Final Election Predictions, Featuring Weekend Monkey

JoshuaPundit:

Well this is where the pedal hits the metal as they say. It's time for me to make my final election predictions, along with the able assistance of Joshua Pundit's political guru, ace handicapper and former Democrat presidential candidate Weekend Monkey.

RM: Hello Monkey, and thanks for joining us.

WM: Your pleasure, I'm sure Rob. Howdy Doody, primates!

RM: @##!#. Always the inflated ego...

WM: Hee hee hee! Lemme tell ya, I'm feeling good about tomorrow!

RM: Let me guess. I know you've been campaigning for Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts... I take it you favor her chances tomorrow.

WM: Oh, you betcha Rob. And that translates into a lot of shekels for yours truly in election action, plus a high level staff position in DC when she gets in.

RM: I should have known. Anyway, you want to do the Senate first or the presidential race?

WM: Let's start at the top and work down.

RM: OK, fire away.

WM: It's really too close to call, but I see it leaning towards President Obama narrowly winning a second term..probably after some controversy among the primates:

It's really pretty simple. I see Romney the Robot narrowly getting frozen out of Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. And I mean narrowly. If even one state changes, it could go the other way. Let's call it 5-3 Obama.

Ohio is gonna be the poop storm, with a lotta weirdness in Cuyoga and Mahoning Counties that could leave us hanging on the branch for a long time, but in the end it's gonna come down to Ohio. If that goes Obama's way, he wins.Otherwise, Romney the Robot gets in.

RM: So you don't see Romney taking either Pennsylvania or Wisconsin?

WM: Y'know, anything's possible, But if I gotta make a call, I say Obama takes it overall. Especially Ohio, because a lot of the primates have jobs still, unemployment's relatively low, you got the unions and the Cleavland Machine. And they're all organized because of Governor Kasich trying to pull a Scott Walker on the public employee unions and getting his pee pee slapped. (The RNC’s Reince Priebus, from Wisconsin, says the polls were showing Walker down by 7 in the recall election and he won in a cake walk.  He also said that the GOPS ground game for Wisconsin is double what it was in 2004 and 2008… so the Monkey maybe off here!).

RM: Speaking of governors, what did you think of Chris Christie cozying up to Obama and dissing Romney, essentially telling him he wasn't welcome in Jersey to tour the storm areas?

WM: Ah hee hee hee! I got a real laugh outta that! Look, it's simple. Lardass is ticked off because he didn't run, he's looking at 2016 and the only way that opens up for him is if Romney the Robot loses. Simple as that.

RM: Makes sense. I never liked him anyway. The House?

WM: I say it stays ReThug, with maybe 3-5 seats changing hands.

RM: The Senate?

WM: Hee hee! Worst case, my Democrats will probably lose Virginia, North Dakota, Nebraska, Montana. They'll make pickups in Massachusetts and Maine, where the indy guy King will caucus with us Donkeys.Maybe another pickup in Indiana, depending on turnout.And we'll keep Florida.Probably Missouri too.

Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are wild cards. If they go Democrat like I think they will, we get those too. They might end up splitting, one apiece.

The ReThugs make pickups in Virginia, North Dakota, Montana and Nebraska. They'll keep Arizona and Nevada, maybe Indiana.They lose Massachusetts and Maine. They might get either Wisconsin or Pennsylvania, depending.

Bottom line? Including two indies, my Democrats end up with 49 seats maybe 50-51 if we get Indiana and either Wisconsin or Pennsylvania. The ReThugs end up with 49, 48 if they lose Indiana.To get control of the senate, they'd have to hang on to Indiana somehow and get both Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, or maybe Missouri which I don't see happening at all.

RM: You predicted a divided Senate before.

WM: Yup. It could shake out that way. OK, whaddya got?

RM: I see Romney winning.

WM: Cheez, what a surprise!

RM: Hey now...

WM: Alright, alright.

RM: Here's how I see it, but just like with your map, mine is subject to some changes..it really is a pretty close race to predict.

