Tuesday, May 21, 2013

What the Obama Crises Mean and How Republicans Should React

Once again, we turn to Stu Rothenberg for the cautionary advise to Republicans and although we have used the term "Obamagate" we agree with him for the most part.   He puts our "Obamagate" issue in perspective.   But to be even more objective, we've included Charlie Cook's take on the 'crisis' following Rothenberg's.   We think they are both the read and reflecting on.

Will Republicans Screw Up Again? Some Are Already Overreaching


"Some Republicans are so excited at the thought of multiple controversies dogging the White House over the next few months (or longer) that they are already foaming at the mouth.

For example, on his syndicated radio show late last week, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee compared reports of the IRS targeting conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status to what happened in Nazi Germany.

And, of course, you knew that some conservatives and Republicans (such as Glenn Beck, Oklahoma Sen. James M. Inhofe and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann) couldn’t resist mentioning the “I” word — impeachment — almost immediately as they struggled to show their anger and contempt for President Barack Obama and his administration.

But Republicans ought to remember that they have seen this movie before, and the ending was not what they hoped for or expected.

There’s no doubt that the three controversies — Benghazi, the IRS and the Associated Press — play into the GOP’s hand by raising questions about “big government.” They give Republicans an opportunity to challenge the administration’s truthfulness and to argue for a check on the president during his final years in office.

While the president hasn’t been implicated directly, that certainly doesn’t eliminate the political risk for the White House or for Democrats over the next few month or possibly all the way to next year’s midterm elections.

But let’s not forget: Republicans failed to capitalize on President Bill Clinton’s inappropriate conduct by over-playing their hand and pushing impeachment. Not only did they fail to drive him from office, the GOP ended up losing a handful of House seats in the 1998 midterms instead of adding seats as initially expected.

Republicans allowed themselves to look as if they were primarily interested in scoring political points and overturning the results of the 1996 election, even if it meant paralyzing the government.
That same danger exists once again for the GOP.

With fundraising playing such a huge part in our politics, some conservative groups will be tempted to use the trifecta of controversies to play to their bases to boost anger and fundraising.

This, in turn, will make the issues appear more and more partisan, giving the president the same opportunity that Clinton used when he sought to rise above “politics” and called for members of both parties to address public policy challenges.

Of course, there are differences between 1998 and 2013.

Though Clinton undoubtedly lied about his behavior and besmirched his office, he was caught in a personal scandal. As we have seen repeatedly, while personal scandals provide fodder for late-night comedians and social commentators, voters seem willing to overlook them. Just ask current South Carolina Republican Rep. Mark Sanford.

Obama’s problems certainly haven’t yet been laid at his doorstep, and there’s no reason to believe that he was directly responsible for the controversies in the ways that Clinton and then-Gov. Sanford were. But the current controversies go to the heart of how government operates and how it communicates with its people, raising more fundamental questions than the Clinton and Sanford personal scandals did.

In other words, voters easily understand the notion of individual weakness — and redemption. But they have a much harder time accepting government mistakes and misjudgments.

If Sunday’s TV appearances by big-name Republicans are any indication, party leaders have decided to use a “culture of cover-ups and political intimidation” argument to link recent controversies and put them in a far broader context, making it easier to link them to the White House. Columnist George Will even identified potential fourth and fifth scandals in his May 16 column, “Obama’s Tapped-Out Trust.”

Democrats used the same strategy during President George W. Bush’s second term — and only a slightly different phrase, “culture of corruption” —  during their effort to regain the House in 2006. Winning 30 seats and the majority showed that they were successful.

Obviously, the great danger now for the president and his party is that one of the existing controversies expands dramatically or even that another controversy emerges that fits neatly into the GOP’s storyline. While the just-released CNN poll doesn’t show the president has been hurt by the controversies, those findings shouldn’t lull Democrats into a sense of security. They already have reason to worry about candidate recruitment.

Republicans certainly can continue to raise questions about the administration’s behavior, but they would improve their prospects if they can use those controversies to raise questions about the Obama team’s performance and goals.

The White House, on the other hand, must hope that Democrats can portray Republicans as placing a higher priority on embarrassing the president than on dealing with the day-to-day concerns of real people. For Obama, a foreign policy crisis might even be just what the doctor ordered."
 
 
------------------------------------------------------------

From the National Journal:
OFF TO THE RACES

Republicans’ Hatred of Obama Blinds Them to Public Disinterest in Scandals by Charlie Cook

Republicans are so focused on their bitter battles against Obama, they can’t see how little impact the “scandals” have had on public opinion.


"Red-faced Republicans, circling and preparing to pounce on a second-term Democratic president they loathe, do not respect, and certainly do not fear. Sound familiar? Perhaps reminiscent of Bill Clinton’s second term, after the Monica Lewinsky story broke? During that time, Republicans became so consumed by their hatred of Clinton and their conviction that this event would bring him down that they convinced themselves the rest of the country was just as outraged by his behavior as they were. By the way, what was Clinton’s lowest Gallup job-approval rating in his second term, throughout the travails of investigations and impeachment? It was 53 percent. The conservative echo machine had worked itself into such a frenzy, the GOP didn’t realize that the outrage was largely confined to the ranks of those who never voted for Clinton anyway.

