For the first time in the history of our great nation, the deficit has reached $1 trillion. Experts predict that federal spending could very well exceed revenues by almost $2 trillion by this fall.
There is no question that the deficit has increased dramatically, in large part because of the so-called stimulus package of almost $800 billion. Congress hastily enacted the bill in February without any thought or strategic planning. I opposed the bill because it exploded our national debt without providing any meaningful economic growth. Since the bill was signed into law, we have lost two million jobs and unemployment has reached a 26 year high of 9.5 percent.
American families have always known a basic economic fact that politicians in Washington, DC just can't seem to understand - you can't spend more money than you have!! Not a difficult concept, is it? I certainly learned the concept as a businessman and in raising my family. Most Americans live by that very basic rule. But they just don't get it. Maya MacGuineas, president of the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget recently said, "Most anybody who's being honest knows we've reached a point where we've got a very dangerous fiscal situation, and it won't fix itself." Too bad Washington hasn't been listening.
I will continue to oppose the reckless spending of official Washington at every opportunity. I have said many times, I am a businessman, not a politician. I have created jobs, met payrolls and balanced budgets. I know what makes a strong economy and just as importantly I know what will harm our economy -higher taxes, more overly burdensome regulations, and ballooning deficits are not the answer. You and I know that the last thing we need in these difficult economic times is an out of touch Congress and President who increase taxes and spend your hard-earned dollars in a reckless manner.
Federal revenues are down 17.9 percent from a year ago. And yet government spending is at an historic high. The American people understand the need to cut personal spending and live within their means. What will it take for Washington to follow the lead of the people who put them all in office?
BankUnited's failure marks 34th bank to close so far this year, will cost FDIC $4.9 billion
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Regulators on Thursday shut down BankUnited FSB, a struggling Florida thrift whose closure is expected to cost the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. $4.9 billion.
The failure of the Coral Gables, Fla.-based bank represents the second-largest hit to the FDIC's insurance fund so far -- the costliest was last year's seizure of California lender IndyMac, on which the FDIC is estimated to lose $10.7 billion.
BankUnited FSB is the 34th federally insured institution to be closed this year, and the biggest. The FDIC on Thursday took control of the bank, which called itself Florida's largest banking institution with about $13 billion in assets as of May 2
Hey, my Senator said this wasn;t supposed to happen!
Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) on Monday said he does not expect “many more” banks to fail, in the wake of last week’s implosion of IndyMac Bancorp.
Dodd, interviewed on CBS’s “Early Show,” said that Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation head Sheila Bair “has indicated there are problems” with other banks. The senator added that he is “more optimistic” about mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than he is about some lenders that engaged in these “very, very bad mortgages.”
Sometimes think a broken clock gets it right more often than Chris Dodd
Crist's popularity makes him as close to a sure thing as the Republican Party can find for an empty seat in the election - but Rubio is much more appealing to the base. Rubio's youth, Cuban ethnicity and Catholicism are also a breath of fresh air in a party whose national figures (McConnell, Boehner, McCain, Romney et. al.) are short on all three of those characteristics.
Rubio might do better do stay in Florida and run for Governor - a successful term in the Governor's office would make him 2016 Presidential timber. But he hasn't stepped aside, which would lead to a primary race that would be a microcosm of the broader fight between Republican moderates and right-wingers over the direction the Party should go in.
I like Rubio. His ethnic and religious background, as well as his outsider status, are both welcome breaths of fresh air in a party that hasn't really produced any new figures that are taken seriously outside the party's base. He'd also be a very competitive candidate in a battleground state, and if he won he'd be a valuable asset to the Republican candidate in 2016. Despite this, I think he should stand down in favor of Crist - he's as close to a sure thing as can be found for Republicans this election cycle. He'd free up money and other resources to help Republicans on shakier ground, like Mark Kirk in Illinois. And his already-high national profile would only be increased by a successful Senate campaign. Coming form what has been the quintessential battleground state in the last three elections, he would be a highly visible spokesman for the Republican platform in D.C.
The NRSC is not backing down on the endorsement of Crist over Rubio, specifically attacking the "30 senators" stance made famous by Jim DeMint. With Rubio not ceding to the will of the party, things could get ugly in Florida. Who do you think will win? Who should win? And will the donnybrook in the primaries give the Democrats a shot at the seat?
While I'm not a fan of Crist's and I agree with Patrick's assesment of Crist's Senate run, said Senate run, unfortunately, puts us in a bind. There's no way we can go after Crist without alienating a substantial number of independants. At the same time Rubio, at least on Paper, appears to be a dream candidate who has the potential to join Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn among our truly fabulous Senators.