With the economy the way it is, and the other issues of Obama's presidency, I see Romney taking Virginia, Florida, Colorado and North Carolina pretty decisively. I also think he's going to take two of the Big Four in the Midwest, most likely Ohio and Wisconsin, although the last polls I saw that meant anything show Pennsylvania and Michigan tied up. I think there's a very good chance that Ohio and Pennsylvania might switch columns, with Romney taking the Keystone State and Obama getting Ohio by a narrow margin because of the factors you mentioned.Especially with Obama's EPA already salivating publicly at crippling coal for good.

WM: You see Romney taking Iowa and New Hampshire?

RM: Yeah, but with this scenario if he loses them both he still wins.

WM: Yeah, I can see that.You better hope he takes Colorado then,,,,

RM: I think he will. For what it's worth I agree with you Monkey, it's going to come down to the Big Four in the Midwest.Obama has to take both Pennsylvania and Ohio to win.
WM: You see the Elephants keeping the House?

RM: Of course, Monkey. With a maximum loss of 3-5 seats. Which means that even if you're right and Obama does get re-elected, Darrel Issa still has subpoena powers and Obama might wish he lost tomorrow in a couple of years.

WM: Ouchie! You got a point there!

RM: Here's how I see the Senate. OK, the Dems lose Virginia, North Dakota, Montana and Nebraska. I personally think there's an excellent chance of one or two more GOP pickups in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Maybe Florida if Romney wins decisively enough. I think Tammy Baldwin's lunatic fringe lefty ideas don't play well in the Badger State anywhere outside Madison and Dane County, and there's also the Catholic vote to consider in both PA and Wisconsin. And with Paul Ryan on the ticket, Scott Walker surviving the recall and Wisconsin being RNC head Preibus' home state, I think it's looking pretty good for Romney and for Tommy Thompson.The GOP hangs on to Arizona and Nevada.

The Republicans probably lose Massachusetts and definitely lose Maine. And probably one of either Missouri or Indiana, although I think Mourdock has a shot at surviving in Indiana. So that puts us at between 49 and 52 seats for the GOP, depending on what happens in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, Missouri and Indiana.

I pretty much see the Democrats' scenario the same way you do, including the two indies. I'd like to think the people of Massachusetts have more brains than to put someone like Elizabeth Warren in the Senate -

WM: HEY!

RM: Nothing personal Monkey.

WM: Besides, it is Massachusetts....

RM: You got that right. Anyway, I also see a split senate as a real possibility. So there it is...

WM: I gotta tell you something Rob...you know that video of that little primate crying and saying she was tired of Bronco Bama and Mitt Romney? I feel the same way. I wanna get this thing over with.

RM: Me too Monkey. I think a lot of people feel that way. Two years for a political campaign is just to damned long, and I'll be relieved when it's over and done with. You ever think of running for something again?

WM: You know me Rob. I'm a political animal and I see my opportunities and take 'em. Hee hee!

RM: Spoken like a Democrat, Monkey. Thanks for swinging by.

WM: See ya later Rob. Smell Ya later, Primates.

Weekend Monkey was a Democratic candidate for president in 2008 and is JoshuaPundit's political Guru. He can be reached at wendmonkey@yahoo.com

Related:

Listening to the pundits, most say it is too close to call and it could go one of two ways… a landslide for Romney or a squeaker to the end, late into the night.  Dick Morris, Charles Krauthammer, Rush Limbaugh, and Karl Rove predict that it will be a Romney-Ryan win.  Dick Morris feels it will be a landslide for Romney because he claims pollsters are oversampling Democrats and says a poll that claims Obama is up 3, really means Romney is winning by 4. Claiming that "Ohio is overrated... Romney can lose the state and still win the election."

Charles Krauthammer Outlines Romney's Three Paths To Victory

Presidential paths: How Romney, Obama could win

Dick Morris Stands by Romney Landslide Prediction

Picking a U.S. President… in 2012… Now Just One Day Away From a New Start

‘Cooling Out’ the Voters

The Council Has Spoken!! Watcher’s Council Winners for 11.02.12

Have You Heard About ‘Spigot Cities’ That May Pump Votes to Obama?

The Choice

Krauthammer kicks Christie

Voter fraud complaints may be directed to any of the local U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, the local FBI offices or the Public Integrity Section (202-514-1412).

