President Obama Doesn’t Understand – McCain was Right

That first of three debates in 2008 between Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain was mostly memorable for the Arizona Republican continually saying, “Sen. Obamadoesn’t understand…”

Obama vs. McCain (ipdigital.usembassy.gov)

At the time, the media narrative was of the mean and grumpy McCain standing against the hopeful and energetic Obama, past vs. future, etc…

This week, President Obama shows he doesn’t understand by spending about 30 seconds talking about a plane crash that killed almost 300 people – then making Joe Biden jokes, then racing off to raise money for Democrats in New York. (The press conference the next day wasn’t much better.)

This is after he couldn’t visit the border in Texas because he needed to make it to other fundraisers.

Retreating to fundraisers every time a crisis breaks out in the world is the natural refuge for a campaigner-in-chief that never liked being commander-in-chief. It allows him to be surrounded by the only people who still absolutely adore him, wealthy Democrats comfortable enough not to worry about a failed presidency at home and abroad. With plummeting approval ratings and even lower ratings for competency, Obama isn’t even getting adoration from the media anymore.

He’s not giving us that much confidence in how he will deal with ISIS. But we do know his hasty pullout in 2011 for the sake of a 2012 campaign theme of “ending the war in Iraq” is a paramount reason for the rise of the Sunni rebel group.

In 2008, McCain said, "Sen. Obama still ... doesn't quite understand -- or doesn't get it -- that if we fail in Iraq, it encourages Al Qaeda. They would establish a base in Iraq,” or, “I'm afraid Sen. Obama doesn't understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy.”

That’s not necessarily to say McCain would have gotten everything right. His claim this week that he wouldn’t have taken the country to war with Iraq had he been elected president in 2000 is a little dubious. While the characterization of McCain as a war monger is unfair, it seems quite likely the U.S. might have involved itself in more needless conflicts such as Syria or even with Iran had the 2008 election gone differently.

But, McCain was right about President Obama, who doesn’t seem to understand the nature of extremism in the Middle East or the ambitions of Vladimir Putin. So McCain’s redundant theme from the 2008 debate comes to mind this week as he has no doubt been vindicated.

How Elizabeth Warren can Beat the Clinton Machine

This week, news surfaced that President Barack Obama’s preferred candidate for 2016 is Elizabeth Warren, based on the president’s concerns that Hillary Clinton would undermine his agenda – based on the book by author/journalist Edward Klein “Blood Feud.”

Warren.Senate.gov

My most recent piece for the Capital Research Center is about Elizabeth Warren’s campaign infrastructure in challenging the Clinton machine. It comes from the nonprofit group Demos:

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the freshman Massachusetts senator who pioneered the “you didn’t build that” philosophy, is using her new book, Fighting Chance, to throw red meat to the Left and position herself to the left of Democrats like Hillary Clinton, who are more comfortable with Wall Street donors. Warren’s book tour was well received among fawning liberal supporters across the country, many of whom are looking for an un-Hillary in the 2016 Democratic presidential primary.

“I’d spent nearly twenty years fighting to level the playing field for the middle class, and I’d seen millions of working families go over the economic cliff—and it was getting worse,” Warren writes in her book, explaining why she decided to run for Senate in 2012. “What kind of country would my grandchildren grow up in? What if the conservatives and the big banks and the big-time CEOs got their way and Washington kept helping the rich and powerful to get richer and more powerful? Could I really stand on the sidelines and stay out of this fight?”

State.gov

The New Republic has called Warren “Hillary Clinton’s Worst Nightmare,” and much reporting since has followed similar themes, even as Warren feigns uninterest in presidential politics (just as she claims public clamor forced her to run for the Senate).

Still, many political observers claim former Secretary of State Clinton is invincible. Of course, similar claims were made in 2008. That year, in addition to her official campaign organization, Hillary had close allies in the nonprofit sector propping her up, such as the Center for American Progress (founded by a former Clinton White House chief of staff, John Podesta) and targeting her enemies, as Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) did.

How can Warren compete with that?

Should Warren run, she will likely have her own infrastructure in place with Demos, the research and advocacy group whose slogan is “An Equal Say and Equal Chance for All.” Notice the similarity to the title of Warren’s book.

Of course, the Left’s vision of equal opportunity is usually based on some absurd equality-of-outcome scheme, which is part of the core policy positions of Demos: to spend more, tax more, redistribute more, restrict political speech more, and convince the public that big government is good for them. The organization’s mission statement even calls for “rethinking American capitalism as it exists today as a system of political economy.”

The name Demos is actually an ancient Greek word meaning “people” or “the mob.” The Greek term is the root of the English word democracy—and also of demagogue.

Before she was a senator, Demos honored Warren at its 10th anniversary gala in 2010 with its “Transforming America” award, because Warren was the architect of the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation (New York Times, April 10, 2010). Demos aggressively advocated for the Dodd-Frank bill and has long supported Warren. In 2003 Demos helped promote Warren’s previous book, The Two Income Trap. But that’s understandable, given that the senator’s daughter, Amelia Warren Tyagi, is a co-founder and currently chairman of the governing board for Demos.

 

Read full article.

If Thad Cochran's Sleazy Tactics were Legal – Then So What

We might learn that Chris McDaniel is correct. No one disputes the voters who put Sen. Thad Cochran over the top in the Mississippi runoff (after he lost the primary) were Democrats. McDaniel contends they are indeed ineligible voters, having already voted in the Democratic primary.

Other chicanery is being looked into as well. If that's true, then ultimately the election should be reversed and some people should even be prosecuted.

But if it's not true, then conservatives should stop howling about the outcome.

We know for a fact that Cochran and his establishment Republicans allies used what amounted to race baiting to draw minority voters and scare tactics to draw seniors. As a practical moral matter, we ought to be outraged by this. We ought to be even more outraged that a Republican senator wins by promising to spend more money. I mean really, we can't even get a solid conservative in Mississippi of all places.

As political scientist Aaron Wildavskysaid, “A negative campaign is one in which the wrong candidate loses.”

Whining about the campaign tactics of the winner is unbecoming of conservatives. It's what the left does when they lose. It's actually what the left does even when they win.

Conservatives have to live to fight another day. That's not to be confused with always settling for the lesser of two evils. Nor is this a “let's rally around the nominee” pep talk. I'm not even sure Cochran deserves his party's support in November if he's so certain he can win without them. Mississippi conservatives might understandably sit this one out in November.

But this is politics. Cochran is an old bull who is going to cling to power and perks for as long as possible. He embodies all that is wrong with Washington. And he is unfortunately a Republican. It would be nice if he went out in a gentlemanly manner realizing his time is up. But that's not what these guys do on either side of the aisle and no one should be expecting that politics is suddenly going to turn into a high minded debate about ideas when these incumbents have so much to lose.

Under Mississippi law, primaries are open to voters in both parties. As long as the voters were eligible, Cochran won it fair and square by the laws of the state. He didn't “cheat” by getting Democrats to vote for him. He worked the rules in his favor.

As for McDaniel, no one should blame him if he has sincere concerns about voter irregularities. Given the closeness of the election and unusual circumstances, any candidate would have these same concerns. But he must be careful to avoid looking like a “sore loser.”

He nearly pulled off a miracle and could have a great future. If after a thorough review (assuming there is one), Cochran's win is proven legitimate, he should suck it up and endorse the GOP nominee, paving the path for a future McDaniel campaign.