These days, the country is even more polarized, and the conservative echo chamber is louder than ever before. Many conservatives made it all the way to Election Day last November unaware that their White House nominee was falling short. How could Mitt Romney possibly lose when everyone they knew was voting for him? Except that he did lose, and it wasn’t even a very close race. Five other post-World War II presidential elections had closer outcomes.

The simple fact is that although the Republican sharks are circling, at least so far, there isn’t a trace of blood in the water. A new CNN/ORC survey of 923 Americans this past Friday and Saturday, May 17-18, pegged Obama’s job-approval rating at 53 percent, up a statistically insignificant 2 points since their last poll, April 5-7, which was taken before the Benghazi, IRS, and AP-wiretap stories came to dominate the news and congressional hearing rooms. His disapproval rating was down 2 points since that last survey.

In Gallup’s tracking poll, Obama’s average job-approval rating so far this year is 50 percent. For this past week, May 13-19, his average was 49 percent, the same as the week before. The most recent three-day moving average, through Sunday, May 19, was also 49 percent. Over the past two weeks, even as these three stories/scandals have dominated the news, they have had precisely zero effect on the president’s job-approval numbers. His ratings are still bouncing around in the same narrow range they have been for weeks.

Maybe that will change. Maybe these allegations will start getting traction with voters. But it might just be that Americans are more focused on an economy that is gradually coming out of the longest and deepest economic downturn since the Great Depression. Most economists say the current quarter will show a slowdown in economic growth from the first quarter’s 2.5 percent pace, but they expect the economy to be stronger in the second half of this year. People may be encouraged by housing prices rising and the stock market setting record highs—and their retirement accounts may actually be looking better. The University of Michigan’s widely watched Consumer Sentiment Index is at the highest level since 2007, before the recession. The Conference Board’s more volatile Consumer Confidence Index is also generally moving up, although it isn’t at the record level of the Michigan index. The National Federation of Independent Business’s Index of Small Business Optimism, which took a deep plunge after the election, increased last month and is on an upward trend since the beginning of the year. Maybe the people and businesses polled have written off Washington as a political cesspool, and so these stories don’t affect them much. Perhaps they see this town as a place that can’t seem to get anything right.

One wonders how long Republicans are going to bark up this tree, perhaps the wrong tree, while they ignore their own party’s problems, which were shown to be profound in the most recent elections. Clearly none of these recent issues has had a real impact on voters yet. Republicans seem to be betting everything on them, just as they did in 1998—about which even Newt Gingrich (who was House speaker that year) commented recently to NPR, “I think we overreached in ’98.”

Republicans and conservatives who are so consumed by these “scandals” should ask themselves why, despite wall-to-wall media attention and the constant focus inside the Beltway—some are even talking about grounds for impeachment—Obama’s job-approval needle hasn’t moved. The CNN/ORC poll suggests that people are aware of and watching the news, but they aren’t reacting, at least not yet. Clearly Republicans hope the public will begin to respond. But at what point do they decide that maybe voters might be more interested in other issues or worries than about politicians on one side pointing fingers and throwing allegations at those on the other side? At what point might the GOP conclude that it is just digging the hole a little deeper?"

This article appears in the May 21, 2013, edition of National Journal Daily as Blind Rage.

Moore Oklahoma: Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste

As we at the Objective Conservative watched the horror of the Moore, Oklahoma tornado, we instantly new that the sky-is-falling, Al-Gore-global-warming-mass-hysteria crowd would be spewing their rhetorical fingers of blame at those troglodyte Republicans who don't worship at their church of man-made-global-warming (the only real place most Democrat elected-officials worship at).  So it was no surprise when Democrat Rhode Island U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse used the tragedy to blame those conservative Republicans who dismiss the notion of man-made global warming for the tornado and ever hurricane and natural disaster that happens.   Apparently, his take on environmental history is based on his egocentric lifetime-view before the 24-hour news coverage and the Internet.    Apparently, his take on environmental history ignores the fact that the earth's climate has been evolving for millions of years and that there have been major cold/heat climatic swings even in the last 1000 years.   Oh well, as Rahm Emanuel, President Obama's advisor says, "You never let a serious crisis go to waste.   And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." 

Oh, and note from below how much concern this Democrat purports to have for the viability of the Republican party.

"But wait!", as they say on late night television commercials.  The president will be addressing the country shortly and no doubt will use that opportunity to follow the Rahm Emmanuel rule and you can bet he will be heading there to 'help' by observing the damage.   And, just maybe, this will take minds off of Obamagate........Excuse our cynicism.

This from the Daily Caller:

Democratic Senator uses Okla. tornado for anti-GOP rant over global warming by Jeff Poor

"While many Americans were tuned into news coverage of the massive damage from tornadoes ravaging the state of Oklahoma, Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse took to the Senate floor to rail against his Republican colleagues for denying the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

Whitehouse spent 15 minutes chastising GOP senators and justified his remarks by alluding to states that seek federal assistance in the wake of natural disasters.