Technorati Tags: Election 2012,2012 Election,elections,Mitt Romney in 2012,Romney-Ryan,Chris Christy,Charles Krauthammer,Reince Priebus,swing states,battle ground states,Dick Morris,pols,Election 2012 predictions,Karl Rove,Rush Limbaugh,Obama vs. Romney,Romney vs. Obama

ObamaCare Isn't Inevitable

Americans are increasingly concerned about the cost -- in money and personal freedom -- of the president's nanny-state initiatives.

(And yesterday’s ABC infomercial was, as always… very vague!)

While still good, President Barack Obama's political health is deteriorating, threatened by what he thought would be balm -- his ambitious plan for a government takeover of health care.

Mr. Obama remains slightly more popular than most presidents have been in their opening months. But his job approval rating has drifted down to 60% in the RealClearPolitics.com average. His disapproval numbers have nearly doubled to 33%.

More troubling to Team Obama is the growing gap between the president's approval rating and declining support for major items on his policy agenda. Independents are increasingly joining Republicans in opposition to administration initiatives that range from reviving the economy to closing the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo.

Chad Crowe

Things will likely get worse in the coming months as the congressional stage comes to be dominated by health care. A new poll by Resurgent Republic (a nonprofit, right-of-center education organization whose creation I helped spur), reveals some of the president's challenges. By a 60%-to-31% margin, Americans prefer getting their health coverage through private insurance rather than the federal government.

Mr. Obama's record-setting spending binge has also made Americans more sensitive to deficits and higher taxes. Thirty-nine percent said they supported "a health-care plan that raises taxes in order to provide health insurance to all Americans," while 52% preferred "a plan that does not provide health insurance to all Americans but keeps taxes at current levels." By a 58%-to-37% margin, American prefer reforming health care "without raising taxes or increasing the deficit" to government investing "new resources to make sure it is done right."

This is why Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus blanched when committee staffers priced his -- which is also the Obama administration's -- draft legislation at a cool $1.6 trillion over the next decade.

The federal government will release an update on the deficit in mid-July, which will likely increase the public's fear of deficit spending. The current fiscal year's $1.8 trillion deficit is likely to grow significantly.

There is some good news in the Resurgent Republic poll for Mr. Obama if he can sell his plan as shifting power from "insurance bureaucrats to consumers." Resurgent's poll found that Americans favor that by 57% to 38%.

But to argue, as Mr. Obama does, that a government-run health-care plan can control costs better than a market-based system is a mistake. This argument is belied by Medicare's experience. A study published by the Pacific Research Institute finds that since 1970 Medicare's costs have risen 34% a year faster than the rest of health care.

Mr. Obama's trashing of American health care as "a broken system" that must be brought "into the 21st century" doesn't resonate with most Americans. They are happy about their health care, doctor and hospital. Resurgent's poll found that 83% of Americans are very or somewhat satisfied with the quality of care they and their families receive.

Nearly everyone agrees that some reforms are needed. But it is also vital to protect areas of excellence and innovation. Stanford University professor Scott Atlas points out that from 1998 to 2002 nearly twice as many new drugs were launched in the U.S. as in Europe. According the U.S. Pharmaceutical Industry Report, some 2,900 new drugs are now being researched here. America's five top hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other developed country, according to Mr. Atlas. And a McKinsey Co. study reports that 40% of all medical travelers come to the United States for medical treatment.

Transforming health care into a government-run system would be difficult to do under any circumstances. Americans are still wary about big government. Health-care reform also always sounds better in the abstract. Public resistance rises once liberals are forced to release the details of their plans.

Meanwhile, the $787 billion stimulus package has not provided the economic kick Mr. Obama promised. The $410 billion Omnibus spending bill the president signed in March and his $3.5 trillion budget plan for next year are also adding to the river of red ink.

Health-care reform was said to be "inevitable" a few months ago. Today, its prospects are less certain, even to Democrats. The issue may even turn out to be a millstone for the party.

Americans are increasingly concerned about the cost -- in money and personal freedom -- of Mr. Obama's nanny-state initiatives. To strengthen the emerging coalition of independents and Republicans, the GOP must fight Mr. Obama's agenda with reasoned arguments and attractive alternatives. Health care may actually be an issue that helps resurrect the GOP.

