Erick Erickson's Blog, page 110

Because Herman Cain Runs For SomeTHING, Not Against SomeONE

"Herman Cain may or may not win the nomination, but right now he is the center of gravity within the Republican field and all the other candidates are, after last week, being pulled into his orbit."

I've gotten to know Paul Begala sitting with him in the greenroom at CNN and he has some of the most consistently awesome political anecdotes in modern America. Feel free to disagree with him on politics and policy as I usually do, but in any encounter with Begala you'll come away knowing more about American politics than you entered the room knowing.

One of the anecdotes he shared with me once has stuck with me as perhaps the most insightful commentary on winning elections in America. Anne Richards was quite a popular governor in Texas and George W. Bush still managed to beat her rather handily. After Richards' defeat, she called President Clinton and told him the lesson she'd learned from her defeat.

Governor Richards told President Clinton that it was not enough to run on what you did as a leader, but rather to run on what you were going to do as a leader. This connects in with one of the most consistent themes in American politics — people want to vote for something, not vote against someone.

In 2008, people voted against the Republicans, but if you asked most people they didn't see themselves voting against Bush and the GOP so much as they were voting for something new and shiny — a new way, a new face, a new hope, and some change.

This is why Herman Cain won the straw poll.

Yes, to be clear, there have been enough media interviews and surveys with enough Florida straw poll voters to conclude that a good number of people voted for Cain because they wanted to send a message to Rick Perry and Mitt Romney that they, the voters, are not happy with them on either their performance or their positions or something else.

But 37% of people voting did not pay money to vote to send a message to someone else. They paid money to participate in the straw poll to vote for Herman Cain.

And it is easy enough for me to explain. They voted for Herman Cain because he is not running against Barack Obama so much as he is running for an America he believes in and that other people can get excited about. People love Herman Cain's optimism. They love his vision. They love his 9-9-9 plan.

The last is key. Herman has an articulated, easy to remember plan for economic recovery in his 9-9-9 plan. Quick! What is Mitt Romney's plan? Jon Huntsman's? Rick Perry's? Michele Bachmann's? They all, more or less, have them, but they are not readily memorable or easy to understand.

Herman Cain is consistently conservative, he is running for something, not against someone, and he is the most optimistic candidate on stage.

In addition to learning a lot from Paul Begala, I've learned a lot from James Carville. Carville has an easy to understand rule we're seeing playing out right now. The most optimistic candidate wins.

Do I see a path to victory for Herman Cain? No. But that may now change. It is too soon to tell. He has some internal issues that need to be resolved.

But I do want to make it very clear — Herman Cain may or may not win the nomination, but right now he is the center of gravity within the Republican field and all the other candidates are, after last week, being pulled into his orbit.

And that is a very good thing.

The White House Does Not Like Ford's Ad. Did It Apply Pressure to Get the Ad Yanked?

UPDATE: Ford is now out saying it was not "coerced" into pulling the ad and that the ad campaign will continue.

Wonder whatever gave the Michigan news media a contrary impression?

——————————————-

I told you a week ago that the White House and General Motors coordinated on GM's ad campaign it rolled out before the 2010 general election designed to highlight the government auto bailout as successful.

Not only did the White House coordinate with GM, it is pushing for GM to rev up the ad campaign again prior to the 2012 election.

Well, if you will recall, Ford Motor Company has had out a very popular ad getting a lot of buzz. It is of a consumer saying he bought a Ford because he did not want to buy from a car company that relied the government to bail it out.

The message has been very well received in the public across partisan lines. But it turns out the White House does not like the ad campaign and views it negatively.

Michigan newspapers are reporting the White House went directly to Ford over the ad campaign and "questioned" Ford. Ford then yanked the ad.

An industry source said White House did not pressure Ford to remove the ad, but Howes suggested it was pulled in response to the call.

Regardless of the motivation, Ford's decision points to the increasingly congested intersection of automobiles and politics. The industry undoubtedly benefited from government intervention, and Ford undoubtedly benefited from its ability to avoid a bailout.

Now, of course an industry source would say there was no White House pressure whether or not there was. There are still plenty of facts unknown right now — at least until Darrel Issa gets involved.

One fact remains clear — "Chris", the guy in the advertisement, is a real person, not a paid actor. And the White House may be able to get Ford to yank its ad, but Chris is still out there, won't back down, and his message still resonates.

Shame on Ford for backing down from a great ad that resonates with many people irrespective of political party affiliation.

