West Can't Stand Obama Success

This should be no real surprise, of course, but I can't get over the hilarious response Rep. Allen West, R-Regretland, provided at the news markets were going up.

Via Think Progress, which took a snippet from Fox News:
---
On Fox News this afternoon, West said the markets were only up because traders think Republicans will win big in November. Host Neil Cavuto seemed taken aback by the suggestion and pressed West for clarification, but the Congressman stood by his claim:

CAVUTO: What do you think about that? That the markets say you’re wrong, that the pick up is alive and well.
WEST: Well, I would think maybe the markets are maybe looking five to six months down the road, when we have a change in leadership in this country –
CAVUTO: Wait a minute, you think that this is built on a Republican either capturing the White House or Republicans capturing the Senate? … That might or might not be a stretch, but it is out there as a factor. You think that’s a genuine factor? You think that the markets are getting bubbly in anticipation of a Republican taking the White House?
WEST: Oh, absolutely. Well, I think that there is a hope that may be out there, is that we can get a person that has practical viable solutions for job creation here in the Unite States of America [in the presidency].
---

I'm going with "might be a stretch" here Neil.

Leave aside for a second that five or six months from now, Barack Obama will still be president because it will be August or September and the election will be a few months away. Let's get to the spirit of what West is ultimately suggesting: the market is ecstatic because Barack Obama will be gone soon.

Of course, every president must quake in fear at news of better than expected job gains and low interest rates. But let's look at polls for the president right now.

Reuters notes that Obama's approval rating is back above 50 percent, an important threshold to all incumbents. Business Week, a publication rather trusted by market investors, says Obama is still leading in the polls. Gas prices aside, things look really good for the president right now, and that is ignoring the clown show we call a Republican primary.

Does this mean Obama will win? No, and I hope the president is running like he is 10 points down. But anyone making portfolio decisions based on a belief Obama will leave office soon is simply a fool.

And suddenly it makes sense these words could come from Allen West's mouth.

What Problem?

Politico has a story today entitled "Obama's Florida 2012 Problem," which is kind of silly title. The article is fine, I suppose, but the treatment of the story makes the mistake that folks in Washington always tend toward, assuming the last election is indicative of the next one.

Obama won Florida in 2008, but he won a lot of places. It was a landslide election. To suggest he may not see exactly the same results this November is lazy analysis. Of course he won't. He is in a completely different station, both professionally and in the course of time. An incumbent president will have to run a different campaign than a candidate looking to challenge the party in control, and that means we have a very different race on our hands from top to bottom. Consider a flip on the old proverb, to do things differently and expect the same results could be a second definition of insanity.

Florida was a swing state in 2008, and it will be again in 2012. It was also a swing state in 2004, 2000, 1996 and 1992. This is fourth most populous state in the union, and the only one that will actually be up for grabs this go-round.

All that is to say, Big Deal! Politico thinks the fact Florida is a battleground is a problem for the president? If so, it has been a problem for every president of the past 40 years. With the sole of exception of Ronald Reagan, who was reelected by an historic electoral college margin in 1984, every sitting president since Gerald Ford has found themselves worrying about winning Florida. The last two presidents— Bill Clinton and George W. Bush— both increased voter support in the states substantially during their reelection efforts, so there is some reason to believe this state warms to incumbents more than Washington observers realize. But no matter what, presidential candidates of either party, incumbent or not, have to campaign hard in Florida to win. Obama will be no exception.

A lot of people are fascinated with the prospect of a Marco Rubio vice presidential effect, but the more I think about it, the more laughable the constant conversation seems to me. It may be why Rubio has in past been dismissive of VP talks.

First off, the idea party activists can decide the vice president before they even select a nominee is a misunderstanding of the process. This is a personal decision made by a man running for president, and he doesn't want to succomb to public pressure. Bill Clinton once noted this is a presidential decision the nominee gets to make before they are elected president. If anything, the outcry for Rubio is probably a hindrance on his chances of actually getting the nod.