By Mr. Rove - the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A13 on June 25, 2009

ON THE AIR: KARL ROVE ON IRAN, HEALTH CARE AND MORE

Karl Rove joined Hannity to analyze President Obama's rhetoric on the situation in Iran. Karl says Obama's statement condemning the violence against demonstrators came too late and its tardiness sent the wrong message to the Iranian regime. Karl also talks about health care and Gov. Sanford's political future.

>> Watch Video

Posted: Daily Thought Pad

How to Stop Socialized Health Care

Five arguments Republicans must make…

It was a sobering breakfast with one of the smartest Republicans on Capitol Hill. We can fix a lot of bad stuff President Barack Obama might do, he told me. But if Mr. Obama signs into law a "public option," government-run insurance program as part of health-care reform we won't be able to undo the damage.

I'd go the Republican member of Congress one further: If Democrats enact a public-option health-insurance program, America is on the way to becoming a European-style welfare state. To prevent this from happening, there are five arguments Republicans must make.

Getty Images

The first is it's unnecessary. Advocates say a government-run insurance program is needed to provide competition for private health insurance. But 1,300 companies sell health insurance plans. That's competition enough. The results of robust private competition to provide the Medicare drug benefit underscore this. When it was approved, the Congressional Budget Office estimated it would cost $74 billion a year by 2008. Nearly 100 providers deliver the drug benefit, competing on better benefits, more choices, and lower prices. So the actual cost was $44 billion in 2008 -- nearly 41% less than predicted. No government plan was needed to guarantee competition's benefits.

Second, a public option will undercut private insurers and pass the tab to taxpayers and health providers just as it does in existing government-run programs. For example, Medicare pays hospitals 71% and doctors 81% of what private insurers pay.

Who covers the rest? Government passes the bill for the outstanding balance to providers and families not covered by government programs. This cost-shifting amounts to a forced subsidy. Families pay about $1,800 more a year for someone else's health care as a result, according to a recent study by Milliman Inc. It's also why many doctors limit how many Medicare patients they take: They can afford only so much charity care.

Fixing prices at less than market rates will continue under any public option. Sen. Edward Kennedy's proposal, for example, has Washington paying providers what Medicare does plus 10%. That will lead to health providers offering less care.

Third, government-run health insurance would crater the private insurance market, forcing most Americans onto the government plan. The Lewin Group estimates 70% of people with private insurance -- 120 million Americans -- will quickly lose what they now get from private companies and be forced onto the government-run rolls as businesses decide it is more cost-effective for them to drop coverage. They'd be happy to shift some of the expense -- and all of the administration headaches -- to Washington. And once the private insurance market has been dismantled it will be gone.

Fourth, the public option is far too expensive. The cost of Medicare -- the purest form of a government-run "public choice" for seniors -- will start exceeding its payroll-tax "trust fund" in 2017. The Obama administration estimates its health reforms will cost as much as $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. It is no coincidence the Obama budget nearly triples the national debt over that same period.

Medicare and Medicaid cost much more than estimated when they were adopted. One reason is there's no competition for these government-run insurance programs. In the same way, Americans can expect a public option to cost far more than the Obama administration's rosy estimates.

Fifth, the public option puts government firmly in the middle of the relationship between patients and their doctors. If you think insurance companies are bad, imagine what happens when government is the insurance carrier, with little or no competition and no concern you'll change to another company.

In other words, the public option is just phony. It's a bait-and-switch tactic meant to reassure people that the president's goals are less radical than they are. Mr. Obama's real aim, as some candid Democrats admit, is a single-payer, government-run health-care system.

Health care desperately needs far-reaching reforms that put patients and their doctors in charge, bring the benefits of competition and market forces to bear, and ensure access to affordable and portable health care for every American. Republicans have plans to achieve this, and they must make their case for reform in every available forum.

Defeating the public option should be a top priority for the GOP this year. Otherwise, our nation will be changed in damaging ways almost impossible to reverse.

By Karl Rove

About Karl Rove - Karl Rove served as Senior Advisor to President George W. Bush from 2000–2007 and Deputy Chief of Staff from 2004–2007. At the White House he oversaw the Offices of Strategic Initiatives, Political Affairs, Public Liaison, and Intergovernmental Affairs and was Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, coordinating the White House policy making process.

