Spending low for school-board candidates

For the 2012 election, the presidential candidates have raised nearly $1 billion each. Congressional candidates average into the low millions.

But some Peoria Unified school-board candidates competing for three seats in the Nov.6 election raised less than $500.

The top fundraiser, board incumbent Eddie Smith, totaled $3,019 with money rolled over from his 2010 election campaign. Incumbent Joe McCord raised more than $2,000.

All figures are based on the Sept. 27 campaign-finance filing. The latest figures won't be available until later this week.

Most of the cash has gone to the usual campaign expenditures, such as signs, fliers and robocalls.

Despite low donations and spending, some have raised concerns about outside influence from unions and political parties in local elections.

Peoria school-board candidate Peter Pingerelli questioned accepting money from unions, businesses and organizations, noting that it might affect future board decisions.

Campaign-finance records show that Pingerelli raised nearly $350 from individual donors, but Pingerelli noted that he has received almost $1,000 to date for signs and fliers.

Of the $2,000 McCord received, $400 came from the Peoria Education Association, a teachers union that frequently donates to board candidates. So far, he has bought a website, signs and fliers.

McCord rebutted the perception of favoritism: "The people who give me money think I'm doing a good job. I'm not swayed one way or the other by contributions."

Although Smith has not raised funds this go-around, he received $9,110 in the previous election. More than $7,100 came from firefighter unions. Smith is a Glendale firefighter.

This year, Smith expects to spend most of his roughly $3,000 in rollover funds on robocalls to registered voters.

To save money, Pingerelli, Tracy Livingston and Matt Bullock split the cost of a flier advertising them as a Republican slate. In a recent teachers candidate forum, they drew criticism for running along party lines in a nonpartisan race.

"I'm very disappointed that they're making it into a political race," said Carol Lokare, a Democrat running for District 21 in the state House of Representatives. "There's no Republican way to teach a kid how to write. There's no Democrat way to teach a kid how to write."

Aside from the flier, records show the candidates have not shared any other costs. None has received any financial support from the Republican Party.

The candidates said that if elected, they will not vote in lockstep, citing their varied positions on issues such as Proposition 204 and the district bond issue.

"We probably talked and e-mailed maybe five times total," said Bullock, who has raised less than $1,000 from small donors and personal funds. That money mostly has gone to paying for websites, fliers and signs, he said.

Livingston is funding her campaign, spending less than $500 on a website, robocall, fliers and business cards.

Although historically candidates have not run along party lines on the school-board level, Kim Fridkin, a political-science professor at Arizona State University, said it makes sense for candidates to play up party affiliation.

"They need to be pretty confident that that party will help them and not hurt them," Fridkin said.

Newcomer Bill Bercu has bought about 100 small signs but said he is trying to avoid spending any more money.

"I want to keep it under $500," Bercu said. "To me, (money is) not the way to go. It's service."

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Republican Candidates on Abolishing Courts and Subpoenaing Judges (ContributorNetwork)

According to the Huffington Post, Newt Gingrich declared that as president, he would abolish courts and subpoena activist judges that he thought were out of line. This position has been characterized as "outrageous," "totally irresponsible" and a threat to checks and balances by two former conservative attorney generals, according to Bret Baier.

As a result, the candidates seeking the Republican presidential nomination were asked for their opinions on subpoenaing judges and judicial power, in general.

Here is what they said, according to a debate transcript provided by the American Presidency Project:

* Newt Gingrich: "The courts have become grotesquely dictatorial, far too powerful, and I think, frankly, arrogant in their misreading of the American people. … When the Ninth Circuit Court said that 'one nation under God' is unconstitutional in the Pledge of Allegiance. … I decided, if you had judges who were so radically anti-American that they thought "one nation under God" was wrong, they shouldn't be on the court. ... We have a balance of three branches. We do not have a judicial dictatorship in this country. And that's what the Federalist papers promised us. And I would -- just like Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln and FDR -- be prepared to take on the judiciary if, in fact, it did not restrict itself in what it was doing."

* Michele Bachmann: "I would agree with Newt Gingrich that I think that the Congress and the president of the United States have failed to take their authority. Because now we've gotten to the point where we think the final arbitrator of law is the court system. It isn't. The intention of the founders was that the courts would be the least powerful system of government. And if we give to the courts, the right to make law, then the people will have lost their representation. They need to hold onto their representation."