“So, you may have a question for me,” Whitehouse said. “Why do you care? Why do you, Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, care if we Republicans run off the climate cliff like a bunch of proverbial lemmings and disgrace ourselves? I’ll tell you why. We’re stuck in this together. We are stuck in this together. When cyclones tear up Oklahoma and hurricanes swamp Alabama and wildfires scorch Texas, you come to us, the rest of the country, for billions of dollars to recover. And the damage that your polluters and deniers are doing doesn’t just hit Oklahoma and Alabama and Texas. It hits Rhode Island with floods and storms. It hits Oregon with acidified seas, it hits Montana with dying forests. So, like it or not, we’re in this together.”

Whitehouse went on to condemn the current Republican position on global warming, citing economic, environmental and diplomatic damages.

“You drag America with you to your fate,” he continued. “So, I want this future: I want a Republican Party that has returned to its senses and is strong and a worthy adversary in a strong America that has done right by its people and the world. That’s what I want. I don’t want this future. I don’t want a Republican Party disgraced, that let its extremists run off the cliff, and an America suffering from grave economic and environmental and diplomatic damage because we failed, because we didn’t wake up and do our duty to our people, and because we didn’t lead the world. I do not want that future. But that’s where we’re headed. So I will keep reaching out and calling out, ever hopeful that you will wake up before it is too late.”"

How Much Does The Omaha World-Herald Endorsement Mean?

We've just finished a primary and general election and now might be the time to reflect on the importance of endorsements.   Specifically, we wanted to look at Omaha World-Herald endorsements.   Do they mean anything?   Do they impact voter behavior?  Or are they just a correct analysis of what voters are apt to decide anyway?

It's pretty clear that any candidate (or ballot issue) covets the endorsement of the local daily.   Certainly, it is better to have it than not.   And, once obtained the endorsement can provide extra fodder in advertising to try to convince voters that the candidate or issue is legitimate. 

If you are the Mike Holmes or Geitner Simmons, the guys who play god with candidates, you could probably toast to the success of your interview assessments of candidates:  67.9% winning margin in the primary and 88.9% in the general election.  To the credit of Geitner and Holmes and the local daily they did a pretty good job of assessing the electability of the candidates and after the primary they had the luxury of trimming some of their former endorssees for likely winners.

But does the paper's endorsement really mean success for it's favored candidates?  It's hard to say. Does the paper's endorsements move voters?  Perhaps with lesser candidates like school board where some may rely on any information they feel is credible from any source.   And the Omaha World-Herald endorsements are for the most part credible.

Bottom line.   If you are a candidate you want the paper's endorsement.   But being credible, picking the right issues to talk about, running a great campaign, reaching out and touching the voter is what wins campaigns.

Here is the data:

 2013 World-Herald General Election Endorsements 
OfficeCandidateWon Lost
MayorJean Stothertx
Omah City Council District 1Pete Festersenx
Omaha City Council District 2Ben Gray 
Omaha City Council District 3Chris Jerramx
Omaha City Council District 4Garry Gernandtx
Omaha City Council District 5Jeff Moorex
Omaha City Council District 6Franklin Thompsonx
Omaha City Council District 7Aimee Meltonx
Omaha School Board District 1Yolanda Williamsx
Omaha School Board District 2Marque Snowx
Omaha School Board District 3Woody Bradfordx
Omaha School Board District 4Justin Waynex
Omaha School Board District 5Lou Ann Godingx
Omaha School Board District 6Matt Scanlanx
Omaha School Board District 7Katie Underwoodx
Omaha School Board District 8Lacey Mericax
Omaha School Board District 9Sarah Brumfieldx
Millard School Board Bond IssueVote Yesx
World-Herald Achieved 88.9 Success Rate in Endorsements
2013 World-Herald Primary Endorsements
 
MayorJean Stothertx
MayorBrad Ashfordx
Omaha City Council District 2Ben Grayx
Omaha City Council District 2Bruce Hunterx
Omaha City Council District 4Garry Gernandtx
Omaha City Council District 4Virgil Patlanx
Omaha City Council District 7Tom Mulliganx
Omaha City Council District 7Aimee Meltonx
Omaha School Board District 1LeDonna White Yorkx
Omaha School Board District 1Yolanda Williamsx
Omaha School Board District 2Marque Snowx
Omaha School Board District 2Morghan Pricex
Omaha School Board District 3Marian Feyx
Omaha School Board District 3Woody Bradfordx
Omaha School Board District 4Justin Waynex
Omaha School Board District 4Jill Brownx
Omaha School Board District 5Jennifer Thompkins Kirshenbaumx
Omaha School Board District 5Jeff Millerx
Omaha School Board District 5Lou Ann Godingx
Omaha School Board District 6Matt Scanlanx
Omaha School Board District 6Barbara Daughtonx
Omaha School Board District 7Andy Allenx
Omaha School Board District 7Katie Underwoodx
Omaha School Board District 8Lacey Mericax
Omaha School Board District 8Juliana Garzax
Omaha School Board District 8Meg Cordesx
Omaha School Board District 9Sarah Brumfieldx
Omaha School Board District 9Rebecca Barrientos-Patlanx
 
World-Herald Achieved 67.9% Success Rate in Endorsements

Cartoon of the Day


Monday, May 20, 2013

The Obamagate Quagmire

The quagmire seems to be deepening even as we speak.   Now we learn from The Hill that WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS KNEW OF THE IRS TARGETING AND FAILED TO TELL PRESIDENT OBAMA.   The stench of Obamagate is growing daily:

Carney: WH officials knew of IRS targeting but didn’t tell Obama

By Jonathan Easley

White House officials were notified of a Treasury Department inspector general report on the IRS but elected not to tell President Obama about it.