Have You People All Taken Gardasil Shots Recently?

I'm being inundated with angry emails that I have not linked to or championed the Zogby poll that OMG shows Herman Cain winning in a landslide!!!!!! OMG!!!!!

It is as if millions of Republicans took the Gardasil shot and suddenly developed rapid onset of the mental retardation Michele Bachmann's been warning about.

The reason I have not cited and you should not cite the Zogby poll is because it is a Zogby Interactive poll which means it was done online.

IBOPE Zogby International conducted an online survey of 2,077 voters. A sampling of IBOPE Zogby International's online panel, which is representative of the adult population of the U.S., was invited to participate.

This poll has more in common with the Gallup survey of "positive intensity" for candidates than it does who actually is winning. Phone surveys are far more accurate and reliable, whether it be Gallup, CNN, or Fox.

I am glad so many people are excited about Herman Cain. I think Herman won the debate. I think there are a number of reasons he won the Florida Straw Poll beyond the easy analysis that it was "to send a message" to other candidates.

But the Zogby Interactive Poll is like an online entertainment poll asking whether you'd rather be on "Team Edward", "Team whoever that emo werewolf guy is", or "Team venereal disease."

As long as I am editor of this site, our front page will not treat an online interactive poll as anything more than a novelty.

Rick Perry's Immigration Problem vs. Mitt Romney's Healthcare Problem

I don't speak for all conservatives, but most every single conservative I know will gladly settle for Mitt Romney and support him over Barack Obama. Even the conservatives I know who right now are saying they could never support Mitt Romney will . . . when push comes to shove . . . support Mitt Romney.

The issue is that most conservatives, myself included, don't want to settle for Mitt Romney. I don't have a problem with him personally. He, his wife, and family are super nice people. But I think he is just wrong for this election and his positioning this year as a centrist when he positioned himself four years ago as a conservative is disturbing.

But at the top of the race we are confronted with two men who have two problems. Both are 10th Amendment issues and both are states right issues. And I think whether we like it or not, we should, as conservatives who believe the states should be engines of experiment, respect their right to solve problems in their states as they and their legislatures see fit.

You and I may not like Romneycare, but it was Mitt Romney and Massachusetts' decision.

You and I may not like Texas giving illegal aliens in-state tuition rates, but it was Rick Perry and Texas' decision.

Digging deeper though, there is a real and serious problem that distinguishes the two issues and gives me greater concern about Romneycare. And I'm afraid with so much pile on over the Texas immigration decision, it has distracted us from a core issue of Romneycare about which we should be more focused.

Texas did what Texas did because Washington failed to do anything. The difference between Mitt Romney and Rick Perry is that Perry never said that what Texas did on immigration is the right fit for every state.

Given Texas' history and long standing ties to Mexico (a lot of its now major cities were founded back when Texas was part of Mexico and it continues to maintain historic ties to Mexico) and the failure of the federal government to deal with illegal immigration, Texas did what was right for Texas in a near unanimous vote of the legislature (only 4 no votes out of 181 members in the Texas legislature). Neither the administrations of Bill Clinton nor George W. Bush nor, for that matter, Barack Obama would let Texas deport all these people, so Texas decided that the kids should at least be given an education and made contributing members of society instead of sucking up tax dollars in jail or on government assistance for which federal law would not have allowed Texas to deny them.

At the same time, Perry supported Arizona's right to handle the problem as Arizona saw fit. There's never been a claim that the Texas solution is a one size fits all solution that Washington should impose.

Mitt Romney, however, came up with a healthcare plan that may be the only political position in modern American history on which he hasn't stood on both sides, continues to defend it despite Massachusetts now being weighed down by a costly, dysfunctional healthcare system bankrupting the state, and had the audacity to say it was a model for the nation until after Obamacare passed. Then he got rid of that claim from his book.

And that is a key part. Rick Perry never said the Texas way should be the American way and has a history of supporting other states' rights to deal with immigration in the way those states want while Mitt Romney wrote in his book that the Massachusetts plan could be a model for the nation. Then, when the paperback version came out after Obamacare came into being modeled on Romneycare, Mitt Romhey deleted those lines from the paperback version of his book.

You may not like Rick Perry's immigration position, but he's never said, nor would he ever say that it should be national policy. It just happened to be the right fix for Texas. You may not like Mitt Romney's healthcare position, but he put it in his book that it was a model for the nation and it just so happens to be the model Barack Obama used.

That is a significant and profound difference in my mind and one that is overshadowed by the present Perry pile on in the debates.