Before Karl became known as "The Architect" of President Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaigns, he was president of Karl Rove + Company, an Austin-based public affairs firm that worked for Republican candidates, nonpartisan causes, and nonprofit groups. His clients included over 75 Republican U.S. Senate, Congressional and gubernatorial candidates in 24 states, as well as the Moderate Party of Sweden.

Karl writes a weekly op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, is a Newsweek columnist and is now writing a book to be published by Simon & Schuster. Email the author at Karl@Rove.com or visit him on the web at Rove.com.

Or, you can send him a Tweet @karlrove.

Posted: Daily Thought Pad

Related Articles:

• House Health-Care Proposal Adds $600 Billion in Taxes (Update-2)
• Democrats Set to Rush Through Government-Run Healthcare
• Understanding the House Democrat’s Health care bill
• What a Week With Healthcare
• Kennedy Healthcare Plan Meets Resistance – Full of Pork
• Healthcare: You Think Michael Moore Will Contribute? Don’t Hold Your Breath
• Here Comes Rationing Healthcare
• Rights, Responsibilities and Healthcare
• British HealthCare - Don't Treat The Old!! - And Senator Coburn Warns Same For USA
• Universal Health and Old People
• Once Considered Unthinkable, U.S. Sales Tax Gets Fresh Look
• Conservatives for Patient's Rights
• Obama's Attack on Medical Civil Liberties
• Socialized Medicine in cartoon form.
• Voters Steer Europe to the Right – Why… Because Socialism Isn’t Working
• Progressivism – The Progressive Movement Is A Cancer – How We Got Here

It's the Economy, Stupid

Tomorrow will likely bring more bad news for President Barack Obama on the number one issue for voters -- the economy. The Labor Department's monthly job report will almost certainly show unemployment topping 9%, with a couple hundred thousand more jobs lost in May.

It will get worse before jobs get better. Congressional Budget Director Douglas W. Elmendorf recently predicted that unemployment will continue rising into the second half of next year and peak above 10%.

Mr. Obama has an ingenious approach to job losses: He describes them as job gains. For example, last week the president claimed that 150,000 jobs had been created or saved because of his stimulus package. He boasted, "And that's just the beginning."

However, at the beginning of January, 134.3 million people were employed. At the start of May, 132.4 million Americans were working. How was Mr. Obama magically able to conjure this loss of 1.9 million jobs into an increase of 150,000 jobs?

As my former White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto points out on his blog, the Labor Department does not and cannot collect data on "jobs saved." So the Obama administration is asking that we accept its "clairvoyant ability to estimate," and the White House press corps has let Mr. Obama's ludicrous claim go virtually unchallenged.

Still, there are limits to Mr. Obama's rhetorical tricks. Even he cannot turn job losses into real job gains. And he won't be rescued by stimulus spending.

Former National Economic Council Director Keith Hennessey made a persuasive case on his blog that the stimulus will be ineffective because the additional economic growth it spurs will come six to nine months later than it could have.

This is partly because, as the Congressional Budget Office estimates, only $185 billion (23% of a $787 billion stimulus package) will be spent this fiscal year. The government will spend an additional $399 billion next fiscal year. The balance -- $203 billion -- will be spent between fiscal years 2011 and 2019, long after the economy has turned on its own power and for its own reasons. In addition, much of the stimulus that went this year for tax cuts and transfer payments has been saved, not spent. (The national savings rate went from less than 0% to about 5%.)

If the Obama administration were more serious about growing the economy than just growing government, the stimulus would have been front-loaded into this fiscal year.

In addition, the claim made by Team Obama that every dollar in stimulus translates into a dollar-and-a-half in growth is economic fiction. The costs of stimulus reduce future growth. No country has ever spent itself to prosperity. The price of stimulus has to be paid sometime.

Any real improvement in the economy so far is more likely the result of the Federal Reserve expanding the money supply and the Fed and Treasury shoring up the financial sector.

But the Fed's actions are risky. Easy money and expansionary policies are not sustainable. We may soon be in for a bout of inflation unless the Fed soaks up much of the money it flooded into the system. The government is also likely to hamper private investment as it uses a vast amount of capital to finance its debt. And when the Fed stomps on its monetary brakes, as eventually it must, we'll get sluggish growth.

