was elected as a man who could virtually walk on water, he's being repudiated viciously among voters from left to right. This helps explain why Democrats and union leaders are so combative. It's all slipping away. The mask of "hope and change" is falling off. The electorate's rose colored glasses are off too. I'm getting really excited for next year, no matter who wins the GOP nomination.

2012 Race For the Presidency: Doing the Electoral College Math

This is why I basically ignored the new poll out at Los Angeles Times, showing that President Obama leads "Romney by 19 points, Perry by 24 points and Bachmann by 26 points" in California.

See Larry Sabato, at Wall Street Journal, "The 2012 Election Will Come Down to Seven States":

Straw polls, real polls, debates, caucuses, primaries—that's the public side of presidential campaigns 14 months before Election Day. But behind the scenes, strategists for President Obama and his major Republican opponents are already focused like a laser on the Electoral College.

The emerging general election contest gives every sign of being highly competitive, unlike 2008. Of course, things can change: Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were both in trouble at this point in their first terms, and George H.W. Bush still looked safe. Unexpectedly strong economic growth could make Mr. Obama's re-election path much easier than it currently looks, as could the nomination of a damaged Republican candidate. But a few more weeks like the past couple, and Mr. Obama's re-election trajectory will resemble Jimmy Carter's.

Both parties are sensibly planning for a close election. For all the talk about how Hispanics or young people will vote, the private chatter is about a few vital swing states. It's always the Electoral College math that matters most.

Go read it all at the link above.

Republicans have no shot at winning California, but Pennsylvania's in play, and Sabato identifies 7 states that are totally up for grabs, including Florida and Ohio. Sounds kinda familiar, since those two states have been battlegrounds in recent presidential elections. I'm on record for President Obama as a one-termer. It's the economy, stupid. Sure, we'll have to pay more attention to trends across the states, but it's only 14 months until the election. Unemployment's still going to be excruciatingly high. I can't see how the Democrats can cobble together an Electoral College victory in this environment. Stay tuned.

Oh, and William Jacobson has some commentary on Obama's speech yesterday: "Is this the fight Democrats really want to have?"

President Zero SCOAMF

I was about to look up SCOAMF, but readers supplied encyclopedic linkage at the post.

See The Other McCain: "SCOAMF Nation."

And Dan Collins is looking good!

BONUS: At TOM, "SARAH PALIN IN NEW HAMPSHIRE."

PREVIOUSLY: "President Zero."

Image Credit.

Mitt Romney at Tea Party Express Rally in Concord, New Hampshire

The Other McCain's got the coverage: "VIDEOS: Pro-Romney, Anti-Romney and Mrs. Romney at Concord, N.H., Tea Party."

At at The Australian, "Mitt Romney plays the callow card."



PREVIOUSLY: "Their Optimism Rising, Republican Voters Look For a Winner."

Their Optimism Rising, Republican Voters Look For a Winner

At New York Times, "G.O.P. Voters Seek a Winner":

MANCHESTER, N.H. — Roy Barbuto is on the hunt. For the past few months, he has been searching for the perfect Republican candidate, and he shows no signs of flagging.



Mr. Barbuto, 61, a service technician here, had already seen Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota (“She was excellent”), the former pizza executive Herman Cain (“He intrigues me, because here is a man who clearly knows what to do businesswise”) and former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts (“If he was elected, he could certainly do the job”). Now, he was finishing up dinner at a house party in Chichester, N.H., waiting to take a measure of Gov. Rick Perry of Texas.



“I’m not just looking for a candidate to beat the president,” he explained. “For me, the purpose of the next president is to restore the pride that this country has always had.”



In interviews with more than two dozen people in New Hampshire and Iowa over the Labor Day weekend, voters said they sensed a new vulnerability to President Obama.



But while they expressed a strong sense of optimism in the prospect of winning the White House, they were looking for a candidate who could not only prevail in a general election, but be a forceful conservative leader for a tumultuous time.

RTWT.



Folks are looking for "someone who can create jobs."



Video Hat Tip: Da Tech Guy, "Voices of the Tea Party: A Sarah Palin supporter."

Happy Labor Day to Opus #6!

