In a radio interview that aired Monday on Univision, President Obama chided Latinos who "sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.'" Quite a uniter, urging Hispanics to exact political revenge on their enemies -- presumably, for example, the near-60 percent of Americans who support the new Arizona immigration law.
This from a president who won't even use "enemies" to describe an Iranian regime that is helping kill U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. This from a man who rose to prominence thunderously declaring that we were not blue states or red states, not black America or white America or Latino America -- but the United States of America.
This is how the great post-partisan, post-racial, New Politics presidency ends -- not with a bang, not with a whimper, but with a desperate election-eve plea for ethnic retribution. Nice.
The flak over Republican Wesley Meredith's attack ad on his Democratic opponent Margaret Dickson doesn't appear to be sticking, according to a new poll from Civitas:
Republican Wesley Meredith leads Democratic incumbent Margaret Dickson by 5 percentage points according to a new poll released today by the Civitas Institute, however a large portion of voters remain undecided.
According to the live-caller poll of 300 registered voters in that district, comprised of Cumberland and Bladen counties, Meredith leads 38 percent to 33 percent. However, 29 percent of voters were undecided with little time left before Election Day.
Among voters who say they are definitely voting this year, Meredith’s lead grows to 12 points, 43 percent to 31 percent.
“While Meredith holds a small lead with all voters, the number of undecided voters is very high, meaning this race is wide open heading into the final weekend,” said Civitas Institute Senior Legislative Analyst Chris Hayes. “The intensity appears to be on Meredith’s side, but it’s going to come down to a matter of which candidate can convince these last voters.”
Former Senate Majority Leader Tony Rand represented the 19th district until resigning from office in December. Dickson was appointed to replace him.
The Washington Examinerpromotes this morning a column Michael Barone wrote for British readers explaining voters' loss of enthusiasm for Barack Obama:
In the 1930s, John Maynard Keynes famously said that practical men of business, who acknowledged no intellectual influences, were actually the slaves of some defunct economist. Today I would say that the Obama Democrats, who acknowledge no intellectual superiors, have been the slaves of defunct political scientists and historians.
To be specific, the defunct Progressive political scientists and New Deal historians. The Progressives argued that history inevitably and rightly moves Left, from no government to big government. The New Deal historians taught that in times of economic distress, voters will be particularly supportive of, or at least unusually amenable to, a vast expansion of government.
Obama and Democratic congressional leaders, coming to power in the wake of financial crisis and in the midst of a deep recession, acted on this theory. Oddly, Obama deferred almost entirely to the congressional leaders on the details of the legislation. Don't you worry about the small stuff, he seemed to feel; history is on your side.
They passed a $787 billion stimulus package which, not accidentally, increased the baseline budgets of many agencies – a permanent expansion of government. A third of the money went to state and local governments, to spare public employee union members the ravages of the recession that were afflicting everyone else. (Unions, which mostly represent public employees, gave Democrats $400 million in the 2008 campaign cycle.)
They passed a health care bill that was the most unpopular major legislation passed by Congress since the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. That law, which allowed settlers to decide whether to allow slavery in these new territories, resulted in the disappearance of one major political party, the demotion to minority status of the other and led to civil war. The effects of Obamacare will not be so dire, though some longtime Democratic officeholders may think so on November 3.
The Obama Democrats gave the theories of the Progressive political scientists and the New Deal historians as much of a fair test as a theory ever gets in our messy, real world. They clearly flunked.
When government artificially inflates your energy costs or limits the location and size of the house you might want to buy, it's often employing a public policy approach called "demand-side management."
Roy Cordato explains in a new Spotlight report how that approach is inconsistent with a free society. He offers some ideas in the video clip below:
I was born during the Reagan administration, during the last years. Unfortunately, I remember nothing from this time period. Neither do I remember Bush Sr.’s campaign and victory.