* Ron Paul: "Well the Congress can get rid of these courts. If a judge misbehaves and is unethical and gets into trouble, the proper procedure is impeachment. But to subpoena judges before the Congress, I'd really question that. And if you get too careless about abolishing courts, that could open up a can of worms. … But the whole thing is, if you just say, well we're going to -- OK there are 10 courts, let's get rid of three this year because they ruled a way we didn't like. … That's a real affront to the separation of the powers."

* Mitt Romney: "As many as half the justices in the next four years are going to be appointed by the next president. This is a critical time to choose someone who believes in conservative principles. Now I don't believe that it makes a lot of sense to have Congress overseeing justices. The only group that has less credibility than justices perhaps is Congress. So let's not have them be in charge of overseeing the justices."

* Rick Perry: "When I talk about overhauling Washington, D.C., one of the things I talk about besides a part-time Congress is no longer having lifetime terms for the federal bench. I think that is one of the ways that you keep these unaccountable legislators from rogues to try to dictate to the rest of us."

View the original article here

Obama links congressional GOP with candidates (AP)

WASHINGTON – On the eve of the crucial New Hampshire primary, President Barack Obama told supporters Monday that the Republicans vying for his job out on the campaign trail are no different from the ones opposing his policies on Capitol Hill.

Speaking at an evening fundraiser at a Washington hotel, Obama several times dismissed "the Republicans in Congress and the candidates who are running for president," saying both groups were trying to eliminate needed environmental protections, roll back the minimum wage, dismantle Medicare and gut spending on education, research and infrastructure.

"Republicans in Congress and these candidates, they think that the best way for America to compete for new jobs and businesses is to follow other countries in a race to the bottom," Obama said. "We can't go back to this brand of you're-on-your-own economics."

The president didn't mention any of the Republicans by name, and made only a couple of passing references to New Hampshire. But it was his most explicit effort yet to link the GOP presidential field with the unpopular Republicans in Congress — a strategy the White House has been signaling it would employ.

Obama also sought to recapture some of the energy of his 2008 campaign, telling about 700 supporters at the Capitol Hilton that their work was far from finished in 2012.

"The very core of what this country stands for is on the line," he said, adding, in another swipe at the GOP field: "Don't take my word for it. Watch some of these debates that have been going on up in New Hampshire."

Obama didn't talk about Tuesday's New Hampshire primary, but did tell supporters at one point that a sense of common purpose still exists in the country — even if "maybe it doesn't exist here in Washington and maybe not on the presidential debate stage of New Hampshire, but out in America, it's there."

Supporters paid $100 per ticket to see Obama speak at the reception as the president got back on the fundraising trail for the first time in 2012, something he'll be doing with increasing frequency through the November election.

At an earlier event Monday at the swanky Jefferson Hotel, Obama joined around 25 guests for a closed-press round table discussion with tickets $45,000 each and proceeds split between his campaign and the Swing State Victory Fund, which supports Democrats in battleground states.

View the original article here

President Obama Forced to Squabble Over Nonissues with Republican Candidates (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | I'll admit it, even though it's a little embarrassing nowadays. I used to be a Republican. And then I grew up. Here in the final year leading to election 2012, when the GOP could be bringing up real issues -- or at least getting out of Ron Paul's way -- Republicans are doing little more than pandering to emotions, as shown in a report from the Associated Press.

Rather than discussing real-world issues, most Republican candidates seem more upset because the president made the occasional honest critique of the U.S. I'm saddened by seeing so many of our government leaders more offended by honest commentary, than by the issues which would bring out such comments in the first place. I'm saddened even further when I consider that so many of my fellow countrymen are also quick to jump on the bandwagon of irrational hatred, rather than do their own critical analysis of what the media reports. Just follow the herd, right, folks? Moo.

Personally, I do feel America is the greatest nation on Earth. And the concept of personal freedom and individual liberty does make us somewhat unique in world history. If we wish to remain so, we need to be willing to learn from honest criticism, unless our goal is to simply be deluded. A nation reputed to be established on the basis of freedom and liberty should be willing to accept the harshest of honest criticism. We're not perfect. Am I a traitor for having said so?

Another topic which seems to stoking the emotional fires of patriotic Americans is the allegations of the president's knowledge of "Operation Fast and Furious," as covered on The Daily Caller. Were the evidence to show Obama had knowledge of such an operation, then sure, push with prosecution. But it doesn't.