That's my friend Opus #6 of MAinfo. We met at the Michele Bachmann rally at Knotts Berry Farm in early 2009. Opus left a wonderful comment at the blog yesterday, at my essay, "Housing Downsizing!":

This housing downsizing post has to be my favorite American Power post of all time. Probably because I downsized in June. And the kids and I, though a little cramped in our 3-br rented condo, are enjoying the community pool with lots of friends to play with, way less stress worrying about bills and repairs, and extra money in the checking account. I also loved seeing your mom. You and I are in the same generation and our parents are on the same track. She looks lovely. And a sweet nurturing woman is a blessing to any family.

I pray that you and your family enjoy the new digs. That you have many happy days in your new place, lots less stress and building character as your kids observe you handing the changing nature of our society and economy not with bitterness but with courage.

I responded at the post.

It means a lot. I've met many wonderful people through blogging. We share our lives online and we meet in person as well. Have a great Labor Day, Opus!

Sarah Palin at Indianola: 'Polls Are for Strippers and Cross Country Skiers...'

At Sarah PAC: "Governor Palin's Speech at the “Restoring America” Tea Party of America Rally in Indianola, Iowa (Video and Transcript)" (via Memeorandum).



Her comment about "polls and strippers" is just after 11:00 minutes.



Robert Stacy McCain has some commentary and links: "People Who Like Sarah Palin Liked Her Iowa Speech; Ace of Spades, Not So Much." Also, "Palin’s Pressure on Perry."

And additional reporting from yesterday: "VIDEO: Sarah Palin's Iowa Speech — No Announcement on Presidential Run."

VIDEO: Sarah Palin's Iowa Speech — No Announcement on Presidential Run

At Des Moines Register, "Sarah Palin on the presidency: Still pondering ‘if it’s the right thing to do." And at Bloomberg, "Palin Appearance in Iowa Leaves Supporters Exhorting Her to Run."

I'll update with the full video when that's available.



Added: At Gateway Pundit, "Sarah Palin: If the Left Is Going to Start Calling Government the “Federal Family” Then I Want a Divorce (Video)."



UPDATE: The Right Scoop has it: "FULL SPEECH: Sarah Palin at the Iowa Tea Party Rally."



I'll have an analysis later.

Sarah Palin to Blast Washington's 'Compromised Political Class' in Iowa This Weekend

See Robert Costa, at National Review, "Palin Will Blast ‘Compromised Political Class’ in Iowa."

For a long time I admired Sarah Palin's savvy instincts (and I still do), but I think she's waited too long to announce her intentions for the presidency. Apparently, she'll say in Iowa tomorrow that she's still undecided, and then she'll reprise her basic stump speech about how dumb are establishment politicians and how broken is establishment politics. I can't help thinking that Palin's moment has passed for this cycle, and that she'd be better off announcing definitively that she'll not be a candidate in 2012. For more on that see Doyle McManus, at LAT, "Palin the procrastinator," and Alex Parker, at U.S. News, "For 2012, Sarah Palin's Time May Have Run Out."



And check the video at Right Scoop, "Karl Rove: Palin is hurting herself. She needs to get in or get out."



BONUS: From Tony Katz, at Pajamas Media, "The Sarah Palin “Will She/Won’t She” Tour Begins."

Rick Perry's Surge May Force Mitt Romney to Shift Gears

At LAT:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney may be forced to shake up his strategy to win the Republican presidential nomination now that Texas Gov. Rick Perry has seized the top spot in the latest Gallup poll.



Among Romney's likely shifts: softening his focus on New Hampshire, the first primary state, and starting a more aggressive campaign in Iowa, where the race actually begins.



Romney invested heavily there in 2008 and fell short. But this time, a battle between Perry and Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota for supremacy among Iowa's social conservatives could create an opening for his more moderate brand of conservatism.



Also up for discussion inside the Romney camp: an accelerated advertising push, including attack ads against Perry.



"This nomination fight will not be a coronation," said Scott Reed, a GOP strategist who is neutral in the race. "He's got to show that he's willing to fight for it."

Romney's been campaigning as the inevitable nominee, but that's obviously not going to cut it.