My first political memory, though I hardly thought of it that way ... and really hardly ever thought about it, was Operation: Desert Storm. I remember that only because the news would come on after Winnie the Pooh, and they’d show our men in trenches.
I don’t remember Clinton’s first term, but I do remember his impeachment process. I was young, but bitterly disappointed when he was let off the hook. I thought that was wrong.
I remember going to the polls with my parents and younger siblings to vote. We voted in a big gym, as I remember. I did kids voting. I remember voting for Jesse Helms and Bob Dole. Not that my votes counted, but early on the responsibility of voting was clearly imprinted on my mind. I remember my mom showing me what the inside of those blue, plastic voting booths was like, though I didn’t go in with her while she voted.
I remember – vaguely – George Jr.’s campaign for presidency. I was getting old enough I started to care about politics. At least a little. That was the first time I stayed up to watch who would win. I remember his re-election and how the counting went on ... and on ... and on. And the recounting. I stayed up for that too. And though I wondered why an official winner was declared but the counting continued I began to understand as the days ... and weeks ... drug on.
Before that, though, I remember 9-11. We cut the TV on because my frantic great-aunt called. I saw the airplane smash into the second tower. I saw the Pentagon on fire, I saw the plane downed in that Pennsylvania field. I saw people stepping out of the towers hundreds of feet above the ground. I heard the thump-thumping of their bodies hit the roofs of the towers at the ground. I saw the first tower collapse in dust and flames. I saw the second tower follow suit as people ran a marathon against the tide of debris on the streets, and I saw many lose that race.
I remember President Bush’s response. I think he was at his finest then – no pretension, just his honest, genuine self. A Texan boy, an American – just like the rest of us. And, like the rest of us, he wasn’t going to take this attack sitting down.
I remember campaigning for local people to be elected into the State House. I reckon that was when I actually became involved. When I realized that politics wasn’t just something that happened on TV. It was something that impacted everyone, and I could do something about it, even though I couldn’t yet vote.
I remember voting my first time. We had moved by then, now we went to a school classroom to vote – there they gave you a round of applause for voting your first time. They were excited to see young people involved. I’ve voted every election I knew of since that time.
I remember this last presidential campaign cycle. I remember all of the drama and emotions on both sides of the fence. I remember both the depths of despair and the heights of ecstasy had by both parties over the election of America’s first African-American president.
I remember not watching Duke play basketball so I could watch C-Span to see if the HealthCare bill would pass. I knew it would. I knew Speaker Pelosi wouldn’t have called for a vote if it would fail. But I had to watch anyway.
I remember the drastic differences of reactions to that law. I actually think it matched the emotions of President Obama’s election. At least, in my circles it seemed to.
And I wonder. What will I remember about this election? Will those running for office keep their promises? Will the Tea Party actually make an impact? Will Republicans actually take over the General Assembly for the first time in scores of years? Will the Democrats show that in spite of – or is it because of – the reforms made since January that their voter base is loyal and strong?
I don’t know. It promises to be rememberable either way. This history remains to be written. And we the people get to carve it in stone.
Even the most politically active voters often find themselves guessing about which judges they should support as they cast their election ballots. Former N.C. Supreme Court Justice Bob Orr, now executive director of the N.C. Institute for Constitutional Law, discusses the judicial election process during the next edition of Carolina Journal Radio.
Orr’s NCICL colleague Jeanette Doran will discuss the ramifications of the recent state Supreme Court ruling in a Highway Trust Fund dispute, and you’ll hear highlights from a recent televised panel discussion about the impact of federal health care reform. In addition to comments from state health director Dr. Jeffrey Engel and Bob Seligson of the N.C. Medical Society, Joseph Coletti will offer reaction from a free-market, limited-government perspective.
UNC-Pembroke management professor Eric Dent will explain his assertion that we are all religious, and you’ll hear from one prominent state Democrat — Senate Majority Leader Martin Nesbitt — who’s not buying the nearly universal projections of major Republican gains in next Tuesday’s election.