Thursday, October 13, 2011

To: Friends & Supporters

From: Gary L. Bauer

2012 Update

As I noted yesterday, the Republican presidential primary contest is wide open. New polling data today provides the proof. As always, it is important to note that polls are just snap shots in time and do not predict future results. But the data do show a turbulent race and serve as a warning for the presumed front-runner.

  • A new NBC/Wall Street Journal finds Herman Cain now leading Mitt Romney. Here's how the poll breaks down the field: Cain 27%, Romney 23%, Perry 16%, Paul 11%, Gingrich 8%, Bachmann 5%, Huntsman 3% and Santorum 1%.
  • Here's the warning for Romney: His numbers haven't moved since August. And, in fact, they are down since July. As Bachmann and Perry have risen and fallen, why has Mitt Romney not gained support? Romney's HQ better start thinking long and hard about why it is having such difficulty attracting conservative support, and how it intends to energize and turnout conservative voters if Romney wins the nomination.
  • The latest Rasmussen poll finds Cain and Romney tied at 29%, followed by Newt Gingrich at 10%. No other candidate, not even Rick Perry (9%), is in double digits. Is Gingrich emerging as a top competitor?
  • Cain's surge is not an aberration. Since October four polls (including the three most recent polls) have found Cain tied or leading in the race for the GOP nomination. To make some sense of the varying data, check out the (RCP) polling averages. Averaging the results of the 10 most recent polls finds Mitt Romney leading with 22.7%, followed closely by Herman Cain at 20.3%. Texas Governor Rick Perry's support has collapsed to 13.7%.
  • How do the leading Republican candidates fare against Barack Obama? According to Rasmussen, Obama leads Romney 43%-to-41%. He leads Herman Cain 42%-to-39%, and he leads Rick Perry 49%-to-35%. So even as bad as Obama's ratings are, our leading candidates at best only tie Obama right now. Clearly we cannot take this election for granted. We still have a lot of work to do to make sure we prevail in November 2012.

OWS Eviction Notice

The Occupy Wall Street movement has been given an eviction notice. Mayor Michael Bloomberg has told the group to clear out of Zuccotti Park so that it can be cleaned. But just days ago, Bloomberg said the protestors could stay "indefinitely." What explains the mayor's sudden turnaround?

To begin with, the park is private property. The management company that oversees the park sent a frank letter to the commissioner of the New York City Police Department Tuesday demanding that the protestors be evicted.

In the letter, the company complains about "unsanitary and unsafe" conditions in the park and "offensive odors." The management company has received hundreds of phone calls and e-mails from area residents complaining about thefts, harassment and illegal activity, including drug use. It is worth noting that this was not the company's first request to the city to clear the park.

Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly has told protestors they must leave Zuccotti Park by Friday morning, and they won't be allowed to bring their sleeping bags back to the park once it is reopened. So far there is no indication that the radicals will go quietly. In fact, they are asking for donations of mops and brooms to clean up the park themselves, and say the company's demands amount to an "eviction notice." Stay tuned!

What Do They Want?

I think there is something else motivating Mayor Bloomberg's sudden desire to get this mob off his streets. It is just that -- a mob that runs the risk of seriously embarrassing liberals. And the more the public sees of it, the less there is to like.

In fact, some liberals are now trying to distance themselves from this radical movement, which the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee recently compared to the great American middle class. Consider these excerpts from the liberal editors of The New Republic:

"But, to draw on the old cliché, the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. …the volume of interviews, speeches, and online declarations associated with the protests does make it possible to arrive at some broad generalizations about what Occupy Wall Street stands for. And these, in turn, suggest a few reasons for liberals to be nervous about the movement.

"One of the core differences between liberals and radicals is that liberals are capitalists. They believe in a capitalism that is democratically regulated… But these are not the principles we are hearing from the protesters. Instead, we are hearing calls for the upending of capitalism entirely. …And so, on the question of how liberals should feel about Occupy Wall Street, count us as deeply skeptical."

In a column today, George Will identifies some of the issues making the editors of The New Republic skeptical:

"Demands posted in OWS's name include a 'guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment'; a $20-an-hour minimum wage…; ending 'the fossil fuel economy'; 'open borders' so 'anyone can travel anywhere to work and live'; $1 trillion for infrastructure; $1 trillion for 'ecological restoration' (e.g., re-establishing 'the natural flow of river systems'); 'free college education.' And forgiveness of 'all debt on the entire planet period.'"

Don't be fooled by the media's spin on these protests. They do not represent the middle class. This is the far left fringe. The applause and affirmation for the Occupy Wall Street movement that is coming from Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore and other leading Democrats speaks volumes about what a second Obama term could look like.

House Defends Life

Today the House of Representatives is taking up a bill that will guarantee no taxpayer dollars are used to pay for abortions under ObamaCare. This is not a controversial issue. In poll after poll, overwhelming majorities of the public oppose taxpayer funding of abortions. But the Democrat response to this bill is very revealing.

Nancy Pelosi said, "Under this bill, when the Republicans vote for this bill today, they will be voting to say that women can die on the floor and health care providers don't have to intervene if this bill is passed. It's just appalling." As usual, Pelosi is wrong.

The Protect Life Act simply writes into law Obama's own executive order against abortion funding. You may recall that this fig leaf got a handful of Democrats, like former Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), to agree to vote for ObamaCare. Without that order, ObamaCare never would have passed.

Speaking before Congress, President Obama once declared, "[U]nder our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions…" Yet President Obama is threatening to veto the Protect Life Act.

If ObamaCare really does prohibit taxpayer funding of abortions, why is Nancy Pelosi so hysterical? Why is Obama threatening to veto a bill that reaffirms his own order and public statements? Their reaction speaks volumes. They deceived the American people to get ObamaCare passed. House Republicans are exposing Obama's executive order for what it really is -- a lie.

Share this