The irony for Democrats is that the Fed may hit the brakes in the run-up to the 2010 congressional elections or the 2012 presidential election.

It is becoming clear that the economy is now the top issue. Mr. Obama's presidency may well rise or fall on it. The economy will be his responsibility long before next year's elections. Americans may give him a chance to turn things around, but voters can turn unforgiving very quickly if promised jobs don't materialize.

That's what happened in Louisiana, where voters accepted Democrat Gov. Kathleen Blanco's missteps before Hurricane Katrina but brutally rejected her afterward because she failed to turn the state around.

Until now, the new president has benefited from public willingness to give him a honeymoon. He decided to use that grace period to push for the largest expansion of government in U.S. history and to reward political allies (see the sweetheart deals Big Labor received in the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies).

The difficulty for Mr. Obama will be when the public sees where his decisions lead -- higher inflation, higher interest rates, higher taxes, sluggish growth, and a jobless recovery.

By By KARL ROVE - former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A13

About Karl Rove:  Karl Rove served as Senior Advisor to President George W. Bush from 2000–2007 and Deputy Chief of Staff from 2004–2007. At the White House he oversaw the Offices of Strategic Initiatives, Political Affairs, Public Liaison, and Intergovernmental Affairs and was Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, coordinating the White House policy making process.

Before Karl became known as "The Architect" of President Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaigns, he was president of Karl Rove + Company, an Austin-based public affairs firm that worked for Republican candidates, nonpartisan causes, and nonprofit groups. His clients included over 75 Republican U.S. Senate, Congressional and gubernatorial candidates in 24 states, as well as the Moderate Party of Sweden.

Karl writes a weekly op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, is a Newsweek columnist and is now writing a book to be published by Simon & Schuster.

Posted:  Daily Thought Pad

Karl Rove: Obama's Past Will Haunt Court Pick

Karl Rove, the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush, opined in a Wall Street Journal Op-ed this week that President Barack Obama may have painted himself into a corner as the battle looms over retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter’s replacement.

“Mr. Obama will pay a price for voting against Mr. [John] Roberts and Samuel Alito after calling them ‘qualified’ and lauding their temperament, humility, excellence, passion for the law, and respect for precedent," Rove wrote.

“Both won confirmation with bipartisan support. By voting against well-qualified conservative nominees, Mr. Obama lost the ability to argue that a well-qualified liberal should be given the benefit of the doubt,” he argued.

Rove also highlighted then-Sen. Obama’s vote to allow a filibuster of Alito, making it at best supremely awkward for President Obama to now insist that his nominee has a right to a full Senate vote.

Combative Republicans will be very mindful of the Obama history as the latest political drama unfolds. Furthermore, as Rove points out, there is also an important procedural item swirling in the mix.

Rule IV of the Senate Judiciary Committee requires that a motion to end debate and bring a nominee to a vote pass with 10 votes in the affirmative, one of which the minority must cast.

“Before last week,” noted Rove, “that Republican was likely to be Arlen Specter, but he’s now a Democrat. Mr. Obama will have to consider if his pick is likely to win over at least one Judiciary Republican.”

Some of those entering the Supreme Court derby early on are: Sonia Sotomayor, judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and potentially a history-making first Hispanic on the court; Elena Kaga, solicitor general of the U.S. Justice Department and former dean of Harvard Law School; and Diane Wood, judge of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.

Also adding to the Obama dilemma, wrote Rove, is the matter of timing. With just over 100 days in office, there just hasn’t been time to vet the prospects.

This rush to judgment is made all the more significant when cast against the backdrop of five administration nominees already found stained with the ugly blemish of unpaid taxes.

“Mr. Obama knows he has used up any capital that could have purchased forgiveness for such offenses by a Supreme Court nominee,” Rove wrote.

Looking on the Bright Side

Despite the obstacles, Obama has several things working in his favor, Rove wrote.

“First, Democrats control the Senate. It helps a great deal to have the Judiciary Committee chairman as an ally,” he noted.

Furthermore, he recalled, Republicans generally do not handle Supreme Court nominees as roughly as do Democrats.