White House press secretary Jay Carney said Monday that Chief of Staff Dennis McDonough and other senior officials knew of the general nature of the report but decided to keep the president in the dark about the report’s finding that the IRS had targeted conservative groups for extra tax scrutiny.

Carney said it was the White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler’s judgment that the matter should not be told to the president, and that she conveyed this sentiment to senior staff.

Carney defended the decision, saying conclusions often change in the final stages of inspector general reports, and that it would’ve been inappropriate for the White House to involve itself in an ongoing investigation.

“To be clear, we knew the subject of the investigation and the nature of some of the potential findings,” Carney said. “But we did not have a copy of the draft report, we did not know the details, the scope, or the motivation surrounding the misconduct. And we did not know who was responsible. Most importantly, the report was not final and still very much subject to change.”
 
Carney said that upon learning about the report, McDonough “rightly chose not to take action” to avoid being seen as intervening.

“That’s what any White House should do,” Carney said at the daily White House briefing.

“The cardinal rule here is you do not intervene in an independent investigation … particularly when the final conclusions have not been released,” he said.

But Lanny Davis, a former special counsel under President Bill Clinton, wrote last week that Ruemmler should resign if she knew about the probe of the IRS and failed to tell the president.

Davis, writing for The Hill, argued that a White House counsel must have a keen ear for politics, and that it would have been better to tell Obama immediately of the facts of the case.

"If Ms. Ruemmler did know about this IRS story and didn’t inform the president immediately, then, respectfully, that must mean she didn’t appreciate fully the mammoth legal and political implications for the U.S. government as well as the American people of a story involving IRS officials abusing power and possibly violating criminal laws," Davis wrote.

Carney said Ruemmler and McDonough had only “top line” knowledge of the report’s findings. He argued that some in Congress, including House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrel Issa (R-Calif.), had been similarly briefed on the upcoming report, but chose to sit on the information so as not to interfere.

“Our whole point has been that knowing this was coming does not change the fact that there was nothing we could have or should have done about it,” Carney said, adding that it was wrong to say “that somehow the president should have been notified.” 
 
President Obama has said he first learned about the IRS misconduct when the public did, on May 10.

Carney said the president wasn’t upset that he had to learn about the report through the media, rather than from his advisers.

“The president believes and has faith that it is entirely appropriate that nobody here took any action to intervene,” Carney said. “Some matters are not appropriate to convey to him, and this is one of them.”

Carney said it was “absurd” to suggest that senior White House officials kept the matter from Obama to shield him from the political backlash. He argued that because the targeting was looking at “past conduct,” rather than ongoing offense, that it diminished what the president could have done about it.

The inspector general’s office said it notified Treasury Secretary Jack Lew about the audit in March, but that he did not learn about the report findings until they went public. The disclosure of the IRS political targeting has brought criticism from both parties, with Congress beginning hearings. President Obama called the conduct “outrageous” last week and sought and received the resignation of Steven Miller, the acting director of the IRS.

The Wall Street Journal reported late Sunday that Ruemmler learned about the inspector general’s conclusions during the week of April 22.
 
“My understanding is that the White House Counsel’s Office was alerted in the week of April 22nd of this year, only about the fact that the IG was finishing a review about matters involving the office in Cincinnati,” Carney said. “But that’s all they were informed as a normal sort of heads up. And we have never - we don’t have access to, nor should we, the IG’s report or any draft versions of it.”"

Richard Milhous Obama: Suddenly Its 1973

 
There have been a lot of comparisons made between Richard Nixon and the Prince of Peace Nobel Laureate President of the World of Equal Nations Commissar Barack Barry Soetoro Hussein Obama in the last few weeks.   The column below by Carl M. Cannon, courtesy of Real Clear Politics, does a pretty good job articulating those comparisons.    It's worth the read.

Richard Milhous Obama
By Carl M. Cannon

My father, Lou Cannon, covered the White House with distinction for the Washington Post for many years, beginning in the Nixon administration. He employed an easy rule of thumb when fielding phone calls from anonymous tipsters: 

If the caller said, “I have a story that will make Watergate look like a picnic,” Dad would hang up on him.

In the past week, Richard Nixon's name has been invoked often, and not in a way that pleases President Obama or his loyalists.  Unless it's a reference to his dramatic 1972 visit to China, Nixon is not the president any of his successors enjoy being likened to--especially when the suffix "gate" is attached to it.

