In his two electoral successes, beating Shannon O'Brien for governor and winning the Republican nomination, Romney has had the same ring strategy. He uses superior resources to out punch his opponent, with most of the blows at, or below, the belt. He outspent O'Brien by 50%. His advantage in the Republican primaries was far greater.
Obama is a prodigious fundraiser. His campaign will probably raise more money than Mitt's. Including Super Pacs, and other third parties, Romney will have the cash advantage. But campaign finance rules will negate part of this advantage (see my earlier post "Obama's October (and September) Surprise"). Obama also has the advantage of incumbency. No campaign resources are used when he flies into the swing state of Colorado, to survey the fire damage and, to offer federal assistance.
Can Romney win a fair fight? Looking at his protruding chin, I suspect he has a glass jaw.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Egyptian Children
Friday, June 29, 2012
Believe in America
Mitt Romney's campaign slogan is Thomas Dewey insipid, and yet, Tea Party insidious. As awful as it is, it may be the perfect prism for the campaign.
Romney is a bland candidate running as the non-Obama. His messaging is intentionally vague and empty. Even when he appears to drift into substance, such as his "First Day in Office" ads, it is an illusion. He is either saying that he will repeal and remand acts of the president or pointing out where the president failed. In a bad economy, trying to make the election a referendum on the incumbent is a good, but deathly boring, strategy.
But the slogan is also seeking to align with Birther Babylon, without having to actually enter the city. The innuendo is that the sitting president is not one of us. He is the other. We believe in America, he does not. Hopefully, this part of the message will fall as flat as Romney's rendition of "America the Beautiful".
Romney is a bland candidate running as the non-Obama. His messaging is intentionally vague and empty. Even when he appears to drift into substance, such as his "First Day in Office" ads, it is an illusion. He is either saying that he will repeal and remand acts of the president or pointing out where the president failed. In a bad economy, trying to make the election a referendum on the incumbent is a good, but deathly boring, strategy.
But the slogan is also seeking to align with Birther Babylon, without having to actually enter the city. The innuendo is that the sitting president is not one of us. He is the other. We believe in America, he does not. Hopefully, this part of the message will fall as flat as Romney's rendition of "America the Beautiful".
Breakfast at the Isabelle Inn, Breaux Bridge, La.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Justice Scalia Oversteps
Justice Scalia does not have the judicial temperament to sit on the high
court. The issue is not his conservatism. To the victor go the
spoils. Elections matter. Republicans appoint conservatives to the
court, while Democrats seek progressive jurists. As an aside, a big
negative shout out to those Naderites who inadvertently have some
responsibility for the Citizens United decision.
Judicial temperament requires having an open mind. A judge must approach issues without prejudging and without letting emotion overwhelm reason. Importantly a judge must only consider those matters properly before the court. When the justices were concerned about an issue not covered in the Affordable Health Care case, they requested that the issue be briefed and argued.
Justice Scalia's attack on the Obama executive order which defers enforcement with respect to certain individuals who came to this county as children, in the recent decision on the Arizona Immigration law, is beyond the pale. The matter was neither argued nor briefed. The order came after oral argument in the Arizona case. The ship of state is ill served by this shot over the bough aimed at the Commander in Chief.
This was previously published. It is republished to consolidate all posts on this blog.
Judicial temperament requires having an open mind. A judge must approach issues without prejudging and without letting emotion overwhelm reason. Importantly a judge must only consider those matters properly before the court. When the justices were concerned about an issue not covered in the Affordable Health Care case, they requested that the issue be briefed and argued.
Justice Scalia's attack on the Obama executive order which defers enforcement with respect to certain individuals who came to this county as children, in the recent decision on the Arizona Immigration law, is beyond the pale. The matter was neither argued nor briefed. The order came after oral argument in the Arizona case. The ship of state is ill served by this shot over the bough aimed at the Commander in Chief.
This was previously published. It is republished to consolidate all posts on this blog.
Chierf Justice Roberts's Upholds the Moral Authority of the Supreme Court
Upholding the Affordable Health Care Act preserved the legacy of the
Robert's Court. Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe, who taught both
the President and the Chief Justice, yesterday predicted that Justice
Roberts would vote to uphold the law (although he expected a 6-3
decision joined by Justice Kennedy).
Court watchers focused on Justice Kennedy, as the possible swing vote, because of his occasional bouts of moderate judicial philosophy. Justice Robert's, as Professor Tribe understood, was the key because of his concern for the moral authority of the court.
