Obama: Don’t even worry about our fundraising dollar total; Now losing to generic Republican, 46-42

A recent fundraising e-mail sent out from President Obama had the conspicuous quote, “We measure our success not in dollars but in people.” This came after writing that people will interpret the fundraising total as a measure of success of the campaign. Hmmm. It’s possible that this is just to downplay expectations, which is what good campaigns should do. There are always internal expectations, but making public ones can be dangerous if those goals aren’t met and suddenly an image of coming up short is formed around the campaign. That’s an easy way to lose momentum and create a negative narrative. If no goal is set, you can always tout to the media afterwards about how you actually surpassed your goals. But it’s also possible that the Obama campaign is running up against some difficulty. A recent POLITICO story talked about how Jewish donors are not showing up for Obama and it is certainly possible that they aren’t the only gorup hesitant to contribute right now. The National Journal thinks that things are starting to get a little testy within the White House.

According to Rasmussen Reports, President Obama now loses in a hypothetical matchup against a generic Republican by a total of 46% to 42% among likely voters. Polls that only do likely voters do tend to swing in favor of Republicans and, of course, Obama won’t be facing a generic Republican in November 2012. Whoever the nominee is, he or she will have strengths and weaknesses that a “generic” candidate does not have. Obama will be able to attack those weaknesses, but a poll like this shows that he’s going to have to attack might hard.

Advertisements

Business leaders to GOP: Can you guys please talk about how ridiculous the NLRB is?

Quick background for those who don’t know: The Boeing Company, an American leader is aerospace development, was originally located in Seattle, Washington and its surrounding suburbs. It was one of the biggest businesses in the region and provided Washingtonians with thousands of consistent jobs. The problem, however, was that Boeing workers are part of a union and there had been some labor strikes over disagreements between union bosses and Boeing executives on pay and benefits and the like. So, being the businessmen they are, Boeing execs decided to find a better deal and decided to move their plant to South Carolina, which is a right-to-work state, implying that union membership is not a condition of employment. Therefore, Boeing was going to have an easier time negotiating pay and benefits with workers in South Carolina. Of course, the union bosses in Washington State and Washington D.C. and the National Labor Relations Board hated that plan so they decided to sue Boeing for wanting to move their privately owned business somewhere else.

Pretty ridiculous, huh? Shouldn’t private companies be allowed to relocate when they want? Considering, you know, it’s a private enterprise and we aren’t living in the Soviet Union. If we’re going to be the free market economy that we want to be, or at least some of us want, we cannot allow government agencies to command to us where we take our business. The Workforce Fairness Institute is fired up about this issue and wants GOP candidates to spend more time attacking the NLRB.

This is actually a pretty solid issue for GOP candidates to talk about. Americans have a slightly negative image of unions and if candidates can focus this on how jobs are being prevented from being created in the key primary state of South Carolina, they can gain some popularity with those primary voters. On a national scale, if candidates can convince voters that government agencies could prevent jobs from coming to their region because they side with union bosses, they will be making a very solid case that our economy and how it is run is not on the right track under this administration.

June 28th Recap

Daily links and stories that stood out…

Keith Olbermann implies Michele Bachmann is a pig (via Mediaite)

Good to see Keith is still in fine form! How this guy still has a TV show I’ll never know…actually, he’s now on Current TV, that’s how. Sheesh. As pointed out by Tommy Christopher in the article, not only are his insults just lame, he’s really not a good political commentator. At least Maddow brings opposing views to her show. This clown remains encased in an echo chamber.

N.H. poll show Romney in commanding lead; Bachmann moving up (via Politico)

No huge surprises here, Bachmann was on her game in the recent N.H. debate and Romney has been attempting to lock the state down since day 1. Pawlenty is down to 4 percent, tied with my man Jon Huntsman, who is just waiting to make his move…Seriously though, cannot wait to see those four contenders debate on the same stage. Bachmann caught everyone off guard last time, but next time the other three will be ready with some ammunition like…

Bachmann: I haven’t really done that much in D.C. and Medicaid and farm subsidies are actually pretty sweet!