“Consider their treatment of President Bill Clinton’s picks for the high court. Ruth Bader Ginsberg was confirmed by a 96-3 vote in 1993. The following year, Stephen Breyer was confirmed by a vote of 87-9. There were no fireworks at either hearing — and nothing close to what Democrats did to Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas,” Rove reminded.

Then there is the matter of Souter turning out in practice to be reliably liberal. Souter was appointed by former President George H.W. Bush — but the ostensible conservative often voted along liberal lines.

“An Obama nominee is also unlikely to dramatically change the court’s direction,” opined Rove. “A liberal replacing a liberal will smooth the path for most potential nominees.”

Finally, on the positive side of the ledger, there is the simple numbers game. Only 23 of 158 Supreme Court nominees have been rejected or withdrawn — and only 14 when the president’s party controlled the Senate.

‘Empathy,’ ‘Understanding’ – Hogwash

Rove’s primary advice for Republicans is that they should explain their view of the judiciary’s proper role and why Obama’s touted desire that a nominee have “empathy” and “understanding” is an “amorphous basis on which to pick a justice.”

What’s more, opined Rove, what Obama really wants isn’t a justice with “empathy” and “understanding” — he wants a liberal, activist Supreme Court justice.

“Senate Republicans may not be able to stop Mr. Obama’s nominee, but they can explain to the public the party’s reasons for opposing judges who think of themselves as legislators with life tenure,” he concluded.

By: Dave Eberhart -  Newsmax

Obama Outsources His Presidency

He may come to regret letting Congress write his major legislation.

By KARL ROVE

While officials in the Obama White House dismissed yesterday's "100 Days" anniversary as a "Hallmark Holiday," they understood it was what sociologist Daniel J. Boorstin called a "pseudo-event." By that, Boorstin meant an occasion that is not spontaneous but planned for the purpose of being reported -- an event that is important because someone says so, not because it is.

What happens in a president's first 100 days rarely characterizes the arc of the 1,361 that follow. Jimmy Carter had a very good first 100 days. Bill Clinton did not.

Still, a president would rather start well than poorly -- and Mr. Obama has a job approval of 63%. That leaves him tied with Mr. Carter, one point ahead of George W. Bush, and behind only Ronald Reagan's 67%. Four of the past six presidents had approval ratings that ranged between 62% and 67%, a statistically insignificant spread.

Mr. Obama is popular because he is a historic figure, has an attractive personality, has passed key legislation, and receives adoring press coverage.

However, there are cautionary signs. Mr. Obama's policies are less popular than his personality, the pace of polarization with Republicans has proceeded faster than ever in history, and independents are thinking more like Republicans on the issues and less like Democrats.

The first 100 days can reveal a pattern of behavior that comes to characterize a presidency. In this respect, there are two emerging habits of Team Obama worth watching.

One is the gap between what Mr. Obama said he would do and what he is doing. His administration is emphasizing in its official 100 days talking points steps he has taken to "deliver on the change he promised." During the campaign, Mr. Obama denounced the $2.3 trillion added to the national debt on Mr. Bush's watch as "deficits as far as the eye can see." But Mr. Obama's budget adds $9.3 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years. What happened to Obama the deficit hawk?

From Mr. Obama's Denver acceptance speech through the campaign, Mr. Obama did not publicly utter the phrase "universal health care." Instead, his campaign ran ads attacking "government-run health care" as "extreme." Now Mr. Obama is asking, as he did at a townhall meeting last month, "Why not do a universal health care system like the European countries?" Maybe because he was elected by intimating that would be "extreme"?

Another emphasis in the Obama 100 days talking points is that the president is a decisive leader. However, Mr. Obama is enormously deferential to Democrats in Congress and has outsourced formulation of key policies to them. He appears largely ambivalent about the contents of important legislation, satisfied to simply sign someone else's bill.

On the $787 billion stimulus package, he specified less than a quarter of the bill's spending and let House Appropriations Chairman Dave Obey decide the rest. On cap and trade, Mr. Obama is comfortable to let Democratic Reps. Henry Waxman and Edward Markey write that legislation with virtually no White House guidance. On health care, the White House is providing very little detail. Mr. Obama tees up an issue, but leaves its execution to congressional Democrats.