But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Rubio does get selected as a running mate. Will it help the Republicans in November? Of course, but it won't take Florida off the table. Rubio, who barely won a majority of votes in the state in 2010 and only got elected after a bizarre series of events unlikely to happen again, does not take Florida off the list of swing states. Recall that Jeb Bush, who was widely popular at the time, could not help his brother win Florida in 2000 without an assist from the Supreme Court.

Rubio is actually better off personally sticking out a full term in the Senate, then running for president in 2016, or even 2020. If he avoids this campaign, he runs less risk of having the loser stink that plagues Sarah Palin and other running mates blamed (probably unfairly) for taking a losing ticket down.

So will Obama have to fight for Florida? Of course. That's why he's at Disney today, more than any other reason. But can he still win? Yes. Can he beat a Romney-Rubio or Gingrich-Rubio ticket? Yes. Is he still in a good position to be re-elected regardless of what happens in Florida? Yes.

So what's the problem?

Roadblocking the Stimulus

It is one thing to disagree with the policies of a president, but to intentionally prevent efforts from helping the state of Florida is destructive and unpatriotic. Sadly, it is no surprise at all that this would be Gov. Scott's response the Obama's jobs plan.

The president wants to create jobs? Well not in my state, says Mr. 700,000

From TBO:
---
Gov. Rick Scott and top Florida Republicans are sending early signals they could reject the billions in federal aid that could flow to the state under President Barack Obama's jobs proposal.

Florida has a 10.7 percent unemployment rate that is higher than the national average. But Scott and GOP legislative leaders said the plan outlined by President Obama was too similar to the nearly $800 billion stimulus package that was approved by Congress back in 2009.
---

The article also quotes Speaker Dean Cannon saying Obama still "doesn't get it." I personally feel like the president finally "gets it" and realizes jobs are the issue he must place above health care, continuing unnecessary wars, coddling Wall Street and making clear to America he will negotiate every good idea away upfront.

But the actions of Scott and Cannon speak to something more nefarious. Informed people can disagree about policy, but standing in the way of your opponent's success, when that success would mean the restoration of America's economy, is another thing altogether.

Rick Scott has already said he doesn't want people in Florida earning a living from high speed rail. Now he is making sure nobody new gets employed in a job that is paid for with federal, out-of-state revenues.

Apparently, Republicans do not believe the problem is that too many people are out of work. It is that too many are employed. It should be no surprise since the this governor, who wants us to believe jobs are his first and only priority, responded to the state budget by vetoing numerous job-creating products.

Partisanship aside, I understand Rick Scott wants more jobs created in the public sector than private sector, and I respect all of his efforts to stimulate job creation there, but it has become apparent he will never allow the government to directly create, or in many cases even assist, in job creation.

Also important. Barack Obama was elected to the presidency. Whether you personally voted for him or not, it is not the role of Florida's governor to stand in the way of a federal effort to create jobs. Is this an experiment that could go awry? I guess it is possible, but the American people will judge Obama on the results soon enough. His ideas deserve the chance to succeed or fail on their own without the meddling of an ill-willed state executive .

This will hurt Scott in the long-run, as he is clearly stopping the creation of jobs more often than he is promoting it, and when third-parties measure his progress toward this 700,000 jobs in seven years goal, they will include the many minuses Scott was responsible for every time he turned away money could provide a middle-class family with a paycheck.

Until then, Rick Scott may doom the rest of us who live in Florida to watch jobs created in other states and hear a governor fiddle as the Sunshine State burns.

Why Republicans Should Hate Birthers

No, it isn't because they are crazy people who embarrass the entire party. You can't ever really shake that type of thing. Like the wasps that keep forming hives on my awning, destroying one nest doesn't stop the next one from forming a week later.

The big problem with ignoring birthers is that they won't stop with attacking a president you don't like very much for reasons that have nothing to do with his place of birth. Florida's own Sen. Marco Rubio is learning about that now. Via the Daily Caller:

---
There is already a movement afoot (led by some on the fringe) to disqualify him from serving as president (which would presumably disqualify him from serving as vice president). That’s right — some are arguing that Rubio is not eligible because he is not a “natural born citizen.”