Rick Perry should apologize for saying those of us who disagree don't have a heart. I hope he will. That was baseless demagoguery against his own base of supporters. Mitt Romney has made it clear he will not apologize for what factually was the foundation of Obamacare.

Republicans' Not So Secret Weapon in 2012

I got an email from a friend of mine yesterday forwarding an email regarding healthcare. I got an email from another friend yesterday doing the same. Both use the same company for health insurance.

That company, MetLife, announced right after the 2010 election it would end long-term care insurance.

There are a number of companies in the same boat. And the reasons do not all have to do with uncertainty about Obamacare. In fact, in addition to the unexpected future costs to health care companies due to Obamacare and the availability of Obamacare for employee shifting, ridiculously low interest rates, etc. are a contributing factor.

But this is becoming more common not just for long term care rates, but general health insurance rates as well.

In the examples of both of my friends, MetLife is raising rates 45% on existing employees and denying new employees access to coverage. In effect, MetLife is trying to extricate itself from the business of long term care and charging customers through the nose hoping the customers will drop the policies.

This is a not so secret weapon for the GOP in 2012. In addition to inflation and the diminished purchasing power of the middle class because of Barack Obama's economic policies, his health care policies are jacking up costs as well.

The economy will be the message if the GOP can just focus on it instead of the many sideshows the Obama Administration and the media will try to throw at them.

Totally (Not) Meghan McCain. FACE!

Last Saturday, Leon wrote up a parody of Meghan McCain relating to her recent comments not liking Rick Perry. The idea of parodying the inane ramblings of Meghan McCain came to him after his rather epic review of her prior inane ramblings turned into a book.

This latest post was too much for Meghan McCain. A sample of that post:

Firstly in the first place, some people had a question about my very obvious statement, "I don't necessarily agree that Rick Perry is George Bush on crack, but he could definitely be described as George Bush 2.0." The question, I have most often, been asked, is why I did not include literally anything in the piece to back up this claim or point out, the places where Perry and Bush are similar, the reason for that being simple. Hello? They are both from Texas. I guess I should apologize for, assuming that most people knew that already, but I guess they don't. Well I am here to tell you in case you didn't know: both George W. Bush and Rick Perry are from Texas. Now, in the entire time I have been paying attention to politics, there has only been one President of the United States elected from Texas. And if electing someone, from Texas was a winning strategy, then obviously, there would have been more.

Some ignorant jerk, clearly who doesn't know about the young people, pointed out that George W. Bush 1.0 won, two elections, which is two more than my dad did. Let me just respond to that jerk by saying that George W. Bush only won those elections because he didn't have to go against my dad either time. FACE!

Apparently, Leon captured Meghan's writing style too well. We've received a letter from her attorneys demanding we take down that post and a second parody from March 22, 2011, wherein the user "Totally Meghan McCain" wrote a review of Donald Rumsfeld's Known and Unknown. You can read the letter in all its glory right here.

A sample of that post on Rumsfeld's book, also not actually written by Meghan McCain:

In the first point, Known and Unknown is, to belaboring a point, very long. It is much, much longer than the youth of today will be willing to take in their hands and read. It is almost as long as this review of my book (have I mentioned that I wrote a book? I say this so, that you will know that I am an authority on this subject and, not so that you will think I am bragging because bragging is not what I am about. Like my education at Colombia, I hardly ever mention that I went to, a prestigious college, like Colombia, because I am sure that the fact that I am the product o f a very expensive education shines through in my writing so, there is no, need to constantly point it out). I have no idea whether that review was a good one or bad one. Why? Because I am young and like other, people who are young (and who party and drink and dare to use the word "sex" in a book title) I have better things to do with, my time than.. where was I going with that again? That is not the important thing which is important. The important thing is this, that Known and Unknown is very long.

According to Meghan McCain's lawyers, "These fake front page posts place Meghan McCain before the public in a false light which is highly offensive to a reasonable person. The RedState.com "community" that voted to put these posts on the front page, acted at least in reckless disregard as to their falsity and the false light in which Meghan McCain was being placed."

Further, the lawyers have requested that we "take down the posts and the comments associated with them. We ask that you print a retraction acknowledging that the posts by "Totally Meghan McCain" of March 22, 2011 and September 17, 2011 were not written, submitted or authorized by Meghan McCain, or anyone associated with her."