This leadership style may be a carryover from his Senate years, when he was unusually detached from the substance of legislation. Mr. Obama's focus on broad descriptions of a goal will produce laws, but handing over control of the process may produce deeply flawed products.

The stimulus bill turned into a liberal spending wish list that will retard, not hasten, recovery. Already, with mounting job losses the gap between the 3.675 million jobs he said he would create or protect in his first two years and the number of actual jobs in the economy has risen to nearly five million. Reaching his job target now requires creating 249,400 new jobs a month for the next 20 months. Democrats will not fare well in next year's elections if there is a yawning Obama "job gap."

Democratic congressional leaders are ecstatic about Mr. Obama's willingness to outsource major legislation to them. They thrive on sausage making and, with the president's popularity high, they appreciate that his strengths are not their strengths. Yet Mr. Obama clearly did not gain their respect for his legislative abilities during his Senate years.

Mr. Obama is a great face for the Democratic Party. He is its best salesman and most persuasive advocate. But he is beginning to leave the impression that he is more concerned with the aesthetics of policy rather than its contents. In the long run, substance and consequences define a presidency more than signing ceremonies and photo-ops. In his first 100 days, Mr. Obama has put the fate of his presidency in the hands of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. He may come to regret that decision.

Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

Hide

Fox News

Rove on Obama Presser

"This man has a mindset that is pre-9/11"

Length:2:48

• Only 27% of viewers watched Obama's Prime Time Press Conference for the first 100 Days Mark.  47% watched the last one.
  

Joe Biden - Serial Exaggerator or Liar Says Karl Rove

Karl Rove, Republican strategist in an interview on Fox News on Thursday, called Vice President Joe Biden a “liar” and a “serial exaggerator” for concocting a story about President George W. Bush “out of whole cloth”; Joe's latest media faux pas. Rove's comment was in response to Biden's claim made in an interview with CNN on Tuesday where Biden claimed he allegedly counseled President Bush while in a meeting in the Oval Office. “Well, Joe, he (President Bush) said, I’m a leader. And I (Joe) said, Mr. President, turn around and look behind you. No one’s following.” When asked about the comments by Fox News' Megyn Kelly, sitting in for Greta von Sesteren on Thursday, Rove... a close adviser to Bush... said: “It didn’t happen. I hate to say it, but he’s a serial exaggerator. If I was being unkind, I’d say he’s a liar. But it is a habit he ought to drop". “You’ll notice every one of these incidents has the same structure. Joe Biden courageously raises the impudent question. The president befuddledly answers, and Joe Biden drives home the dramatic response. And I mean, it just...  it’s his imagination. It’s a made-up, fictional world.” Kelly then asked: “So you’re saying he just made this thing up 'out of whole cloth' with no basis in fact?” Rove responded: “He’s making these things up out of whole cloth.” Rove also disputed Biden’s claim that he had spent “a lot of hours alone with” Bush. "Joe Biden was never alone with the president for more than a few moments," Rove said. "There was staff in the room at all times… There would have been notes and Megyn Kelly said she'd already done the research and there weren't any. "I think there are very few presidents who spend hours with somebody in the Oval Office, particularly a... with all due respect, a blowhard like Joe Biden."   Rove also said: “These are the kinds of things you can get away with if you are a United States senator or a backbencher in the U.S. House of Representatives. You should not exaggerate and lie like this when you’re the vice president of the United States.” Earlier this week Biden spokesman Jay Carney told Fox News : “The vice president stands by his remarks.” Rove pointed out that Biden dropped out of the 1988 Presidential race because he was found to be plagiarizing a speech by Neil Kinnock, the leader of the British Labour Party, “and recounting an episode in Kinnock’s life as if it were in his own life.” Biden was also criticized for claiming last July that he had been "shot at" during a trip to Iraq, Fox reported. He later amended that assertion, telling The Hill newspaper: "I was near where a shot landed." It really makes you wonder... or should!  If our vice president lies and exaggerates about things like being shot at and advising the last president plus was caught plagiarizing for his campaign speeches what else is he lying about?? by Marion Algier/Ask Marion - Daily Thought Pad