More on Marco Rubio

Senator Marco Rubio’s appeal as the GOP standard-bearer in 2016 cannot be understated.  Florida Today reports that though he’s Hispanic, his real appeal is found in his policies, rather than his heritage.

“The conservative movement should have particular appeal to people in minority and immigrant communities who are trying to make it, and Republicans need to work harder than ever to communicate our beliefs to them,” he said in a statement issued Wednesday, less than two hours after Romney’s concession speech.

The reason Senator Rubio is such a compelling conservative leader has far more to do with his ability to communicate the conservative message and connect with people on a personal level.  It has far less to do with his racial or ancestral makeup.  In his interviews and TV appearances, Senator Rubio is relaxed, comfortable, and even happy when discussing the conservative platform.  (If you don’t believe me, go back and watch some of his Daily Show appearances with Jonathan Stewart.)  He never seems ruffled by sharp questions or annoyed by disagreement

He’s also someone people can relate to.  Colin Cowherd (ESPN talk show host) diagnosed this problem aptly in his broadcast shortly after the election.  He explained that in his opinion, people want to relate to the person they’re voting for.  It’s the same reason that Jeter and A-Rod don’t have the same appeal: while both are Hall of Fame caliber players, Jeter is imminently more popular.  This is primarily due to the fact that he seems like “one of us.”  Unfortunately, Governor Romney was never seen as someone people could relate to.  As much as we would like an election to be about who is the best qualified to lead the country, we cannot ignore the reality that people want a leader who they believe is not foreign to them.  In 2012, Obama was able to navigate that distinction far better than Romney.

Obama as the anti-Reagan

In his piece released today, Charles Krauthammer dissects the Obama presidency from a historical perspective.  In particular, he argues that Obama wanted to halt a political trajectory set into motion in the 1980s, in which President Reagan rejected the philosophical argument that government was the answer to our problems.  President Reagan argued the polar opposite, famously saying “government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.”  Krauthammer makes an interesting analysis on how past administrations will generally follow the arc of the previous president.  (I.e. Nixon expanding government reach after LBJ, and conversely, Bill Clinton echoing Reagan’s government view by declaring the era of “big government is over.”)

Obama’s intention has always been to re-normalize, to reverse ideological course, to be the anti-Reagan — the author of a new liberal ascendancy. Nor did he hide his ambition. In his February 2009 address to Congress he declared his intention to transform America. This was no abstraction. He would do it in three areas: health care, education and energy.

Think about that. Health care is one-sixth of the economy. Education is the future. And energy is the lifeblood of any advanced country — control pricing and production, and you’ve controlled the industrial economy.

Krauthammer then goes on to lay out why this election actually is the most important election of our lifetimes.  This election, according to Mr. Krauthammer, is a battle for the core of the American experiment:

An Obama second term means that the movement toward European-style social democracy continues, in part by legislation, in part by executive decree. The American experiment — the more individualistic, energetic, innovative, risk-taking model of democratic governance — continues to recede, yielding to the supervised life of the entitlement state.

If Obama loses, however, his presidency becomes a historical parenthesis, a passing interlude of overreaching hyper-liberalism, rejected by a center-right country that is 80 percent nonliberal.

Should they summon the skill and dexterity, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan could guide the country to the restoration of a more austere and modest government with more restrained entitlements and a more equitable and efficient tax code. Those achievements alone would mark a new trajectory — a return to what Reagan started three decades ago.

Every four years we are told that the coming election is the most important of one’s life. This time it might actually be true. At stake is the relation between citizen and state, the very nature of the American social contract.


George Will: Obama’s empty, strident campaign – The Washington Post

George Will: Obama’s empty, strident campaign – The Washington Post.

If you were looking for more evidence of a collapsing campaign, take a look at George Will’s latest column in the Washington Post.  We’ve all noticed that as the picture becomes clearer about Obama’s dire prospects in a few days (yes…it’s a few days folks), his campaign has grown more crazed and desperate.  If you watched some of the earlier interviews with some of his surrogates (i.e. Stephanie Cutter) you’d see a nervous energy start to permeate their media interactions.

Opinion: Here comes the landslide – The Hill – covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill |

Opinion: Here comes the landslide – The Hill – covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill |

Fighting in blue states is a good sign for Romney – Right Turn – The Washington Post

Fighting in blue states is a good sign for Romney – Right Turn – The Washington Post.

Romney’s momentum accelerating

James Pethokoukis writes that Mitt Romney may be cruising to a “decisive victory” on Election Day. Fox News also has had a few videos of the latest take on the race out of Ohio.

New Projection: Romney 52, Obama 47

The Weekly Standard is predicting a Romney victory of 52 to 47%.

