Posts Tagged ‘Obama’
Some Republican strategists are already preparing for the worst. The numbers, frankly, are dismal. Nearly 2 of every 3 Latinos favor President Obama to Mitt Romney. Voters in the gay and lesbian community favor Mr. Obama by the same margin. Women favor the president by 51 percent to 41 percent, according to an August NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. And African-Americans? One poll suggested that Mr. Romney is being skunked: 94 percent to 0 percent.
Clearly, the GOP has a minority problem. But Republican strategists aren’t just worried about November—they’re worried about the Novembers after that.
If demographic trends continue to swell the country’s minority population, and the GOP continues to struggle to grow its white, Protestant base, the Republican Party risks going the way of the Whigs it replaced in the 1850s. Already, some experts say, minorities are likely to swing this presidential election to Obama. And going forward, the arithmetic (as a certain former centrist president from red state Arkansas recently pronounced) says it all: This year, for the first time, births of nonwhites outnumbered births of whites in America, putting the United States on the road to becoming a majority-minority nation in three decades, the US Census Bureau reported. For the GOP, the rubber is finally hitting the road.
If it wants to remain competitive for power in Congress and the White House, the GOP knows it must make serious inroads with minorities, and soon. That means it must begin to change the policies that have defined—and isolated—it for a generation. Of course, doing that without alienating its base is easier said than done.
The demographics are compelling. The country’s minority population grew by 30 percent during the past decade, according to data from the 2010 Census, while the white population grew just 1 percent. In 1992, the minority vote made up 12 percent of the electorate. This year, it’s expected to be 28 percent.
“The tectonic plates of American politics are shifting,” writes Ruy Teixeira, a political demographer and senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, in a paper prepared for a March 2010 “Future of the Parties” conference. “A powerful concatenation of demographic forces is transforming the American electorate and reshaping both major political parties.”
Not that the GOP isn’t trying to expand its appeal.
Its national convention in Tampa, Fla., featured a string of speeches by so-called rising stars, including Cuban-American Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, Indian-American Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina, Cuban-American Senate nominee Ted Cruz, Haitian-American mayor and congressional nominee Mia Love, and Mexican-American New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez.
But the convention floor was notably short on minority delegates—as made obvious by the Democratic convention‘s technicolored rainbow of an audience a week later. It’s a portrait even conservative commentators have poked fun at, as when New York Times columnist David Brooks described the winter Olympics as “the second most Caucasian institution on earth, after the GOP.”
And that is at the core of why Romney and the GOP aren’t doing more to court minority voters for the November election. In short, say political watchers, they can’t.
“They have a substantive problem,” says Professor Lichtman. “To the extent they reach out substantively to minorities, they risk losing their base.”
This doesn’t mean the GOP can’t compete in November.
If the Romney campaign succeeds at framing the election as a referendum on Obama’s record and the lagging economy, the race could tip in Romney’s favor. And while Romney is struggling to attract the minority vote, he’s surging past Obama on the white vote—particularly the working-class white vote, where he beats Obama 59 to percent 37 percent, according to an August USA Today/Gallup poll.
“That’s why Romney’s hanging on,” says O’Connell. “The white working-class, blue-collar voters. That is essentially his base.”
In the future, a changing GOP will have to make strategic concessions to minorities, such as civil unions and comprehensive immigration reform—delicate moves that it must sell to its base in a tactical fashion, invoking states’ rights on civil unions and making an economic case for immigration reform, for example.
“The key for the GOP is to balance principle with practicality,” says O’Connell. “Whether it’s taxes, the Bible, we’ve got to be principled but practical . . . . A pivot away from pure ideology. We’re for limited government, we get it, but we can’t survive if we don’t change our tax code.”
In so doing, the party may lose some segments of its base, like “Teavangelicals” and others who vote strictly on social issues, but “there’s always going to be some trade-offs,” says O’Connell.
“It may take them a few elections, but the political logic of the situation will force them to change their tune,” says Teixeira. “Parties usually manage to adjust.”Share on Facebook
Mitt Romney is visiting Israel to try to win over American Jews (80% voted for Obama in 2008). Obama sought to one up Romney by pledging an extra $70 million in US taxpayer dollars for Israeli defense. Yet no one at the White House will even disclose what their real policy on Israel even is. Obama’s latest $70 million aid packages come with new pledges of military support without asking for anything in return.
Watch the response by Obama’s press secretary to what is an extremely basic question about Obama’s foreign policy. This is reminiscent of when Obama repeatedly voted “present” on important issues in the Senate. Obama doesn’t want to go on record as supporting anything.