Barack Obama was only 13 years old when Nixon resigned from office one step ahead of the posse.   This is old enough to know that correlations between himself and the 37th president should be contested, which Obama has done.

I'll let you guys engage in those comparisons," he replied when asked at a rainy Rose Garden appearance Thursday how he felt about the Nixon parallel.   "You can go ahead and read the history, I think, and draw your own conclusions."

This response echoed language employed earlier in the week by Obama's spokesman, Jay Carney.   "I can tell you," the White House press secretary told reports, "that the people who make those kinds of comparisons need to check their history."

Fair enough. Carney was a colleague of mine in the White House press corps during the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush years, and he summoned a pretty good institutional memory about the beat. Nixon’s presidency unraveled on the shoals  of widespread criminality with no precedent in American politics. So, yes -- by all means, let’s leave Watergate out of it.

Yet, I can’t help but think that Nixon and Obama have more in common than either man’s devotees might imagine.

Richard Milhous Nixon was thin-skinned, felt persecuted by the opposition party, had a penchant for classifying political adversaries -- and journalists -- as “enemies,” and tried to control his image so fiercely that, ultimately, zealous aides committed illegal acts to further his re-election.

But even before that had happened -- and before Nixon himself began directing a coverup -- truth had become a casualty of his administration. This is the parallel between Richard Nixon and Barack Obama.

No evidence has been unearthed connecting Obama, or anyone under his direction, to illicit activities. But the absence of criminality isn’t the only test here. Nixon’s “enemies,” at least in his mind, also included vast swaths of the Fourth Estate. That apparently is how the current president operates, too.

Barack Obama often displays contempt for the proper role of news-gatherers and, by extension, for the value of reporting that seeks to be unbiased. Often, officials in his White House or re-election campaign seem uncomprehending of the concept of straight reporting.

In their Manichean world, there are liberal news organizations (good) and conservative outlets (bad). Some of the news business does work this way -- more than when Nixon was president, for sure -- but what Obama and his political advisers and White House press handlers have done is graft their own hyper-partisanship onto the media.

In the Obama administration, it’s not uncommon for a White House press official to scream profanely over the phone at journalists whose stories they dislike, plant questions from friendly media outlets, and deny access to briefings to reporters who ask tough questions. This administration has aggressively used the Justice Department to ferret out news leaks, declared open season on a media organization out of sync with his philosophy (Fox News), and routinely questioned the professionalism of reporters and the patriotism of the opposition political party. That disquieting sound you hear is an echo from the Nixon years.

And though the current administration’s evasions about last September’s attacks in Benghazi, the partisan 2010-2012 activities by IRS, and the unprecedented scope of the Justice Department’s snooping into Associated Press phone records are all unrelated controversies, there is a common thread.

Those who work for this president have a fetish for stage managing the news. They never simply trust the facts; or maybe a better way of saying it is that they don’t trust the American people be able to handle the facts. Washington has been consumed in recent weeks about who, exactly, massaged the administration’s “talking points” on Benghazi.

The underlying problem is that there were talking points at all. The phrase was popularized in the 1970s in the State Department. Originally the practice ensured that government officials were employing the precise, but opaque, language required in the field of international diplomacy. But the phrase soon migrated to politics, where it meant something quite different: Talking points were the lines of the day to be employed in interviews by partisan political operatives either to defend their position or attack the other side.

Benghazi represents the merging of two uses of the term. Four government officials were killed and a U.S. facility was attacked. Yes, some Republicans wanted to use that for partisan gain, but most Americans simply wanted to know what happened, and why. They still have not been told.

All politics is local, famed Democratic Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill is famous for saying. Under Obama, all foreign affairs is domestic politics.

Concerning the IRS scandal, there is no evidence that Obama unleashed tax collectors on opponents, as Nixon did. But after years of comparing congressional Republicans to terrorists and hostage-takers, and characterizing the Tea Party as racists and extremists, what message did the president or the leaders of his party think they were sending IRS managers?

Obama is never content to simply say he thinks he can show how wrong-headed Republicans are about the federal budget. No, he says they should put “country ahead of party,” thereby suggesting they are deliberately hurting the economy to hurt him.
This, too, is Nixonland.

On June 29, 1972, Nixon was talking to Henry Kissinger in a taped conversation about the Democratic Party platform. “These people are so revolting that they have to be smashed,” Nixon tells his national security adviser.

“I don’t mean just beat them,” Nixon adds. “It’s good to beat them. But I mean smashed. They must be, they must be, disgraced, driven right out of public life.”

No tapes are available to know how Obama speaks about Republicans in private. But tonally, he’s not that much different from Nixon when speaking in public. Last week, even after the Benghazi, IRS, and AP controversies crested on the White House steps, Obama found time to blame Republicans at a New York fundraiser.

“What’s blocking us right now is a sort of hyper-partisanship in Washington that I was, frankly, hoping to overcome in 2008,” the president said. “My thinking was when we beat them in 2012, that might break the fever, and it’s not quite broken yet. But I am persistent. And I am staying at it. … If there are folks who are more interested in winning elections than they are thinking about the next generation, then I want to make sure there are consequences to that.”