A much more plausible scenario would be investigators need to focus on Stephen Holder. He is, after all the attorney general and therefore the country's top law enforcement officer. It seems specious to go after President Obama for a department he does not manage.

If the Republicans do want to win the White House in the 2012 election, they might want to go after real issues rather than relying on emotional buzzwords and pandering to religious superstition. If all the GOP is willing to offer is emotional and religious extremism then I'd just as well keep President Obama in office.

View the original article here

Republican Candidates Engage in Group Therapy at the Thanksgiving Family Forum (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | Part of a Republican candidates' Thanksgiving Family Forum that took place in a church in Des Moines, Iowa, seemed, at times, to be a session of group therapy rather than a group of politicians explaining why they should be president.

The behavior of the Republican candidates, sans Mitt Romney, shows how much American politics has changed. Edmund Muskie sunk his presidential candidacy by apparently crying in New Hampshire in 1972, giving the impression that he was weak. Now manly tears are required for people wanting to be president.

For example, Herman Cain welled up when he recalled getting the diagnosis of cancer that might well have killed him and how supportive his wife Gloria was at the time. Rick Santorum teared up when talking about how his daughter suffered through a chromosomal disorder and the shame he feels now about how he thought of her as less than a person until she fought back from the disease. She is still alive, something of a miracle. Even Newt Gingrich cried a little at one point.

As each candidate opened about personal tragedy in their lives, other candidates, including Rick Perry, visible sought to comfort them.

Telling tales of overcoming adversity and crises of faith is something new in American politics. Franklin Roosevelt would have died a thousand deaths rather that even mention his polio, not to speak of ruminating about his struggle against it. John F. Kennedy concealed his various health problems from the public, rather than use them to political advantage. As late as 2000, George W. Bush did not go on at length about his drinking problem, which he did describe in his memoirs, seeking to conceal a DUI conviction that almost sunk his campaign.

What has changed? Is it because Americans are suddenly comfortable with having leaders who have feet of clay and are ready to admit it? Possibly it involves a political act of jujitsu, admitting weakness in order to convey strength. The idea is that if one had experience a personal crisis or a personal failing and overcome it, one has become stronger for it. By so doing, one is seen as being prepared for the greater traumas that are inherent in being president. How effective it is remains to be seen. But for now, the confessional has become a feature of political life in America.

View the original article here

Republican Candidates on the Economy (ContributorNetwork)

According to the most recent Gallup poll, when Americans were asked what the most important problem facing the nation was, 76 percent responded the economy. As such, the next president will be forced to manage some of the toughest economic times the U.S. has had to endure.

The candidates seeking the Republican presidential nomination have discussed what they felt were the most important economic problems in America and their solutions during the recent GOP debates.

Here are some quotes on the economy taken from major candidates running for the Republican presidential nomination:

* Herman Cain: "First, we must grow this economy. We are the biggest economy in the world and as long as we are stagnant in terms of growth in GDP, we impact the rest of the world. … We must put fuel the engine that drives economic growth: the business sector. … We must assure that our currency is sound. Just like sixty minutes is in an hour, a dollar must be a dollar. If we are growing this economy the way it has the ability to do and at the same time we are cutting spending seriously, we will have the ability to survive. ... Focus on the domestic economy or we will fail."

* Mitt Romney: "If we stay on the course we're on, with the level of borrowing this administration is carrying out, if we don't get serious about cutting and capping our spending and balancing our budget, you're going to find America in the same position Italy is in four or five years from now."

* Ron Paul: "We took 40 years to build up this worldwide debt. We're in a debt crisis never before seen in our history … if you prop it up, you'll do exactly what we did in the Depression, prolong the agony … you want to liquidate the debt. The debt is unsustainable and this bubble was predictable because 40 years ago we had no restraints whatsoever on the monetary authorities and we piled debt on debt… and if you keep bailing people out and prop it up, you just prolong the agony as you're doing in the housing bubble. Right now, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are demanding more money because we don't allow the market to determine what these mortgages are worth. If you don't liquidate this and clear the market, believe me, you're going to perpetuate this for a decade or two more and that is very, very dangerous."

* Jon Huntsman: "We have a huge problem called too big to fail this country. We have six banks in this country that combined have assets worth 66 percent of our GDP, $9.4 trillion. These institutions get hit and they have an implied bailout by the taxpayers in this country and that means we're setting ourselves up for disaster again. … We've got to get back to a day and age where we have properly-sized banks."