The US gives billions in US taxdollars to fund the armies of foreign nations. Israel was the leading beneficiary from 1976-2002. It is now in third place behind Afghanistan and Iraq. Other top beneficiaries are Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, and Columbia. Note: This does not includes the tens of Billions used to “fund democracy” overseas.Share on Facebook
As the Republican presidential challenger accused Barack Obama of appeasing America’s enemies in his first foreign policy speech of the US general election campaign, advisers told The Daily Telegraph that he would abandon Mr Obama’s “Left-wing” coolness towards London.
In remarks that may prompt accusations of racial insensitivity, one suggested that Mr Romney was better placed to understand the depth of ties between the two countries than Mr Obama, whose father was from Africa.
“We are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage, and he feels that the special relationship is special,” the adviser said of Mr Romney, adding: “The White House didn’t fully appreciate the shared history we have”.
Mr Romney on Wednesday embarks on an overseas tour of Britain, Israel and Poland designed to quash claims by Mr Obama’s team that he is a “novice” in foreign affairs. It comes four years after Mr Obama’s own landmark foreign tour, which attracted thousands of supporters.
He lands in London early on Wednesday morning, in advance of meetings with David Cameron and other senior ministers on Thursday. He will also meet Ed Miliband and Tony Blair before attending two lucrative fundraisers and the opening ceremony of the Olympics.
He used a speech in Nevada on Tuesday to accuse the President of drastically weakening America’s stance towards rivals such as Russia, China and Iran while imposing “devastating” spending cuts on the US military.
“If you do not want America to be the strongest nation on earth, I am not your President,” he told the Veterans of Foreign Wars. “You have that President today”. Promising another “American century” in which the US acts as the global night watchman and does not hesitate to “wield our strength” when needed, he said: “I will not surrender America’s leadership in the world”.
Members of the former Massachusetts governor’s foreign policy advisory team claimed that as president, he would reverse Mr Obama’s priority of repairing strained overseas relationships while not spending so much time maintaining traditional alliances such as Britain and Israel.
“In contrast to President Obama, whose first instinct is to reach out to America’s adversaries, the Governor’s first impulse is to consult and co-ordinate and to move closer to our friends and allies overseas so they can rely on American constancy and strength,” one told the Telegraph.
“Obama is a Left-winger,” said another. “He doesn’t value the Nato alliance as much, he’s very comfortable with American decline and the traditional alliances don’t mean as much to him. He wouldn’t like singing ‘Land of Hope and Glory’.”
The two advisers said Mr Romney would seek to reinstate the Churchill bust displayed in the Oval Office by George W. Bush but returned to British diplomats by Mr Obama when he took office in 2009. One said Mr Romney viewed the move as “symbolically important” while the other said it was “just for starters”, adding: “He is naturally more Atlanticist”.
Mr Obama has appeared less interested in relations with London than Mr Bush. He repeatedly rebuffed Gordon Brown when the then-prime minister sought a meeting at the UN in 2009 and was criticised for responding to an elaborate gift with a set of DVDs that did not work in Britain.
A change in tone was reflected by the enthusiastic welcome extended to Mr Cameron during an official visit and dinner in March. However, British diplomats remain frustrated by their “transactional” relationship with the Obama White House and lack of support on issues such as the Falkland Islands.
Mr Romney has not made any commitments on the Falklands, but several in his foreign policy team favour backing Britain and publicly rejecting claims of sovereignty by Christina Kirchner, the Argentine president. Under Mr Obama the US remains neutral.
The advisers could not give detailed examples of how policy towards Britain would differ under Mr Romney. One conceded that on the European crisis: “I’m not sure what our policy response is.”Share on Facebook
“As we celebrate the foundations of our future, this is not a time to romanticize because we have the first African-descended president in the White House,” Wright said in a fiery sermon that lasted close to an hour. “You see what the tea party is trying to do.”
“We need to tell our children … how we got from a black congressman named Adam Clayton Powell to a black president named Barack Hussein Obama,” he said to applause. “But we also need to tell them how we have black politicians who steal money.”
Wright also blasted people who he described as “biscuits” and “sheep dogs”—African Americans raised in the white world.
“Take that baby, him or her away, from the African mother, away from the African community, away from the African experience … and put them Africans over at the breasts of Yale, Harvard, University of Chicago … UCLA or UC-Berkeley,” he said. “Turn them into biscuits. Let them get that alien DNA all up inside their brain and they will turn on their own people in defense of the ones who are keeping their own people under oppression. Sheep dogs.”