(Of course, she didn’t actually say those things. But, that’s a funnier headline.) This actually might be a good sign for Bachmann; the media is doing some heavy lifting and digging up what they can on her. She is definitely the candidate with the most momentum and the one thought of most positively by Republicans. But she better be ready for more negative stories. Considering she’s never won a statewide race, this is going to be a whole different ballgame for her. While these stories don’t make her good, there’s far worse she could do so no need to fret too much. I love her, but I feel like she may have peaked a little too early. Plus, there might be a certain Mama Grizzly that is done hibernating…

Huntsman for POTUS (Part 2)

2. Huntsman is an unabashed pro-life activist who has a record to match his rhetoric.

If you’re going to be a nominee for president for the Republican Party, you better be pro-life. Just ask Rudy Giuliani about it. And please don’t claim to have a sudden “change of heart” as soon as you desire the nomination. Ask Mitt Romney about trying that. Politicians can talk the talk all they want but at the end of the day, you better have some history and proof of advancing pro-life legislation to back up the talk.

Jon Huntsman has that history and has done more to fight for the lives of the unborn than any other current Republican contender. Sure, he doesn’t scream from the mountaintops about how pro-life he is and he probably won’t sign that Susan B. Anthony pledge (we’ll get back to that later), but he can calmly point to his record as governor as proof.

In the 4+ years Huntsman was in charge, he signed 3 separate pro-life bills into law. The first bill outlawed second semester abortions and increased the penalty from a third degree felony to a second degree felony. The second bill, arguably the most important, would allow women to confer with doctors and require them to explain to women the pain their baby is about to feel due to the abortion. Many women who are considering the path of abortion are lied to about whether or not their baby will actually feel anything, some going as far as to convince women that it is not actually a child at all. By signing this bill into law, Huntsman provides a reality check for women and encourages them to understand what they are actually doing to the child.

Whereas Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels called for a “truce” on social issues, Huntsman takes the opposite approach, saying, “I do not believe the Republican party should focus only on our economic life — to the neglect of our human life…That is a trade we should not make. If Republicans ignore life, the deficit we will face is one that is much more destructive. It will be a deficit of the heart and of the soul.” As a conservative, it would be impossible to make a more pro-life statement than that. Huntsman is also able to point to the adoption of his two youngest daughters, one from India and one from China, as proof that he can back up his talk.

Again, it’s easy to make statements but it’s much harder to follow through on them. Huntsman has followed through like a pro-life warrior and should earn the respect and gratitude of anyone who takes the fight against abortion seriously, more specifically Republican primary voters. While Huntsman has yet to sign the Susan B. Anthony pro-life candidate pledge, there really isn’t a need to. The pledge requires that only pro-lifers are named to Cabinet positions. While that is a nice idea in theory, the reality is that all policy carried out by Cabinet members will be via orders of the President. If the president is pro-life, which Huntsman assuredly is, any pro-choice Cabinet nominee would have to follow the pro-life instructions of a hypothetical President Huntsman. The pledge is too restrictive and signing pledges only distracts from candidate’s actual record on the issues.

Huntsman has more pro-life creditibility than any other current candidate and it would behoove pro-life voters to take this into consideration when choosing someone to support.

The case for Jon Huntsman: Why this man should be the next POTUS (Part 1)

Wait, this guy?

Really? That’s how I’m going to start my blog, by announcing my support for RINO-in-chief Jon Huntsman? And I’m going to get cred within conservative circles for this?

You’re damn right. My choice right now for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination is former Utah governor and Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, Jr. Yes, he’s barely registering in polls and he isn’t winning the support of prominent conservatives, from Michelle Malkin to George Will. But is he really that bad? Over the next few days (maybe weeks), I’ll put together an argument as to why we should nominate a Mandarin-speaking Mormon to be the 45th President of the United States. If there are flaws in my reasoning, let me know! If you agree, well, you can let me know that too. On to the list…

1. Huntsman has a record of a tax-cutting, job creating executive.

In a 2009 study by Forbes, Utah was named a top-3 state in which to do business in, based off of data on costs, labor supply, regulatory environment, current economic climate, growth prospects and quality of life. This was mostly due to Governor Huntsman being relentless in slashing taxes and implementing what many consider a conservative pipe-dream, a state-wide flat tax. Let me repeat that: HE ENACTED A FLAT TAX!!! If this were any other contender, conservatives would be jumping for joy and praising his/her name, but this huge accomplishment is brushed aside for some reason. Huntsman enacted a flat income tax of 5% and brought down sales taxes. So did these reforms pay off at all? Well, when it comes to job-growth rates for presidential contenders, Governor Huntsman leads the pack with a job-growth rate of 5.9% from January 2005 to August 2009, while the current conservative flavor-of-the-week for the nomination, Governor Rick Perry of Texas, only had a 4.9% job-growth rate. Huntsman understands how to create an environment that is friendly to entrepreneurs and small businesses and the results speak for themselves.