Here’s how the logic works (according to World Net Daily’s Joe Kovacs): “While the Constitution does not define ‘natural-born citizen,’ there is strong evidence that the Founding Fathers understood it to mean someone born of two American citizens.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/24/coming-soon-rubio-birthers/#ixzz1VxZAMLqS
---

Unlike predecessor Mel Martinez, Rubio was actually born on American soil, so when people ask Rubio about his ambitions for the presidency or vice presidency, he can't so easily dismiss the suggestion. But birthers who have expended so much energy trying to discredit Obama's eligibility are now eating conservatives just to make a point.

World Net Daily, a guilty pleasure of mine when I really want to laugh at the stupidest people on the other side of the aisle, has never been content to simply allege Obama's birth documentation is all a bunch of forgeries. They have also regularly planted what you would think was a non issue to them, that even if the docs are real, Obama is still ineligible because his father was not American. And since Rubio is the son of immigrants, this warped logic leads to his ineligibility as well.

It is interesting to see these people cling to the notion that our founding fathers, who revolted and established a government with no monarchy, that the lineage of leaders would be of such importance to determining someone's eligibility for the White House. But I digress.

Rubio isn't the first conservative the birthers have targeted just to make a point. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, once on the gossip list as a possible presidential contender, has also suffered because of birther zeal. (Of note, that link goes to a site which asks what Rubio, Jindal and Obama have in common. I would suggest an unlisted similarity is that all have skin a good bit darker than the poster.)

Of course, most of America long ago determined birthers were nuts. But enough members of the Republican voter base fall into that category that many GOP leaders have played too nice. Back when birther zeal was at its highest pitch, John Boehner was refusing to criticize birthers. And a number of members of Congress, including Florida's Bill Posey, have coddled or endorsed the birther position.

Short-term, this is bad news for Marco Rubio, and long-term, this is terrible news for the GOP. Birthers make it very difficult for people of color to rise to prominence in the Republican party, even as party leaders desperately seek for stars that provide diversity. While I am tempted to revel in the irony, this is also bad for the nation as a whole. When minorities, regardless of their personal values and philosophies, can only find electoral success in one party of a two-party government, and only get elected from gerrymandered districts, that limits minorities on a grand scale, which is bad news all around.

While I find many of his positions deplorable, Rubio deserves respect for beating the odds and becoming a leader of his party despite history and demographics being stacked against him. The recent assault from birthers should incite him to take a vocal and high-profile stance against this racist-driven movement within the conservative ranks. Honestly, it is a stance Republican leaders should have taken a long time ago.

Debt Less Important Than Jobs

I have heard so much belly-aching in the past few weeks about how the reason America's economy is in the tank is because of our debt. I call bullshit.

First off, this is a new philosophy for Republicans. Dick Cheney famously said that deficits don't matter, back when the most important thing the White House wanted to do was give tax cuts to billionaires. Come to think of it, that still seems to be the top priority, even as these supposed budget hawks complain about the debt.

But it is painfully obvious that the biggest problem with the U.S. economy today is unemployment. People only want to talk about that when they are taking political digs at one another. But one thing I think Democrats have failed to iterate well with the public during these debt ceiling arguments is that the only way to reduce government spending and start chipping at the debt is to fire massive numbers of people who work for the government or strip benefits from those who get money from the government.

The Republicans seem to understand this when they say you have to keep subsidizing big oil, maintaining a frankly delusional belief in trickle-down economics even with people who already make more money than they know how to spend. But giving money to people who will actually circulate their dollars through the economy, even if they dare use their dollars to cool their family or buy an X-Box, seems anathema to the 'eat the poor' right running the House.

Firing people won't help the economy. It will make it worse. Cutting off welfare checks won't help the economy. It will make it worse. Raising the unemployment rate will hurt the president. But it will make the economy much, much worse. I am afraid Republicans are willing to endure 18 months of economic disaster if it means putting the economy back on poor footing and gives then a shot at ousting Barack Obama from the White House.