“There’s white racist DNA running through the synapses of his or her brain tissue. They will kill their own kind, defend the enemies of their kind or anyone who is perceived to be the enemy of the milky white way of life.”Share on Facebook
Of all the signals and symbols that shapeRussian foreign policy, this one seemed particularly blunt: Vladimir Putin, in one of the first decisions of his new presidency, will shun a Group of Eight summit hosted by U.S. President Barack Obama.
The May 18-19 visit was to have been Putin’s first foreign trip since he returned to the Kremlin on Monday, a chance to begin putting U.S. ties back on track after a growth in tension over missile defence, Syria and Russia’s presidential campaign.
Instead, Putin is sending his junior partner, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev – and a message that as long as he is in charge, Russia will not bend to Washington’s will when its interests are at stake.
“I think the signal he wants to send to America … is that agreements with America will be built on a balance of the strategic interests of America and Russia,” said Dmitry Trenin, director of the Carnegie Moscow Center think-tank. “Russia will not make any unilateral concessions.”
It is a message Putin has repeated, from an inauguration-day decree on Monday in which he said Russia would demand U.S. respect to a warning on Wednesday against modern-day violations of sovereignty, delivered before tanks and missiles trundled across Red Square to mark the 1945 victory over Nazi Germany.
More starkly, the military chief of staff said last week that Russia could launch pre-emptive strikes against future NATO missile defence facilities in Europe if sufficiently threatened.
The warning indicated Putin will hold out U.S. plans for an anti-missile shield as a big barrier to better relations and, specifically, to Kremlin approval of deeper nuclear arms cuts.
Washington says the shield is meant to counter a potential threat from Iran and poses no risk to Russia. Moscow maintains that it could give the West the capability to intercept Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles, upsetting the strategic equilibrium between the former Cold War foes.
Putin has made clear Russia, a veto-wielding permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, will seek to undercut U.S. global might and oppose what he says is unjustified, destabilising U.S.-orchestrated interference in the affairs of sovereign states, including Syria and Russia itself.
The public reason for Putin’s decision to skip the G8 summit was the need to focus on appointing a new cabinet.
With liberal and conservatives close to the Kremlin wrangling over cabinet posts and policy direction, Putin – by staying home – may be eager to pose for a domestic audiences and show he is not weakened by the biggest protests of his 12 years as Russia’s paramount political leader.
“Foreign policy … will play the role of a servant to Putin’s domestic agenda,” said Lilia Shevtsova, an author and expert on Putin. “And his main goal domestically is to preserve the status quo and survive.”
After the anti-American atmosphere that prevailed during his presidential campaign, in which Putin accused the United States of stirring up protests, it might look strange to his supporters to make Washington his first foreign destination.
Relations have been strained by the treatment of U.S. Ambassador Michael McFaul, architect of Obama’s “reset” of Russian ties, who has been portrayed by Russian media as a troublemaker out to incite revolution.
Instead, Putin’s first trip abroad could be to China in early June, symbolising that he is looking eastward – to the former Soviet states of Central Asia and beyond.
His first meeting with Obama as president is likely to come on neutral territory in Mexico, where the Group of 20 nations gathers in June.
For reasons both political and personal, Putin will be far more comfortable at the broader G20 than the mostly Western G8, where he feels out of place, like “a white crow”, Trenin said.
His big-power friends from his previous presidency from 2000 to 2008 – France‘s Jacques Chirac, Germany’s Gerhard Schroeder and Silvio Berlusconi, the former Italian leader who attended his inauguration on Monday – are gone.
Obama and the rest will instead once again meet Medvedev, who presented a warmer face to the West in his 2008-12 presidency and clicked with Obama, from their signing of the 2010 nuclear arms limitation treaty known as New START to chummy talk at a “cheeseburger summit” that same year.
By contrast, Obama’s breakfast meeting with Putin at his residence outside Moscow in 2009 featured a monologue in which the then-Russian prime minister listed his complaints about the United States at length.
While it seems like a serious snub, the last-minute substitution of Medvedev for the G8 meeting could have an upside for Obama, whose likely Republican opponent in the November election has said he is nowhere near tough enough on Russia.
The United States has criticised the Kremlin over the detentions and violence against Russians protesting at Putin’s return to the presidency, and two prominent opposition leaders will still be in jail when the G8 meets.
Obama “has no need to be photographed with Putin right now – as it is, the Republicans criticise him as a Russian puppet. So in this case it happens to suit everybody,” Fyodor Lukyanov, edit of Russia in Global Affairs, said of Putin’s decision.