Thus, I make the following proposal: Let's clear the field for Crist this cycle and have Rubio keep his powder dry. Rubio then gets everyone's support to go after Bill Nelson in 2012.
That's why one has to be careful about what one wishes for. Republicans, newly liberated, need to resist calls to shackle themselves to prematurely announced agendas and already anointed leaders. This is the time for a thousand Republicans to bloom. Congressmen used to looking to the White House for guidance or approval--or fearing disapprobation--should show some healthy ambition and unleash their inner policy entrepreneur. Backbenchers need to come forward with heterodox ideas. There should be vigorous debate. Disharmonious disarray is in the short term much less of a danger than a false and stultifying unity.
When I floated the idea of an "ideas czar" several of my fellow contributors were disapproving, arguing that we needed exactly this sort of freelancing from the backbench. I would add a modifier to this line of thinking: don't look to backbench Congressmen for leadership. Look to sitting Republican governors who are already managing state budgets in the tens of billions of dollars and can actually enact some new ideas. Look to Tim Pawlenty, who wants to cut state business taxes, or to Bobby Jindal, or to Charlie Crist and Republicans in the Florida legislature who are refusing tax increases of any kind, or to Mark Sanford.
Republican governors in 22 states means 22 opportunities to show we can govern better than Obama, prudently cutting back on spending and cutting taxes, rather than massively increasing spending and creating a deficit a third the size of the entire Federal budget.
At this point, I don’t think that any of us can effectively predict what the outcome of tomorrow’s elections will be. Quite frankly, I’m not even sure that we’ll know the who the next President of the United States is going to be for many hours, if not days, after polls close. That said, it seems that there are three possible scenarios that could play out in tomorrow’s Presidential election:
Barack Obama wins in a huge landslide.
Barack Obama wins in a close race.
John McCain pulls off an historical upset in a close race.
Barack Obama Wins in a Huge Landslide
This seems to be the narrative that the Leftosphere would like us to believe. This scenario seems to be the most unlikely due to a number of factors, including the huge percentage of undecided voters (which should break for McCain), McCain’s success in raising doubts in the minds of voters about Barack Obama, and Obama’s struggles with working-class voters in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio. Nonetheless, if current polling is to be believed, then we should see a such a landslide with an electoral map looking something like this (this is pulled straight from the RCP “No Toss Up States” map):
Barack Obama Wins in a Close Race
Unfortunately, I strongly believe that this scenario is the most likely. Basically, I see Florida and Ohio departing from their current polling numbers and going for McCain. Obama is polling near, but not at, the 50% mark in each of the states, and I think that the vast majority of undecided voters will swing to McCain in these states, allowing him to win each of them, albeit closely. Thus, the final electoral map in this scenario would look like this:
John McCain Pulls of an Historic Upset in a Close Race
I am extremely hopeful that John McCain can pull off an upset tomorrow. Unfortunately, looking at the electoral maps above, it’s hard to imagine a scenario in which he can accomplish such a difficult feat. However, if it’s going to happen, I think that in addition to Ohio and Florida bucking the current polling trends, so will Pennsylvania and, out of necessity, another state with a couple of electoral votes. Based on current RCP averages, I’m of the opinion that Nevada is the other state most likely to swing.
First, let’s talk about Pennsylvania. I’m Pittsburgh born and raised, and so I’ve lived in Pennsylvania my entire life. As a former Santorum 2006 staffer, I know that accomplishing a statewide victory in Pennsylvania is an incredible challenge for Republicans. However, I also believe that the dynamics of Pennsylvania’s electorate make it the next most likely state to flip from polling projections after Ohio and Florida. No, this isn’t because we’re racist or a bunch of rednecks (although I believe that Murtha’s comments may drive an increased number of Republicans in his district to the polls tomorrow, which is undoubtedly in McCain’s favor). Rather, I believe that the blue collar voters of Pennsylvania, although reliably Democrat, find it extremely difficult to swallow Barack Obama’s “spread the wealth around” policies – and as a result, they may either decide to not vote at all, or to pull the lever for John McCain. Additionally, there are a number of highly competitive Congressional races in PA in which an outcry of Republican voters could help turn the race in favor of McCain. Specifically, I look to William Russell’s race against John Murtha (which I mentioned above), but also to Lou Barletta’s race against the filthy Paul Kanjorski, in which I think Lou will defeat Kanjorski. With Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida going against polling trends, the electoral college stands at 270 for Obama-Biden to 268 for McCain-Palin, requiring one more state to flip for a McCain-Palin victory.