Ok — the posts were not written, submitted, or authorized by Meghan McCain or anyone associated with her. For those of you who were confused, we apologize profusely that you could read those posts and think any reasonable person could write them. We're actually stunned that any reasonable person could read those posts and think a living human being wrote them.

They've now been taken down.

We're confident that we are within our rights to parody and mock Meghan McCain on this, but it is frankly not worth our time.

Morning Briefing for September 27, 2011

RedState Morning Briefing

For September 27, 2011

Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get
the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.

1. Dear Republican Presidential Candidates

2. Perry and Romney steady, Cain and Gingrich pass Paul

3. Fast & Furious update: BATFE *sold* modified AK-47s to Mexican narco-terrorists!

4. EPA Calls Compliance with Own Law "Absurd or Impossible" and Requests 230k New Employees

5. President Obama Blames Texas Wildfires on Global Warming

———————————————————————-

1. Dear Republican Presidential Candidates

I realize I'm biased, but with the exception of the Tampa, FL CNN-Tea Party debate, I've been rather unimpressed with the debates. There are too many of you on the stage. There is not enough time to get into the substance of your answers. And you are all making it about each other instead of about Barack Obama.

I happen to have a radio show on the largest talk radio station in the country, which is also connected to a large media group with television and radio outlets in lots of swing states — not to mention running this site, etc.

So if any of you want to come down to Atlanta, I'm sure I can find us a stage, some TV cameras, get a web stream going, invite C-SPAN, and have an actual conversation. Let's plan on an hour chat. We'll not debate, but have a conversation. We'll talk not just about your future plans and past record, but also your background.

If you're interested, let me know. We can get it done and provide Republican voters something more than "tell us specifically what your economic plan will be in one minute or less or you get the damn Google Chat beep."

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. Perry and Romney steady, Cain and Gingrich pass Paul

A couple of debates ago we looked at where the Republican Presidential primary stood nationally. Since then we've seen Mitt Romney surge, presumably as the anti-Rick Perry candidate.

But will Perry himself tumble after widely criticized debate efforts? Let's check the new CNN poll.

The facts: 447 Republican registered voters, MoE 4.5. Mobile and landline telephone polling.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

3. Fast & Furious update: BATFE *sold* modified AK-47s to Mexican narco-terrorists!

Fox News has the basic story, which goes as follows: an agent of the BATFE was ordered to go and buy six Draco semi-automatic pistols from gun shops. Those guns were then resold to "known illegal buyers:" i.e., people known to resell guns illegally. So far, this is not actually bad, because this would be how standard sting operations go… except that they didn't arrest the buyers immediately. Which makes… sense, right, because Dracos are legal-to-own guns in the USA; so the BATFE would just have to keep a constant watch on the guns to make sure that they didn't miss it when the bad guys tried to smuggle the guns out of the country – no, wait, it's reported that ATF group supervisor David Voth ordered that there be no 24 hour surveillance. Well. Good thing that Agent John Dodson ignored that order and did a personal stakeout of the bad guys for six days, huh? Because he was there when they moved out with the guns! He was able to call in a request for an interdiction team!

…Which was refused.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

4. EPA Calls Compliance with Own Law "Absurd or Impossible" and Requests 230k New Employees

You may have read my recent post reporting that the EPA will be responsible for over 1.4 million job losses over the next 7 years. In that environment, I suppose bureaucratic hires is the closest one can get to good jobs news when it comes to that big government dream agency known as the Environmental Protection Agency.

"DailyCaller: The EPA is asking taxpayers to fund up to 230,000 new government workers to process all the extra paperwork, at an estimated cost of $21 billion. That cost does not include the economic impact of the regulations themselves.

"'Hiring the 230,000 full-time employees necessary to produce the 1.4 billion work hours required to address the actual increase in permitting functions would result in an increase in Title V administration costs of $21 billion per year,' the EPA wrote in the court brief."

So while the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) as well as Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) rules are going to wreak havoc on places like Texas, destroy the coal industry, and ultimately force power bills to increase almost as quickly as energy sector jobs are shed, the United States government will be embarking on its own jobs initiative: 230,000 freshly minted pencil-pushing bureaucrats!

As stated above, these new jobs would serve the purpose of enforcing all of the new regulations under the Clean Air Act which was created by the EPA in 2009. So why are courts involved? Because the EPA is deliberately violating the very Clean Air Act they are intending to enforce.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

5. President Obama Blames Texas Wildfires on Global Warming

The great green culprit is back, and this time it's setting Texas on fire! At least that's what President Obama wants you to believe.