“It is a strange, unusual step (to avoid the G8 summit), however – but Putin is a master of such steps. We’ll get used to it.” (Editing by Alissa de Carbonnel and Mark Heinrich)Share on Facebook
Share on Facebook
“Right now the key thing that is driving higher gas prices is actually the world’s oil markets and uncertainty about what’s going on in Iran and the Middle East, and that’s adding a $20 or $30 premium to oil prices,” President Obama said March 23. It’s complete and utter nonsense. Oil is trading in lockstep with expectations for economic growth, as reflected in stock prices. There’s not a shred of evidence that geopolitical uncertainty has added a penny to the oil price. Obama’s $20 to $30 per barrel risk premium is a number pulled out of a hat, without a shred of empirical support. In effect, the President is blaming Israel for high oil prices.
On April, 3, Vice-President Biden blamed higher oil prices on “talk about war with Iran“; fear that Iran might “take out the Saudi oil fields and Bahraini oil fields”; the Arab Spring movement; “war in Libya”; the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood; and a potential for unforeseen political unrest, such as “chaos in Russia.” It’s all complete and utter nonsense. Oil prices are going up because the world economy is consuming more oil and supply has not increased to meet the demand – in part because the Obama administration discourages North American energy development, most recently by stopping the proposed Keystone pipeline from Canada. It’s easier to blame foreign phantoms for high gas prices at the pump than the administration’s business-killing politics
One might argue that the market should price strategic risk into the oil price, but the fact is that markets are not especially good at assigning prices to possible events whose probability can’t be measured.
Goldman has some nifty charts to prove his point. Here’s one, courtesy of Bloomberg, that shows the price of oil vs. the S&P 500 for the last three years. Note how closely they track:
During the past three years, oil prices have tracked equity prices almost perfectly, with a regression coefficient of nearly 90%. (For statisticians, the correlation of daily percentage changes in the two markets is 51%). Equity prices embody expectations of future economic growth, and higher growth means more demand for oil. If oil supply cannot keep up with demand–because the Obama administration has restricted development, among other factors–the oil price goes up.
Just when we think the liberal media’s hypocrisy could not be more blatant, they kick it to the next level. They have obviously abandoned any pretense of fair and honest reporting.
OK, we get it. Their template is “Conservatives suck”, kill them “politically”. Minorities are “angels”, victims of a racist America controlled by rich white guys.
Folks, if you understand this mindset, you understand the liberal media’s coverage of the Tea Party and their blatant ignoring of racism coming from the Left.
And let me just say this. Not only does the liberal media and the Left ignore black racism, they encourage it. I’m black. The Left verbally beats me up all the time for not resenting America and for not even harboring a low level hatred of whites. They diagnose us black conservatives with having Stockholm Syndrome.
I know I should not be surprised, but I am stunned by the latest example of the liberal media, for the most part, ignoring a huge story about racism because the perpetrator is black.
The new Black Panther Party is guilty of voter intimidation in Philadelphia. Obama refuses to press charges against the new Black Panthers; now get this folks, because they are black. Attorney General, Eric Holder, who is black, told the House Appropriations subcommittee that the New Black Panther voter intimidation case demeans “my people.”
Holder went on to explain that the suffering of African Americans seeking the right to vote in the South in the 60s far surpasses the intimidation white voters recently endured in Philadelphia. So much for any pretense of Obama dispensing equal justice to all Americans. Folks, we’re talkin’ Affirmative Action justice.
Can you imagine what would happen to a white politician using the term, “my people”? A visual of a white guy covered in tar and feathers running for his life appeared in my mind.
Folks, the Attorney General of the United States said he is not going to pursue certain criminal charges against blacks because of past racism in America. And the liberal media, for the most part, says hoe hum, no problem.
I have been a voice crying in the wilderness about this for years. Racism is evil. So, why is racism when perpetrated by blacks acceptable and even applauded? On HBO’s Def Comedy Jam TV show, black comedians trashing white America was a staple. Had a white comic told just one of the same jokes inserting the word “black”, the insensitive white racist SOB comic’s career would be over.
A sycophant liberal media giving black racist comedians a pass is of little consequence. But, when the liberal media gives the black Attorney General of the United States a pass for his racism, Houston we have a serious problem.
We the People are challenged by insidious enemies within; a racially bias Obama administration and liberal media; both hellbent on “fundamentally transforming America” with the implementation of their progressive/socialist agenda. They MUST be defeated.
Share on Facebook
The Communist Party endorsed Obama in 2008, and they have endorsed him again for this year’s election. In his December 21 blog, Vice Chair of the Communist Party USA, Jarvis Tyner, comments on remarks given at the November 11, 2011 meeting of the Communist Party National Committee. He confirms the importance of the build up to the 2012 elections to “set the stage for a new progressive era and for a socialist transformation”.