* Rick Perry: "We're not going to pick winners and losers from Washington D.C. … We're going trust the capital markets in the private sector to make the decisions and let the consumers pick winners and losers. And it doesn't make any difference whether it's Wall Street or some corporate entity or some European country, if you are too big to fail, you are too big."

View the original article here

Studies challenge wisdom of GOP candidates' plans (AP)

WASHINGTON – Key proposals from the Republican presidential candidates might make for good campaign fodder. But independent analyses raise serious questions about those plans and their ability to cure the nation's ills in two vital areas, the economy and housing.

Consider proposed cuts in taxes and regulation, which nearly every GOP candidate is pushing in the name of creating jobs. The initiatives seem to ignore surveys in which employers cite far bigger impediments to increased hiring, chiefly slack consumer demand.

"Republicans favor tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, but these had no stimulative effect during the George W. Bush administration, and there is no reason to believe that more of them will have any today," writes Bruce Bartlett. He's an economist who worked for Republican congressmen and in the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

As for the idea that cutting regulations will lead to significant job growth, Bartlett said in an interview, "It's just nonsense. It's just made up."

Government and industry studies support his view.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics, which tracks companies' reasons for large layoffs, found that 1,119 layoffs were attributed to government regulations in the first half of this year, while 144,746 were attributed to poor "business demand."

Mainstream economic theory says governments can spur demand, at least somewhat, through stimulus spending. The Republican candidates, however, have labeled President Barack Obama's 2009 stimulus efforts a failure. Instead, most are calling for tax cuts that would primarily benefit high-income people, who are seen as the likeliest job creators.

"I don't care about that," Texas Gov. Rick Perry told The New York Times and CNBC, referring to tax breaks for the rich. "What I care about is them having the dollars to invest in their companies."

Many existing businesses, however, have plenty of unspent cash. The 500 companies that comprise the S&P index have about $800 billion in cash and cash equivalents, the most ever, according to the research firm Birinyi Associates.

The rating firm Moody's says the roughly 1,600 companies it monitors had $1.2 trillion in cash at the end of 2010. That's 11 percent more than a year earlier.

Small businesses rate "poor sales" as their biggest problem, with government regulations ranking second, according to a survey by the National Federation of Independent Businesses. Of the small businesses saying this is not a good time to expand, half cited the poor economy as the chief reason. Thirteen percent named the "political climate."

More small businesses complained about regulation during the administrations of Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush, according to an analysis of the federation's data by the liberal Economic Policy Institute.

Such findings notwithstanding, further cuts in taxes and regulations remain popular with GOP voters. A recent Associated Press-GfK poll found that most Democrats and about half of independents think "reducing environmental and other regulations on business" would do little or nothing to create jobs. But only one-third of Republicans felt that way.

The GOP's presidential hopefuls are shaping their economic agendas along those lines.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney says his 59-point plan "seeks to reduce taxes, spending, regulation and government programs."

Businessman Herman Cain would significantly cut taxes for the wealthy with his 9 percent flat tax plan. Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota said in a recent debate, "It's the regulatory burden that costs us $1.8 trillion every year. ... It's jobs that are lost."

The candidates have said little about another national problem: depressed home prices, as well as the high numbers of foreclosures and borrowers who owe more than their houses are worth.

After the Oct. 18 GOP debate in Las Vegas, a center of foreclosure activity, editors of the AOL Real Estate site wrote, "We didn't hear any meaningful solutions to the housing crisis. That's no surprise, considering that housing has so far been a ghost issue in the campaign."

To the degree the candidates addressed housing, they mainly took a hands-off approach. "We need to get government out of the way," Cain said. "It starts with making sure that we can boost this economy and then reform Dodd-Frank," which is a law that regulates Wall Street transactions.

Bachmann, in an answer that mentioned "moms" six times, said foreclosures fall most heavily on women who are "losing their nest for their children and for their family." She said Obama "has failed you on this issue of housing and foreclosures. I will not fail you on this issue." Bachmann offered no specific remedies.

Romney told editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal: "Don't try and stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom. Allow investors to buy homes, put renters in them, fix the homes up and let it turn around and come back up."

Perry spokesman Mark Miner said the Texas governor's "immediate remedy for housing is to get America working again. ... Creating jobs will address the housing concerns that are impacting communities throughout America."

Bartlett, whose books on tax policy include "The Benefit and the Burden," recently wrote in the New York Times: "People are increasingly concerned about unemployment, but Republicans have nothing to offer them."