Get all that? The Republicans don’t merely have a difference of opinion with the president. They are rabid, and craven, and willing to sacrifice their own children’s futures to win elections. This Nixon-esque attitude constitutes a toxic brew: whining, boasting, and name-calling all overlaid with persecution-complex and a profound contempt for his opponents -- along with a determination to make them pay.

Like Nixon, Obama also fancies himself a press critic. Although the man received press coverage in 2008 and 2012 that Nixon would have killed for, there are considerable irritants out there, including radioman Rush Limbaugh, but primarily Fox News, which Obama and his aides have attempted to delegitimize by name.

In so doing, Obama has actually gone places in public Nixon only dared go in private.
As I write this piece, I am looking at a memo written on July 30, 1972, by President Nixon to White House Chief of Staff Bob Haldeman. That morning, The Washington Post had published a story by Lou Cannon headlined “Nixon Running Scared.”

That article apparently got under Nixon’s skin. His memo to Haldeman runs for three pages. His premise is that the Washington Post “is totally against us.” Making no allowance for the possibility of objective reporting, Nixon starts by telling his top adviser that he understands campaign aides must deal with “media representatives that we know are antagonistic to us.”

Nixon’s second point is that they should not “waste time” with such outlets at the expense of “turning down interviews with media representatives who are our friends.” This seems to be to a false choice, but Nixon -- who would win re-election in 1972 in a landslide -- is just warming to his main point:
“Third, even when our most intelligent people are meeting with people like Cannon they must constantly keep in mind that they are confronting a political enemy and that everything they say will, therefore, be used against us.”

We don’t know if Obama or his minions also keep enemies lists, if only in their heads. But we do know that they view the media with the same with-us-or-against-us mentality that Nixon fostered. And though that attitude can help win elections, it surely impedes good governance.

Richard Nixon thought liberals were out to get him. Guess what? Many of them were. Likewise, Barack Obama thinks the Republicans want him to fail in office. Many of them do. But it’s a poor excuse for bad behavior."
 
Carl M. Cannon is the Washington Editor for RealClearPolitics. Reach him on Twitter @CarlCannon.

2014 Looking Rosier for G.O.P.

All the talk about Republicans needing to reinvent themselves in order to win future elections may just be talk after all--at least as the 2014 elections for the U.S. Senate ramp up.   Stu Rothenberg has an interesting column today in support of that thought:

"The Road to the Republican Senate

 Majority is Easier than You Think"

from The Rothenberg Political Report

"Republicans don’t need to win a single state that Barack Obama
won in 2012 in order to have a majority in the Senate after the
midterm elections.
 
That means all of the analysis about Republicans’ inability to appeal
to swing voters or wooing moderate Democrats in blue states could
be pointless. Republican candidates need to identify the voters who
supported Mitt Romney over Barack Obama, in what ended up being
 a comfortable Democratic win, and get them to support GOP Senate
 nominees. If that happens, the game is over for Democrats.
 
Democrats are defending seven states that President Obama lost in
2012 and Republicans need a net gain of six to reclaim the majority.
That also means in the very unlikely event that Democrats somehow
knock off Maine Sen. Susan Collins, the only Republican senator up
for re-election in an Obama state, the GOP could be in the majority
without her by sweeping the Romney states currently held by a
Democrat.
 
Republicans do have to worry about nominating candidates who are
less popular than Romney and, in some states, deal with Democratic
incumbents who are more popular than President Obama.
 
But Republicans have considerable room for error.
 
President Obama lost six of the seven states with a Democratic
senator by an average of 19 percentage points. Some of the states
were uglier than others for the President, including West Virginia
(Obama minus 27 percent), Arkansas (minus 24 percent), South
Dakota (minus 18 percent), Louisiana (minus 17 percent), and A
laska and Montana, which he lost both by just under 14 percent.
 
The outlier is North Carolina, where Sen. Kay Hagan (D) is running
for a second term and President Obama lost by just a couple of points
last year.
 
The red path to the Republican majority would require holding states
 such as Georgia and Kentucky and defeating at least three incumbents,
which would be equal the number they have defeated in total in the last
decade.
 
But the GOP would not need to win any of the Democrats' open seats in
Michigan, Iowa, and New Jersey."

The Internet Sales Tax

The Platte Institute sent us its take on the issue of the internet sales tax that recently passed the senate.    We think the institute brings up some good points.   It might be worth your reading:

Implications of the Internet Sales Tax

Internet sales as a percentage of total retail sales have grown from 2 percent in 2000 to 16.1 percent today, with a value of $4.1 trillion, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.[1] This massive revenue source has caught the attention of governments looking to meet budgets because many of these transactions are not subject to state and local sales taxes.
 
Taxing internet sales has largely been restrained by the 1992 Supreme Court case Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, which ruled that collection of sales taxes from remote venders was an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce and that states could only tax companies with a physical presence within the state.[2] This in turn led to larger companies with internet sales to strategically placing their warehouses and offices to avoid higher taxes, a notable example being Amazon's warehouse in low-tax Nevada being used to deliver to customers in high-tax California.[3]
 
The ability of internet sellers to avoid state sales taxes has prompted the introduction of the Marketplace Fairness Act in Congress, which would empower states to collect online sales taxes.[4] This is in line with the Quill ruling as the Court said Congress could grant states the power to collect online sales tax.
 