Washington Times: Stop believing in Obama

A recent story in the Washington Times dissects the Obama experience over the last four years. In particular, the writers focus on the catastrophic leadership, or lack there of, that Pres. Obama has displayed while in office. Rather than reach across the aisle, and find practical compromise with his opponents on the hill, he battled them. As a result of his leadership vacuum, the economy is limping along, at antianemic pace. We are suffering from the worst “recovery” on record, and there is no indication that things will get better in the next four years.

Mr. Obama’s economic record has been about as bad as it could possibly be. In his first budget proposal, he promised the economy would be growing at a brisk 6.3 percent by 2012. Instead, it’s limping along at just over 1 percent. He promised that the federal deficit would be carved down to $581 billion. Instead, it has ballooned beyond $1 trillion. In 2009, he promised that if his budget-busting stimulus plan were passed, unemployment would be around 5.5 percent by now. Instead, the official rate is nearly 8 percent. Poverty has increased; the number of long-term unemployed has increased; there are millions more discouraged workers; food stamp use has surged; gas prices are up and family incomes are down. A second term would be no different.

Ingredients for a Romney victory start with independents

Independents’ Day | The Weekly Standard.  In this article, Jay Cost examines why one component–possibly above all–may prove to be the deciding factor in the election.

The polls are clear. Since the fallout from the first debate in Denver on October 3, Romney has enjoyed a relatively durable lead over the president in the Real Clear Politics average of the national polls. While the lead is small, it has persisted over time, and, more important, history suggests that this is trouble for an incumbent. The only sitting president to mount a last-minute comeback against his challenger was Gerald Ford in 1976, and of course Ford still lost. Usually, late deciders in a presidential campaign either break for the challenger or split about evenly between the two sides.

The problem for the president is Romney’s strong and sustained lead among independent voters. Despite four years of boasting from the Democrats that they were in the process of transforming the electorate, the fact remains that voters unaffiliated with either party determine the outcome of national elections. And with these voters, Romney has a substantial lead. The most recent Rasmussen Reports poll shows Romney besting Obama by 13 points, 52 percent to 39 percent, among unaffiliated voters. Since 1972, the first year of exit polling, no candidate for president has won election while losing independents by such a wide margin.

State of the race: race is still trending towards a Romney victory

Politico reports how white voters, a demographic not as emphasized in prior election cycles, could prove to be pivotal this November.

If Mitt Romney wins the presidency, part of the lesson of 2012 will be that white voters still matter.

The polling couldn’t be clearer or more polarizing: A POLITICO/George Washington University Battleground Tracking Poll has Romney ahead of President Barack Obama among white voters by 18 points, 57 percent to 39 percent. Gallup showed Romney ahead among whites by 20-plus points this month.

Jennifer Rubin discusses how the impact of the recent economic numbers should continue to assist Romney’s rise:

The third-quarter gross domestic numbers were released, showing a measly growth rate of 2 percent. The Associated Press noted, “Since the recovery from the Great Recession began in 2009 the U.S. economy has grown at the slowest rate of any recovery in the Post-WWII period.” Not surprisingly, the Romney camp pounced, putting out a statement pointing out that this was less than half the growth rate predicted by the Obama team (4.3 percent). “Slow economic growth means slow job growth and declining take-home pay,” Mitt Romney declared. He is right in that regard, and multiple economic gurus made the point that with this growth rate we’ll be looking at sky-high unemployment for the foreseeable future.

The timing could not have been better for the Romney camp as its candidate prepared to deliver an economic speech in Iowa. His central argument was, according to released excerpts: “We have had four presidential and vice-presidential debates. And there is nothing in what the President proposed or defended that has any prospect of meeting the challenges of the times. Raising taxes will not grow jobs or ignite the economy — in fact, his tax plan has been calculated to destroy 700,000 jobs. A new stimulus, three years after the recession officially ended, may spare government, but it will not stimulate the private sector any better than did the stimulus of four years ago. And cutting one trillion dollars from the military will kill jobs and devastate our national defense. This is not the time to double down on the trickle-down government policies that have failed us; it is time for new, bold changes that measure up to the moment, that can bring America’s families the certainty that the future will be better than the past.”

The Weekly Standard has an interesting write-up about how this election, and Obama’s desperation, is similar to the 1992 race:

Any veteran of the ’92 presidential campaign has learned to identify marks of intellectual exhaustion. The déjà vu this year is especially creepy. President Bush went to a Waffle House to illustrate Bill Clinton’s “waffling” on the issues. He took to calling Al Gore “Ozone Man,” and surrogates warned darkly of Clinton’s unexamined past, just as the president today dwells on Big Bird and “Romnesia,” and his surrogates raise half-baked questions about foreign bank accounts. Both presidents are dignified men, yet their campaigns have felt compelled to abase themselves in the same way for the same reason. They couldn’t think of anything else to say.

I see you can buy Agenda on Amazon for $141. It’s a ridiculous price, but I briefly thought of buying a copy anyway, for old time’s sake. Then I realized I wouldn’t know what to do with one if I had it—like an incumbent with a second term.