The candidates and their supporters dispute this, of course. A series of scheduled debates may give them chances to explain why their proposals would hit the right targets.

View the original article here

RNC's Priebus says more candidates are possible (AP)

WASHINGTON – Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus says the GOP has a great field of presidential candidates but that there's still time for someone else to get in.

With some conservatives saying Texas Gov. Rick Perry has had a shaky debate performance, speculation about the future of the GOP race has returned to the possibility of more candidates.

There's been talk that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie could still enter the race, although Christie has said he's not planning to. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has left open the possibility that she might run.

Priebus says it gets "harder and harder" for other candidates to get in as the caucuses in Iowa early next year get closer, but he says there's still time. He appeared Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation."

View the original article here

Buzz Aldrin Breaks with Obama, Lobbies GOP Candidates for Space Exploration (ContributorNetwork)

Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the Moon, addressed a business conference in Ann Arbor, Mich., Wednesday and called for a "coordinated, international initiative to expand space exploration," according to Ann Arbor.com.

Aldrin indicated that he had become disenchanted with President Obama, especially due to his failure to even acknowledge the 50th anniversary of President Kennedy's speech to a joint session of Congress to land a man on the Moon. Previously, Aldrin had supported Obama's space policy that canceled the Constellation program to send astronauts back to the Moon and instead send them to an Earth-approaching asteroid. Subsequently, Aldrin seemed to change his mind and endorse a return to the Moon goal as part of a larger space exploration program after all.

Aldrin also announced his intention to lobby the Republican presidential candidates on the subject of space exploration.

Aldrin's breaking with President Obama, whose space policy he used to support, represents a growing discontent among supporters of that policy about its efficacy and the seriousness of the president in pursuing it. Aldrin sat in the audience at the Kennedy Space Center during the president's April 15, 2010, speech in which Obama announced the mission to an asteroid goal. Clearly he regrets having taken that route, which was at odds with many of his fellow Apollo astronauts.

Aldrin's new mission to talk to the Republican presidential candidates about space exploration is a daunting one indeed. Whatever the benefits of space exploration, the debt crisis is still upon the United States. Budget cutting rather than spending on new programs is all the rage in Washington. Any idea of augmenting NASA's budget to pursue space exploration beyond low Earth orbit will be a tough sale indeed.

Still, President Obama's stewardship of the nation's space program, which has thrown it into chaos, with finger-pointing and blame shifting between NASA, Congress, and various factions of space activists, is certainly a potential issue. Space could bound up many larger themes of American exceptionalism, economic vitality, and national security. One or more of Obama's political opponents, if he or she is adroit enough, could go far with space as an issue.

The trick, of course, for a presidential candidate would be how to propose the kind of spending a space exploration program would require while calling for deep spending cuts everywhere else in the federal budget. The demagoguery about "favoring Mars over kids and seniors" practically writes itself.

There will also be the problem of sorting out various space proposals. Some will want to send astronauts directly to Mars. Others favor the Moon. And there is also the vexing problem of how best to encourage the development of a commercial space industry.

Aldrin should be congratulated for facing reality and setting out to rectify the damage he helped cause the nation's space program. Certainly any presidential candidate would profit by giving him a hearing. But his should not be the only advice listened to by anyone who wants to include space as an issue in pursuit of the presidency.

Mark R. Whittington is the author of Children of Apollo and The Last Moonwalker. He has written on space subjects for a variety of periodicals, including The Houston Chronicle, The Washington Post, USA Today, the L.A. Times, and The Weekly Standard.

View the original article here

GOP Candidates Are Ready for a National Conversation on Race (The Atlantic Wire)

In March of 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama gave a widely-praised speech calling for a national conversation on race. A little more than two years later, that conversation had only gotten "dumber," Politico's Ben Smith wrote, with Fox News constantly airing images of "new Black Panthers" and MSNBC hunting for racists in the Tea Party. But now it seems the Republican presidential field is ready to renew that dialogue. Newt Gingrich told Maryland Republicans Thursday night that, "No administration in modern times has failed younger blacks more than the Obama administration." But the Republican candidates are still finding their footing when it comes to race, occasionally saying something kind of... weird. Gingrich noted, "I will bet you there is not a single precinct in this state in which the majority will pick for their children food stamps over paychecks." Was there ever any doubt of that?