An internet sales tax will undeniably increase how much consumers pay for what they order online. For Nebraskans, the increase would include the 5.5 percent state sales tax and the local sales tax, which can run as high as 2 percent under state law.[5] So some Nebraskans would pay up to 7.5 percent more for online items. Although, Nebraskans are currently required to report their online purchases and remit the amount owed directly to the state,[6] but it is unclear how effective these requirements are in compelling compliance. It is also unclear how well-known the requirement is among the general population.
 
Effects on consumers tie directly into the costs for businesses. The higher costs will inevitably result in fewer people shopping online. In a 2000 study, Austan Goolsbee-a chief economist for President Obama-estimated that taxing online sales would make them decrease by 24 percent.[7] Apart from lost revenue due to decreased sales, businesses would also have the daunting task of collecting taxes for the states their customers live in. There are roughly 9,600 jurisdictions with the authority to impose sales taxes, and businesses selling online would have to comply with each one.[8] While the bill would allow businesses to file a single return for all taxing authorities within a state, that still means businesses would have 46 potential returns-45 sales tax states and Washington D.C.-that would be filed monthly or quarterly depending on the state.[9] Additionally, each state would be able to audit a particular business once a year, which means a single business could face up to 46 potential audits every year.[10] While these requirements and the immense costs associated would likely be no problem for large businesses like Amazon, it would have a substantial impact on smaller businesses like the Norfolk-based online ATV parts company Powersports Nation.[11] In effect, these requirements and regulations could help larger sellers like Amazon crowd out their smaller competitors who would both lose business from lower consumer spending and be unable to calculate the thousands of taxing jurisdictions; deliver dozens of returns on a monthly or quarterly basis; and deal with potentially numerous audits every year.
 
There is also a states' rights issue to consider, as the legislation would force businesses in states without sales taxes-Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon[12]-to collect taxes for other states even though the business owners and employees have no say in those states' tax policies. Some have even labeled this a modern form of "taxation without representation."[13]
 
On the other side of the argument, there is a fairness argument that internet sales should be subject to the same taxes and regulations as regular businesses. The lack of sales tax gives internet sellers a distinct advantage over brick-and-mortar retailers as their goods are less expensive and therefore more attractive to consumers. The Marketplace Fairness Act would not create any new taxes; it simply makes internet sellers subject to taxes that already exist.[14]
 
Even though it would "level the playing field," the tax compliance burdens are of concern, and some suggestions have been put out to make an internet sales tax workable and less burdensome. In a 2011 paper, economists Veronique de Rugy and Adam Thierer of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University recommended "[a]n origin-based sourcing rule" where customers would pay the sales taxes of the state where the company they are buying from is located. This is based on the idea that a visitor to a state pays the taxes of that state, not of their home state.[15] For example, if a Nebraskan went to Iowa and bought something, they would pay Iowa taxes; similarly, if a Nebraskan bought online from an Iowa based company they would pay Iowa taxes under the origin-based sourcing rule. This process would simplify the process and eliminate the constitutional concerns of "taxation without representation" as well as foster tax competition as businesses would try to put themselves in low-tax environments, encouraging states to lower their tax burdens.[16]
 
It is also important to evaluate how an internet sales tax would affect Nebraska. A 2010 study conducted by Empiris LLC estimated that had there been an internet sales tax in 2008 with an exemption for small businesses making less than $5 million-the Marketplace Fairness Act has a small business exemption for those making less than $1 million[17]-then Nebraska would have collected an extra $17.5 million. Without the small business exemption, the state would have collected $25.5 million.[18] To put that in perspective, those amounts would have been 1 and 1.4 percent, respectively, of the sales tax revenue brought in for fiscal year 2008-2009.[19]
 
While taxing internet sales like regular sales would "level the playing field," the way the Marketplace Fairness Act would impose an internet sales tax would do far more harm than good. The regulations and requirements of this Act would be detrimental to many small and medium sized businesses, and will simply help big businesses like Amazon and Walmart to keep smaller competitors out of the market. In short, it is big government helping big business; a visible demonstration of crony capitalism. The better solution for states to collect online sales tax would be to make sure citizens know the requirements for reporting their online purchases and remitting those taxes. If states and Congress feel such measures are inadequate, then the most reasonable course of action would be to adopt the "origin-based" internet sales tax proposed by Rugy and Thierer of the Mercatus Center. This idea would both allow states to collect internet sales revenue and avoid placing an incredibly heavy burden upon small businesses.
 
As our economy becomes more online-based, it will become necessary to integrate internet sales into existing sales tax codes. However, the Marketplace Fairness Act is the wrong way to do it.
 