It’s unlikely that the Communist Party would support a candidate that’s not supportive of their goals? Is this the transformation that Obama has promised Americans?
Jarvis Tyner is executive vice chair of the Communist Party USA and a long-time member of the party’s national board.. He was a founding member of the Black Radical Congress and served on its national coordinating committee for five years.
Share on Facebook
However, some tweeters weren’t pleased about this recent development. So what did they do about it? Bombard the First Lady’s account with some of the harshest comments they could make in 140 characters or less, of course.
Buzzfeed compiled a list of the tweets, aptly named The 25 Most Offensive Tweets At Michelle Obama. Here’s a quick synopsis: The First Lady, or “Moochelle” is an “angry black woman” who “hates white people.”
For example, @cheshirecat0025 tweeted [email protected] is on twitter great! We can all tell her how much we hate her! #America is not proud of you” – a snarky reference to a comment the First Lady made back in 2008 .
And according to @iyestogody “the next most hateful woman in America is Michelle Obama. She hates everyone and eveything. To bad for her. Sorry.”
Every public figure has critics, but there is a palpable hatred behind some of the things said about Mrs. O in this list. It’s especially upsetting because they don’t seem to be based on anything besides her race. I may be a bit biased, because I desperately want to be Michelle Obama when I grow up, but I’m confused.
She’s black, so she’s angry? OK, got it. I can’t recall even seeing the First Lady frown, but whatever. Let’s go with what we know. Black women are angry from birth.
There’s nothing wrong with the fact that only 18 percent of American children got the recommended amount of daily exercise in 2007. Nothing at all.
I’m not alone in being unable to wrap my mind around this intense hatred some Americans seem to have for the First Lady. Most of my friends almost idolize Michelle Obama. The majority of them are still in college, and she represents the lifestyle they are after: being a successful and educated black woman, married to a successful and educated black man, with two really cute kids. Even if they criticize the President’s decisions on occasion, they all love the First Lady.
Actually, I can’t wait to discuss this with my mom. She thinks “twittering” is a waste of time, but she’ll probably start an account just to voice her outrage. She has leapt through all sorts of technological hoops in her support of the Obamas. She taught herself how to text just so she could respond to President Obama’s campaign tweets back in 2008.
The anger she’ll feel is understandable. I just can’t imagine any one criticizing Abigail Adams’ “posterior.” No one got upset when Nancy Reagan went sleeveless. And no matter how many feet her husband put in his mouth, no one ever booed Laura Bush at an event.
Until any of these overzealous Michelle Obama critics are able to give me some concrete reason as to why they hate the First Lady so, I’m going to file it all as racist dribble and forget it as soon as possible.Share on Facebook
Is House Speaker John Boehner an anti-Obama racist? Editorial Page editor Andrew Rosenthal all but accuses him in his Tuesday blog from Des Moines, “Nobody Likes to Talk About It, but It’s There.” (The web headline is blunter: “Republican Attacks Have Racist Undertones.”)
Actually, Rosenthal is all too happy to talk about racist Republicans if it helps Democrats politically, as he did on November 1, in one of his first blog posts: “…it was the Republicans who perfected the art of injecting racial fears into modern-day politics (remember Willie Horton in 1988?) and have conducted an unrelenting personal attack on President Obama that sometimes has not-so-subtle racial overtones.”
From Rosenthal’s Tuesday post:
Talking about race in American politics is uncomfortable and awkward. But it has to be said: There has been a racist undertone to many of the Republican attacks leveled against President Obama for the last three years, and in this dawning presidential campaign.
You can detect this undertone in the level of disrespect for this president that would be unthinkable were he not an African-American. Some earlier examples include: Rep. Joe Wilson shouting “you lie” at one of Mr. Obama’s first appearances before Congress, and House Speaker John Boehner rejecting Mr. Obama’s request to speak to a joint session of Congress – the first such denial in the history of our republic.
As for decorum during presidential appearances before Congress, Rosenthal has apparently forgotten the rumbles and hisses, hoots and hollerings of “No! No!” thrown at President Bush by Democrats (documented in his own newspaper) at Bush’s February 2005 State of the Union address when he spoke on Social Security reform.
In addition, Speaker Boehner did not “reject” Obama’s request to address Congress, but instead suggested that the president delay the speech for one day, to avoid it being held on the same night as a Republican presidential debate. (And that’s what happened.) Rosenthal’s suggestion that Boehner’s move was somehow racist is too pathetic to even merit a response.
Share on Facebook