The Supreme Court has at times had a liberal judicial philosophy and at times a conservative tilt. But after Bush v. Gore and Citizens United the Court teetered on the precipice of partisanship. The injudicious flirtation with the Tea Party by Justices Alioto and Scalia, exacerbated the problem. Combining dismantling of the President's health care plan with the other two decisions would have been an unholy trinity. The Supreme Court is designed to be above politics. That is the rational for life time tenure. Justice Robert's upholding of the individual mandate has institutional significance that equals the legal import of the decision.
Court watchers focused on Justice Kennedy, as the possible swing vote, because of his occasional bouts of moderate judicial philosophy. Justice Robert's, as Professor Tribe understood, was the key because of his concern for the moral authority of the court.
The Supreme Court has at times had a liberal judicial philosophy and at times a conservative tilt. But after Bush v. Gore and Citizens United the Court teetered on the precipice of partisanship. The injudicious flirtation with the Tea Party by Justices Alioto and Scalia, exacerbated the problem. Combining dismantling of the President's health care plan with the other two decisions would have been an unholy trinity. The Supreme Court is designed to be above politics. That is the rational for life time tenure. Justice Robert's upholding of the individual mandate has institutional significance that equals the legal import of the decision.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Obama's October (and September) Surprise
Commercial airways in the 60 days preceding the Presidential Election may not be a complete no fly zone for Super Pacs, but at a minimum flights will be limited, expensive, and difficult to change. Conventional wisdom is wrong. Super PACs will have less impact than expected.
Under campaign finance law television stations must give each presidential campaign reasonable access, freedom from censorship, and during the 60 days preceding the election, the lowest unit rate available. Neither super PACs, nor the political parties, enjoy these advantages. In fact a television station violates the law if a super PAC is offered a reduced advertising rate (See Federal Election Commission Advisory Opinion 2006-31). It would be an illegal campaign contribution for a station, e. g. Fox News, to offer a Super Pac reduced rates.
The law should favor the President. Mitt is expected to catch more Super Pac money, while the President will field more small contributions directly to his campaign. In the crucial run up to the election, a dollar from the President's campaign will buy more advertising than a dollar from a Romney Super Pac.
Equally important is flexibility. In the closing days of a campaign resource allocation may change rapidly, a state may come into, or go out of play. Super PACs have no preferential access to air time. With the expected deluge of political adds in battle ground states, as well as increased commercial adds during the start of the fall season, advertising time will be limited. To get on the air super PACs may have to commit, and lock in resources, earlier than the campaigns. Money may be wasted in states that are no longer battlegrounds. (To keep up on which states are battlegrounds, and other political news, checkout http://www.politicalwire.com)
Message flexibility is as important as geography. Campaigns may need to cut an ad at the last minute to confront a new issue. Since adds from a campaign are free from censorship, stations accept content without review. Ads from super PACs must be reviewed, which can delay airing of the adds.
The President's surprise is that while less money may be spent by him in the final days of the election, he will have as much, or more, advertising time in battleground states as the challenger.
Under campaign finance law television stations must give each presidential campaign reasonable access, freedom from censorship, and during the 60 days preceding the election, the lowest unit rate available. Neither super PACs, nor the political parties, enjoy these advantages. In fact a television station violates the law if a super PAC is offered a reduced advertising rate (See Federal Election Commission Advisory Opinion 2006-31). It would be an illegal campaign contribution for a station, e. g. Fox News, to offer a Super Pac reduced rates.
The law should favor the President. Mitt is expected to catch more Super Pac money, while the President will field more small contributions directly to his campaign. In the crucial run up to the election, a dollar from the President's campaign will buy more advertising than a dollar from a Romney Super Pac.
Equally important is flexibility. In the closing days of a campaign resource allocation may change rapidly, a state may come into, or go out of play. Super PACs have no preferential access to air time. With the expected deluge of political adds in battle ground states, as well as increased commercial adds during the start of the fall season, advertising time will be limited. To get on the air super PACs may have to commit, and lock in resources, earlier than the campaigns. Money may be wasted in states that are no longer battlegrounds. (To keep up on which states are battlegrounds, and other political news, checkout http://www.politicalwire.com)
Message flexibility is as important as geography. Campaigns may need to cut an ad at the last minute to confront a new issue. Since adds from a campaign are free from censorship, stations accept content without review. Ads from super PACs must be reviewed, which can delay airing of the adds.
The President's surprise is that while less money may be spent by him in the final days of the election, he will have as much, or more, advertising time in battleground states as the challenger.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)