[1] Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, "Graph: E-Commerce Retail Sales (ECOMSA)/Retail Sales: Total (Excluding Food Services) (RSXFS)," Economic Research, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 2013. Accessed May 3, 2013, http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=hKC. Steven Maguire, "State Taxation of Internet Transactions," Congressional Research Service, April 19, 2013. Accessed May 5, 2013, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41853.pdf.
[2] John Paul Stevens, "Quill Corporation, Petitioner v. North Dakota by and through its Tax Commis Sioner, Heidi Heitkamp," United States Supreme Court Majority Opinion, May 26, 1992. Accessed May 5, 2013, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-0194.ZO.html. It should be noted that the Quill decision supported an earlier 1967 decision National Bellas Hess v. Illinois Department of Revenue, where the court held that the many different variations in rates and exemptions placed too great a burden on sellers-and interstate commerce in general-to have to force businesses to pay the sales taxes of their distant, out-of-state customers.
[3] Ken Doctor, "The newsonomics of Amazon vs. Main Street," the Neiman Journalism Lab, July 26, 2012, Nieman Foundation, Harvard University. Accessed May 5, 2013, http://www.niemanlab.org/2012/07/the-newsonomics-of-amazon-vs-main-street/.
[4] Marketplace Fairness Act, "About." Accessed May 5, 2013, http://www.marketplacefairness.org/what-is-the-marketplace-fairness-act/.
[5] Nebraska Department of Revenue, "Current Local Sales and Use Tax Rates," April 1, 2013. Accessed May 5, 2013, http://www.revenue.ne.gov/question/sales.html.
[6] Nebraska Department of Revenue, "Frequently Asked Questions about Nebraska Sales and Use Tax." Accessed May 5, 2013, http://www.revenue.ne.gov/question/slstax_faq.html#s10.
[7] Austan Goolsbee, "The Impact of Sales Tax on E-Commerce," Capital Ideas, University of Chicago, Vol. 2, No. 3, Summer 2000. Accessed May 5, 2013, http://www.chicagobooth.edu/capideas/sum00/goolsbee.html.
[8] Glenn Kessler, "McConnell's claim that there are ‘nearly 10,000' tax codes nationwide," Washington Post, April 29, 2013. Accessed May 5, 2013, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/mcconnells-claim-that-there-are-nearly-10000-tax-codes-nationwide/2013/04/26/a6b3bef4-aeaa-11e2-a986-eec837b1888b_blog.html.
[9] Megan McArdle, "The Real Problem With the Internet Sales Tax," April 24, 2013, The Daily Beast. Accessed May 5, 2013, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/24/the-real-problem-with-the-internet-sales-tax.html.
[10] Jacob Sullum, "Are Online Sales Taxes Only Fair?" Reason, May 1, 2013. Accessed May 5, 2013, http://reason.com/archives/2013/05/01/are-online-sales-taxes-only-fair; T. Elliot Gaiser, "Internet Sales Tax: Here Come the Auditors," Heritage Foundation, April 29, 2013. Accessed May 5, 2013, http://blog.heritage.org/2013/04/29/internet-sales-tax-here-come-the-auditors/.
[11] T. Elliot Gaiser, "Internet Sales Tax: Here Come the Auditors," Heritage Foundation, April 29, 2013. Accessed May 5, 2013, http://blog.heritage.org/2013/04/29/internet-sales-tax-here-come-the-auditors/; Powersports Nation, "About Us." Accessed May 5, 2013, http://www.powersportsnation.net/aboutus.asp.
[12] Tonya Moreno, "States Without a Sales Tax," September 28, 2010. Accessed May 6, 2013, http://taxes.about.com/od/statetaxes/a/States-Without-A-Sales-Tax.htm.
[13] Jim Meyers, "Opposition to Internet Sales Tax Bill Grows as Vote Looms," April 22, 2013. Accessed May 6, 2013, http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/internet-sales-tax-senate/2013/04/22/id/500706; T. Eliot Gaiser, "Internet Sales Tax Hits Consumers Online," Heritage Foundation, April 22, 2013. Accessed May 6, 2013, http://blog.heritage.org/2013/04/22/internet-sales-tax-hits-consumers-online/.
[14] Farhad Manjoo, "Why I Love the National Internet Sales Tax Plan," Slate, April 30, 2013. Accessed May 6, 2013, http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2013/04/national_internet_sales_tax_why_i_love_the_marketplace_fairness_act_and.html.
[15] Veronique de Rugy and Adam Thierer, "The Internet, Sales Taxes, & Tax Competition," Mercatus on Policy, No. 98, October 2011, Mercatus Center of George Mason University. Accessed May 6, 2013, http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/Internet_sales_tax_deRugyThierer_MOP.pdf.
[16] Ibid.
[17] John Celock, "Marketplace Fairness Act, Bill To Tax Online Sales, Moves Toward Senate Vote," Huffington Post, April 22, 2013. Accessed May 6, 2013, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/22/marketplace-fairness-act_n_3133866.html.
[19] Calculations by author, 2008-2009 fiscal year revenue from Nebraska Department of Revenue, "Comparison of Actual and Projected General Fund Receipts by Tax Type for June 2009 and Cumulative Fiscal Year 2008-2009," July 10, 2009. Accessed May 6, 2013, http://www.revenue.ne.gov/research/gen_fund/nr0709.html.