In my eyes, there are two other states that potentially could end up becoming red despite polling that indicates otherwise: Virginia and Nevada. Winning in either of these states will prove difficult for John McCain. However, he only has to flip one of them from its polling trends in order to win. So a McCain-Palin victory might look something like this:
The roadmap to victory for the McCain-Palin ticket is enormously difficult and quite improbable, although certainly not impossible. Some important questions to ponder over the next day or so: Can Barack Obama close? Will the GOP’s vaunted GOTV machine have the success we’ve seen in previous elections? Will young voters turn out in droves, and if so, will they really disproportionately vote for Obama? And, most importantly, does John McCain’s campaign have the ability to pull off an unprecedented and historic electoral victory?
Obama thinks he can take Florida and demonstrates he is willing to tell outright lies to do it. Scaring elderly voters is despicable but if you are an "end justifies the means" kind of pol, it's apparently perfectly acceptable.
The Tallahassee Democratreports that Florida Democrats have had a problem organizing a meeting to name a slate of electors to cast votes for president:
The Florida Democratic Party has nailed down a time and place for its do-over meeting to select a slate of 27 members of the Electoral College.
It's set for 1 p.m. on Wednesday, Aug. 20, at the IBEW union hall in Orlando.
A problem arose over the weekend when the Democratic State Executive Committee met in Tampa to choose 27 electors, but couldn't get a quorum. State law requires both parties to submit certified lists of electors to the governor's office before Sept. 1...
"We expect a large turnout at the meeting because the members of the State Executive Committee understand it is their duty to approve the slate of electors, so when Barack Obama wins Florida, there will be no question about our electors," said Jotkoff.
Under Florida state law, parties are required to give 10 days notice before convening a meeting to name electors. Thus, if the electors are not duly named at their meeting on August 20, it will be too late to give the required notice and convene a new meeting prior to the September 1 deadline. In such a case, it would presumably fall to the courts to decide whether Florida Democrats could name a slate of electors.
The Constitution specifies that the president shall be chosen by a majority of all electors appointed. If Florida (or any other state) were to fail to appoint electors, a candidate would require only a majority of the remaining electors in order to become the president-elect.
It's good to see that the state Democratic party is confident of getting a quorum for their next meeting. You have to wonder why, if this meeting is so important, they couldn't muster a quorum the first time.
This started out as a comment in response to Missypris, but it grew and grew until it evolved into a post. I loved the idea of opening up that PUMAdora's box so much that I decided to prowl around a bit and see what was lurking around the water holes of the blogosphere during breakfast.
First, I found this on what's affectionatly referred to here on our site as a "Good Lefty Bog" posted by Geekesque from MYDD:
John McCain's campaign will stop advertising on several pro-Hillary Clinton Web sites that have attacked Barack Obama for being unpatriotic and, in one case, compared the Democratic nominee-in-waiting to Adolf Hitler. . . .
Remember that the biggest PUMA blog was founded by someone who was banned from Daily Kos for posting a virulently Islamaphobic diary and who refers to Barack Obama as the "Affirmative Action candidate.".
And, of course, No Quarter is an offshoot of the Ku Klux Klan, as is Hillaryis44.org.
But, other than that, the notion that PUMA is founded on rightwing hate and bigotry is a pure myth.
Well don't feel put off by that, all you cool PUMA cats, it's nothing personal - McCain is simply road testing whether a "positive campaign" plays better with the audience this year than "Islamophobia" does. Let's give him points for style, certainly. And if I've neglected to mention it, Welcome to the Vast Right Conspiracy! We may be dogs and (and bunnies) but we still love baby cats, mama cats, cute kittens and righteously angry, disenfranchised Demo-cats of all breeds.
I thought that Auntie Meme's comment on the Petulant Pumas post at Corrente was concise, cogent and telling:
Conventional wisdom that says PUMAs are just disappointed old broads who are sad that one of their own didn’t get selected. They’re not ready to get down to the nuts and bolts of governing, nor do they really have the stamina for it. It’s a battle of pie-in-the-sky vs. practicalities.
At a deeper level, the profound rift comes from the clash between Democrats who have paid their dues through long-term political activism and those who are new to the process. I’m not speaking of the candidates, per se, but of their supporters. Clinton supporters are not owed the candidacy. They are, however, owed a voice that resonates through the policies of the nominee and his organization. The Obama campaign deserves an 18-million voice yowl of protest. Unless their campaign makes substantial changes of tone and substance and strives toward truly hearing and acting on the concerns of those 18 million, the PUMA protest will take the form of not only not supporting Prince Charming, but of actively working against him.