Related: First GOP Debate with Recognizable Candidates Will Be on June 13

Gingrich--who has a long history of talking about racial issues--has called Obama the "food stamp president" (he would be the "paycheck president"). But he isn't the only 2012 contender to say it's time to go after the black vote. At the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans last weekend, Michele Bachmann pointed to high unemployment rates among blacks and Latinos and said, "This president has failed the Hispanic community. He has failed the African-American community." Bachmann managed to avoid sounding tone deaf, unlike some of her 2012 rivals.

Related: GOP Debate Preview: Hey, We're Not So Bad

Rick Santorum has focused less on economic issues than social ones in his flirtation with minority voters--which makes sense, given that black voters are generally more socially conservative than the rest of the Democratic Party. But he got into trouble making his case on abortion. "I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say, 'No, we're going to decide who are people and who are not people,'" Santorum said, referring to the Three-Fifths Compromise, which said slaves counted as 60 percent of a person in awarding states seats in Congress.

Related: The GOP Presidential Field Keeps an Even Lower Profile

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, currently enjoying a lot of buzz and he considers getting into the 2012 race, appeared to have a tin ear Thursday night at a national conference for Latino government officials in San Antonio. The Associated Press' Chris Tomlinson reports that Perry got a very tepid response from the audience during his speech, with this being the biggest cringe moment:

But a joke about how perfect it was to appoint Jose Cuevas to the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission because his name sounds like Jose Cuervo--a brand of tequila--fell flat. Perry struggled to regain his confidence as he described Texas as a land of opportunity.

Slate's Dave Weigel observes that Herman Cain causes some reporters to stutter stupidly when trying to ask him about race. Still, his comments about being a black Republican occasionally raise eyebrows. He likes to say his his poll numbers show the Tea Party isn't racist. He says he's okay with being the "black Mike Huckabee." He says Jon Stewart makes fun of him because he's black. And, in an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, he seemed to say he was more authentically black than Obama: "Most of the ancestors that I can trace were born here in the United States of America," Cain said. "And then it goes back to slavery. And I'm sure my ancestors go all the way back to Africa, but I feel more of an affinity for America than I do for Africa. I'm a black man in America. ... Barack Obama is more of an international."

Related: 15 Months from the Convention, Here's Your Republican Field

Disaffected Republican speechwriter David Frum says Republicans aren't wrong to try to appeal to minority voters. He writes that Gingrich is "making sense... when he asserts that the social catastrophe creates a political opportunity for a party that can bring forward practical ideas to revive economic growth." But Frum says Gingrich falters when he fails to realize that non-Republicans--especially minorities--don't hate Obama as much as Republicans do.

"Given that minority voters in particular do not blame Obama for the bad economy--in fact, continue to respect and admire him--the mood of raging Republican contempt for the president almost guarantees that we will speak about him in ways that deny us any audience for our policy message."

View the original article here

McCain rips Republican candidates for "isolationism" (Reuters)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Republican Senator John McCain, his party's 2008 presidential nominee, ripped into the current crop of Republican White House contenders, accusing them of breaking party tradition by preaching "isolationism."

McCain said if former President Ronald Reagan were still alive he would have been disappointed in last week's Republican presidential debate in which candidates voiced impatience with U.S. military efforts in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Libya.

"He would be saying: That's not the Republican Party of the 20th century, and now the 21st century. That is not the Republican Party that has been willing to stand up for freedom for people for all over the world," McCain said.

McCain made the comments in an interview with ABC's "This Week" program that was broadcast on Sunday.

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who was one of McCain's top advisers in the 2008 campaign, echoed McCain's concerns.

Asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" if he's fearful "that there is an isolationist streak now running now through the Republican Party, Graham said, "Yes."

"If you think the pathway to the GOP (Republican) nomination in 2012 is to get to Barack Obama's left on Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq, you are going to meet a lot of headwinds," Graham said.

At their first major debate last Monday, Republican White House hopefuls questioned the wisdom of U.S. fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Libya.

Their performances marked a stark difference from just a few years ago.

In 2004, then Republican President George W. Bush successfully won a second term by embracing his war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In the 2008 campaign, McCain and other Republicans also supported Bush's surge of troops in Iraq.

But at last week's debate in New Hampshire, Republican presidential candidates made it clear that times have changed.

"A WAR OF INDEPENDENCE"

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, seen as the early front-runner for the Republican nomination, reflected the sentiment of many of those hoping to unseat Democratic President Barack Obama in next year's election.