At a fundraiser in California Sunday (from which he apparently excluded the press), he seized the opportunity of one of the worst catastrophes in Texas history to score some political points. If George Bush didn't care about black people, Barack Obama certainly seems to have his issues with Texans.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

Can We Get A Do Over In Alabama 2?

pathetic |p?'THetik|

adjective

1 arousing pity, esp. through vulnerability or sadness: she looked so pathetic that I bent down to comfort her.

• informal miserably inadequate: his test scores in Chemistry were pathetic.

2 archaic relating to the emotions.

3 political representing Lower Alabama and only scoring 58% on Heritage Action for America's scorecard: Martha Roby is pathetic.

Back in 2010, we backed Rick Barber in Alabama's 2nd Congressional District. At the time, I wrote

Martha Roby is unimpressive. She is typical of what we like to call the country club Republicans, but more accurately the status quo Republicans. She'll bring home the bacon. She'll vote the right way on most issues. But she's not going to get her hands dirty fighting for freedom.

I have been proven right. In a solidly conservative district, Martha Roby scores a pathetic 58% on the Heritage Action scorecard. And yes, when you represent Lower Alabama and only score 58% on a conservative scorecard, you are definitionally pathetic.

She has led on nothing conservatives care about and voted against conservatives on much that they do care about. She has carried water for the leadership, betrayed her conservative constituents, and failed to fight against the tide of creeping socialism in the country. But she's got a pretty smile.

If the tea party wants a do-over, AL-02 would be a good place to start.

Romney's Vulnerability and Media Disconnect

I've got up a post at CNN.com right now on Mitt Romney and what the media is missing in its 2012 analysis.

When the bulk of the Republican pundits and prognosticators support one candidate, the reporters and political analysts who rely on those Republicans tend to act as if that candidate is the one everybody supports.

The media, in effect, have become film critic Pauline Kael, who allegedly expressed surprise when Richard Nixon won, because no one she knew had voted for him.

This is what is going on with Mitt Romney. Just about every Republican pundit, commentator, and prognosticator that the media rely on for an insider take on the GOP — no matter how objective the inside take is expected to be — is within the Mitt Romney sphere of influence.

The Way Things Were

I'm starting to agree with Josh Kraushaar that "This election still shaping up much along the lines of '80, but Romney/ "HW Bush" could be the winner this time around."

i think, fundamentally, this primary season is rather close to 1980. You have an activist, angry Republican base in a bad economy unhappy with the GOP establishment almost as much as they are with the Democrats. You've got the establishment GOP scared to death of the conservative alternative to their safe pick — George H. W. Bush. Then there is Gerald Ford who could be compared to this year's Chris Christie boomlet.

All things being equal, Perry is clearly no Reagan. Reagan stayed upbeat, optimistic, and was good on his feet. Perry not so much. At least he has not been and perhaps has now had a wake up call. In any event, as a fun exercise, let's go back to 1979.

October 19, 1979′s Facts on File World News Digest:

Formation of The New Hampshire Primary Committee to Draft President Ford in 1980 followed a Boston Globe poll of New Hampshire voters that showed Ford defeating former California Gov. Ronald Reagan 38% to 34%.

On Oct. 12, Gov. Richard A. Snelling (R, Vt.) announced a personal effort to persuade Ford to run, telling reporters that he was spending $4,000 to $6,000 of his own money to send out letters to Republicans nationwide to build sentiment for a Ford candidacy. Snelling said that only Ford could unify the party.

New York Times on October 16, 1979:

George Bush wins straw poll conducted by Iowa Daily Press Assn. Is favored for Republican Presidential nomination by 35.7% of party members attending fund-raising dinner in Ames, Iowa. John B Connally receives 15.3% in poll, Sen Bob Dole gets 14.8% and Ronald Reagan, who did not attend, gets 11.3%

New York Times on October 1, 1979:

Ex-Pres Ford is considering entering '80 Republican Presidential race with low-intensity campaign. Rules out exhausting load of personal campaigning, partially out of concern that it might threaten his wife's recovery from drug and alcohol abuse. Supporters are concerned that Ford is understaffed and politically isolated, but are buoyed by fact that he consistently runs better than Ronald Reagan in national polls.

Associated Press, September 17, 1979:

A telephone survey of New Hampshire voters indicates that former President Gerald Ford still is the favorite Republican presidential candidate in that state.

But without Ford as a candidate, former California Gov. Ronald Reagan is stronger than ever, pulling half the vote among a field of seven prospective candidates.