To sum up: a) We’re harshing their mellow and that bums them out. b) We can outline our case for Clinton until we’re blue in the face, but we can’t make them hear us.PUMAS are perceived as bitter little ol ladies.The meme is propagated far and wide by both “progressive” bloggers and the SCMSM. And we know that women over 40 at some point become invisible. Proven fact—I can no longer see myself in the mirror. c) Worse yet, we can’t make them care.
Corrente looks like a site that I would like to visit again. These aren't the foaming-at-the-mouth comments of the fever swamp Left, no, no, no. These are the comments of real, honest-to-God thinking person's Democrats. Here are a few more that impressed me:
Barack Obama is UNSUITED to be President
1) completely lacking in the background and experience necessary to be president
a) less than 2 years national political experience before he decided to run b) no executive experience (i.e. he’s never run anything but his mounth) c) is egregiously untested in ’crisis’/hard decision situations (and what we’ve seen of him does not inspire confidence) d) campaign was based not on policies and positions, but on broad, amorphous, content free themes…
2) lacks the character to be president
a) an “opportunist” rather than an pragmatist — three years ago he acknowledged that he would not be ready for the oval office in 2008. b) ran an ugly campaign involving false accusations that his opponent was a racist c) had a hissy fit over the ’distractions’ that dominated the Philadelphia debate, and said that issues should be discussed — but Obama has never demanded that issues be discussed until people started looking into his background. d) refused to debate Clinton after the PA debate, even though she offered forums where ’issues only’ would be discussed e) while complaining about lack of “issues” discussion, his campaign has consistently urged the media to cover non-issue things related to Clinton like “Bosnian snipers”, “tax returns”, and “RFK/Assassination” f) when confronted with constitutencies in states that did not ’get’ him, rather than work at gaining their confidence, he treated them as morallly deficient g) tell women that they need to “get over it” and treats traditional democratic constituencies with contempt — telling them them they have ’nowhere elese to do”
and...
You’re supposed to vote for him because it’s Him. To even consider requiring any sort of political agenda is too vile for words!I never thought I would find myself agreeing with Rove but he writes we already know: Obama is only in it for himself. If anything, I’d put my money on Obama fighting against the rights of women and girls since those rights are usually at the center of “divisiveness.”
and...
—all rights are (including Constitutional ones like voting and equal protection too)—he won’t fight for any of them at all.
I thought the last two comments were pertinent to circling back to Jon Henke's post on the Libertarians swing vote for Obama. Barack's been so squishy on his Constitutional positions that I cannot think of any good explanation for those Rasmussen poll numbers, but oh, well. Maybe I'm just missing something. Or maybe those Libertarians are missing something - like their principles, their phosphatidylserine, their synapatic activity? But moving right along...
My personal favorite non-poll indicator comes from this comment on WaPo's Schmidt Takes Over Day to Day Leadership of McCain Campaign on The Trail:
Just say Nobama! We are PuMaS, we support Hillary. We are PuMaS, we have PMS. We are PuMaS, we will vote for McCain and then Hillary will win in 2012! Don't say we didn't tell you so!
Ah HA! So the strategy is to just sit tight for 4 more years of Bush's 3rd Term and then spring like a Trojan Horse in 2012. In this regard, PUMA's have so much in common with principled conservatives who are going to Just Say No Deal to McCain, install Obama and watch him flounder and fail like a flippy floppy fish out of water for 4 years while building the next Ronald Reagan to run against Hillary in 2012.
Here's the Fox/Newsweek national poll from the end of June (H/T to Real Clear Politics) indicating how Hillary Primary voters indicate they will vote in November:
Relative to other Dems, PUMA support for Obama falls, while support for McCain rises.
Here's the Quinnipiac swing state survey from the end of June that provides some clues about PUMA voters in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Florida closely mirrors the national numbers but the trend is more pronounced in Pennsylvania and especially Ohio, where the drop in support for Obama and increase in support for McCain is very substantial:
Women, particularly married white women, however, may be a problem for Obama, according to the Washington Post/ABC poll.
It showed that McCain has a 20 point advantage over Obama among married white women, a group that George Bush also won in the last two presidential elections.
Stephanopoulos told GMA that the figure was a "danger sign" for Obama. "This is a huge gap that Obama has to close if he's going to do well."
Whatever their motives, I like these PUMAs. They're smart, tribal, and they're not afraid to take an invisible bite out of an insincere, inexperienced candidate who lacks substance and has told them to just get over it.
