Thursday, October 27, 2011
To: Friends & Supporters
From: Gary L. Bauer
Obama's Malaise Speech
Obama's presidency resembles Jimmy Carter's more every day. The latest example came Tuesday at a San Francisco fundraiser when Obama chided the American people, saying, "We have lost our ambition, our imagination, and our willingness to do the things that built the Golden Gate Bridge."
Every time Obama goes to "San Fran," he lets his guard down and says what he really believes about the country that elected him. What is it about San Francisco that makes Obama run down his country? It was in front of a San Francisco audience that Obama made his infamous quip about bitter middle Americans clinging to their guns and religion.
Whether it was Carter in 1979 or Obama now, America doesn't need a president whose first instinct is to blame others for his own failures.
Obama is just plain wrong. We couldn't easily build the Golden Gate Bridge today because there would be layer upon of layer of bureaucratic red tape standing in the way. Then there would be environmental impact studies that would take years.
If you got past all of that, you might face lawsuits from liberals eager to protect the polka-dotted blueberry river flea that only mates in odd numbered years in the precise location where the bridge is to be built. Other lefties would object, claiming that a bridge only continues our dependence on cars and fossil fuels. And on and on it would go. We haven't lost our ambition; we have been beaten down by the political left.
Obama has the audacity to lecture us about losing our imagination and willingness to do big things when he is the one who has slashed NASA's budget. In fact, there are reports today that he plans to zero out funding for all planetary exploration.
Ronald Reagan never ran down America as Obama routinely does. He had an infectious love for this country. He believed America was a "shining city upon a hill," a blessed nation that had a rendezvous with destiny. Yes, America has faced tough times. But we got through them -- and not because we were soft or lacked imagination. If anything, it is Big Government, which the left constantly turns to, which lacks imagination, stifles innovation and causes people to go soft.
I don't know about you, but I can't wait for November 2012!
New CNN/Time polls of the early voting states have good news for former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Here's how they break down by state:
- Iowa: Romney 24%, Cain 21%, Paul 12%, Gingrich and Perry at 10%. No other candidate was in double digits.
- New Hampshire: Romney 40%, Cain 13%, Paul 12%.
- South Carolina: Romney 25%, Cain 23%, Paul 12%, Perry 11%.
- Florida: Romney 30%, Cain 18%, Gingrich and Perry 9%.
Why is this important? While national polls show Herman Cain leading the GOP primary contest, the race won't be decided in a single national primary. It will be decided in state-by-state elections, beginning with Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida.
With each victory, the winner -- and perhaps the second and third place finishers -- builds momentum. And as their losses mount and the money dries up, lower tier candidates quickly start dropping out.
Based on these latest big media polls, Romney appears to have the inside track for now, with Herman Cain emerging as the most likely challenger. Even though the vast majority of GOP primary voters are backing other candidates, as long as the field remains divided, it's advantage Romney. However, another recent poll found that 80% of Republican voters also say they are not firmly committed to anyone!
Yesterday I was at a meeting with lots of conservative insiders. For many, Romney was not their first choice, but there was a lot of talk about a hypothetical Romney/Rubio ticket. (Coincidentally, the Washington Post today published its second hit piece on Sen. Marco Rubio in less than a week.)
What do you think? I'm particularly interested in your feedback, especially if Romney is not your first choice. Would adding Rubio to the ticket make you more or less comfortable with Romney? Use this link to respond.
Liberal Media Distortions
Here are two examples of how the media and liberals are distorting the facts to confuse voters and portray conservatives negatively.
Consider this headline from the front page of today's Washington Post: "Democrats Make Offer: $3 Trillion In Cuts." The average person is going to see that headline and think, "Hey, Democrats want to cut $3 trillion in spending." It certainly got my attention. But the headline is deliberately misleading.
As we reported yesterday, Democrats on the deficit reduction super committee are demanding massive tax increases. As the Post eventually explains, Democrats are proposing $3 trillion in deficit reduction with at least $1.3 trillion coming from higher taxes. But as Rep. Paul Ryan noted this morning, this is in addition to the massive tax increases already baked into ObamaCare and other tax hikes scheduled for January 1, 2013.
Here's the second example. In their desperation to retake the House, Democrats and the media know that Congress' approval rating is in the tank. So Obama and his liberal allies are increasingly referring to the "Republican Congress."
There is no Republican Congress -- they only control the House. Democrats, under Harry Reid, control the Senate. Liberals and media are trying to tar all Republicans with Congress' unpopularity. Moreover, it is also hard for Obama to run against a "Do-Nothing" Congress when his party controls half of it!
Is The House At Risk?
Democrats are desperate to make Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House once again, and they think they can pull it off.
Their strategy begins by targeting 19 GOP-held House seats that voted for Obama in 2008 and John Kerry in 2004. One these "Obama/Kerry Republicans" is conservative hero Allen West in FL-22. After that, Democrats are focused on 43 districts that voted for Obama, but backed George W. Bush in 2004. This gives Pelosi 62 targets -- and she only needs to win 25.
A left-leaning polling firm just completed surveys in 12 GOP-held districts and the results are worrisome. When voters were asked if they would "like to reelect" their current representative, the results ranged from a low of 33% to a high of 44%, which suggests that all 12 incumbents would likely lose if the elections were held today.
Let me add this caveat: This was a liberal poll and 9 of the 12 districts polled were in the liberal states of California and Illinois. That said, no one should fool themselves into thinking that 2012 will be a repeat of 2010. The greater danger is that it looks more like 2008, when Democrats ran the tables and captured all three branches of government.
I'm not predicting a disaster at the ballot box, but we know this much: Obama's reelection campaign will spend $1 billion to boost turnout among liberal voters. Conservatives who narrowly won in marginal districts last year are vulnerable next year. And especially so if the redistricting process went poorly in their states.
Here's my bottom line: As I have said before, complacency is our worst enemy. Everything is at stake in 2012. I don't want to see Barack Obama narrowly reelected and Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House again because conservatives took the elections for granted.
I want to see Obama defeated in a landslide, our House majority expanded and Harry Reid evicted from the Senate Majority Leader's office because every conservative worked his heart out to save our country!