"Our troops should not go off and fight a war of independence for another country." Romney said. "Only the Afghanis can win Afghanistan's independence from the Taliban."

McCain said he was not ready to endorse any candidate for his party's 2012 presidential nomination, but is concerned about what he heard from them in the debate.

"This is isolationism. There's always been an isolation strain in the Republican Party," McCain said. "But now it seems to have moved more center stage, so to speak."

McCain said that some of the opposition from Republicans in Congress and on the campaign trail to current military efforts is the result of partisan politics.

House of Representatives Republican leaders have warned they could move legislation to cut off funds for operations in Libya.

"I would say to my Republican friends: If this were a Republican president, would you be trying to impose these same conditions?" McCain said.

(Editing by Will Dunham)

View the original article here

Candidates, Pundits Make Surprising Remarks at GOP Debate (ContributorNetwork)

The second Republican debate of the 2012 presidential election is being hailed as a successful discussion between seven of the GOP hopefuls. The biggest story of the evening is the amount of civility that the candidates showed toward one another. Instead of arguing amongst themselves, they opted to attack the policies of President Obama, with few exceptions. There were, of course, some interesting comments made by the debaters, as well as some colorful comments made by the nation's pundits.

"I filed today my paperwork to seek the office of the presidency of the United States today. And I'll very soon be making my formal announcement" - Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.)

Bachmann made a somewhat anti-climactic announcement at the debate Monday when she revealed that she was running for president, reports CNN. The statement may have come as a surprise to some viewers, who assumed that everyone on stage was, indeed, running for the office of president.

"And I would not be comfortable because you have peaceful Muslims and then you have militant Muslims, those that are trying to kill us." - Herman Cain

Businessman and GOP contender Cain responded to moderator John King's question regarding whether or not he would allow a Muslim to serve in his administration. He then attempted to clarify whether or not he would subject Muslim candidates to a sort of loyalty test, or an interview proving their allegiance to the country.

"I think Governor Palin is a remarkable leader. I think she's qualified to be president of the United States." -Tim Pawlenty

King asked candidates who they felt made the best choice for a vice presidential pick, John McCain or Obama. Pawlenty's answer is interesting, as many believe that Palin is embarking on her own campaign for president despite her absence at the debate.

Though the candidates had most of the memorable quotes of the evening, several pundits weighed in with their feelings on not only the candidates, but the debate's format itself.

"Bad night for Sarah Palin...Michele Bachmann enhanced herself and took up a lot of space that Sarah Palin would have otherwise taken up." -George Stephanopoolos

On "The O'Reilly Factor," Stephanolpoulos summed up the effect that Bachman's presence at the debate had on any potential Sarah Palin candidacy.

"If Obama had been there, Would John King have said, 'Lobster or Kobe Beef? Dom Perignon or Crystal? Bill Ayers or Reverend Wright? Secured Borders or Murders, Rapers, and Kidnappers?' What's your choice Mr. President?" -Rush Limbaugh

On his radio talk show, Limbaugh criticized King and CNN's platform, which posed questions to candidates asking them to choose between things like Pepsi or Coke and deep dish or thin crust pizza, according to Mediaite. Limbaugh was not the only pundit to voice criticism of this portion of the debate.

"I was confused by the debate- couldn't tell if it was Twitter, Facebook, or U-Haul, who was asking the questions?" -Bill O'Reilly

Reflecting many people's feelings about the overwhelming, multi-media aspect of the debate, O'Reilly expressed frustration over where the questions were actually coming from during his show.

At the end of the evening, Pawlenty had perhaps the most memorable parting words of the debate.

"I learned that if you trust the people, our future is bright and I learned that the Boston Bruins have more heart than the Vancouver Canucks."

Pawlenty's closing remarks gave a nod to game six of the Stanley Cup Playoffs, with the Boston Bruins winning over the Vancouver Canucks, forcing a game seven in the series. Fellow debater Mitt Romney kept the candidates updated on the status of the game during the debate.

Though the debate was rather uneventful with regards to Republican in-fighting, it was an informative introduction to some of the lesser-known candidates like Cain and Rick Santorum, and it also gave Romney and Bachman the opportunity to demonstrate their abilities to look presidential while discussing the nation's most divisive topics. It will be interesting to see if future debates remain as civil as this one.

Sources:

CNN Republican Debate Transcript

John Bershad " Rush Limbaugh Critiques the Republican Debate (Especially John King) " Mediaite

The O'Reilly Factor

View the original article here