But if I give them the benefit of the doubt and believe this really is a philosophical divide, then I think Obama and the Democrats need to spend more time selling that the economy is not about individuals. It is an easy sell for Republicans to say giving welfare checks is wrong because people didn't work for it, but it misses the greater impact of those checks. Telling the poor they shouldn't spend their money on frivolous consumer goods doesn't help the guy working at the local electronics shop or Wal-Mart. It hurts them.

I don't care if you think everybody on welfare is some alcoholic hobo who doesn't deserve a government check. Fine. I disagree but that's politics. But if it more important to deny that person money than it is to make sure this country doesn't risk default or a drop in credit rating, then I think you are wrong on multiple fronts. One, you are wrong to refuse to negotiate, and I think Republicans who refuse to work with Democrats are spitting in the eye of democracy even as they bellow about the wisdom of the founding fathers.

But I think you also fail to recognize that the economy won't get in fighting shape until people have jobs and money to spend, and firing government employees while cutting benefits and entitlements fails the system as a whole just to get some digs at a part you find unattractive.

It's Here Already. 2012 Polling

Before Kendrick Meek's body was even cold, we apparently are ready fro a new election cycle. Quinnipiac has done its first big peek at the electoral prospects for 2012.

The news? A mixed bag no matter who you are rooting for in two years. Sen. Bill Nelson has a 45 percent approval rating, better than newbie Marco Rubio but a good bit under the 50-percent thresholds where most incumbents want to be facing re-election.

Barack Obama isn't doing so hot either, with 48 percent of voters saying he doesn't deserve to win re-election and 45 percent saying he does. Against a generic Republican (and generics always do better than actual, named candidates), the president loses Florida by two percent.

On Kos today, Steve Singiser suggested this might be good news for the president. But I say good news is winning and bad news is losing. Sure, the president isn't at his zenith in popularity, and the state just elected a treasure trove of Republicans this cycle, whereas next cycle almost has to go better. But then again, it might not, and how well it goes depends almost completely on Barack Obama.

Supporters of the Democratic Party learned a long time ago that the state party can't deliver big results. It focuses too much on headline races, can't manage the narrative and never puts together a big enough bench. But at least we have two big hitters. Nelson can offer his own coattails in addition to the ones provided by the president, and the two can help one another.

I think Obama will be re-elected, but it won't be a cakewalk. At least not here. I am heartened by the fact Florida has not voted against a president seeking re-election since 1980, and hasn't voted out a senator since 1986.

This isn't in the bag for anyone, though.

A More Admirable Intraparty Dispute

Since I attacked Allen Boyd earlier this week for blaming Nancy Pelosi for November losses, I thought it only appropriate I weigh in on reports of Bill Nelson coming after Barack Obama. But I must say, I have very different view here.

The St. Pete Times is reporting that Florida's senior senator is angry at the White House for its soft approach to a number of very local problems. On his list of beefs are weak support for NASA, the BP claims process and a disappointing home foreclosure program. And I have to say, it is hard to find fault with Nelson's complaints.

The foreclosure program was teased during one of Obama's first town halls, one held in Fort Myers where I was present. At the time, he suggested very strongly that people who were underwater on their homes would be eligible for a new program to help fill that gap between the value of a home and the debt still owed. Problem is that the program, like so many efforts from Washington of late, was aimed at helping banks more than homeowners. An enormous number of underwater homeowners, including myself, couldn't prove they were far enough up crap creek to qualify for help. Those who could get help were in such dire straights it really made more sense to walk away, all associated personal shame aside.

Now, I have made my feelings known about NASA. I understand why Obama is doing what he is doing, but I also understand why Nelson, who has gone into space himself aboard a NASA shuttle, would fight so hard. And from a jobs perspective, it is truly terrible timing to stop shuttle launches when there isn't exactly a lot of opportunity for highly-skilled NASA layoff victims.

Then there is BP. This is a disaster which just won't stop hurting the administration. When Tony Hayward is having more PR success than the White House, something is wrong. The people should still be angry at BP, but they seem to have more lingering frustration with Obama.

So I think Nelson's arguments with the White House are justified. Plus, these are not problems which are antagonistic to progressives, the way Boyd's assault on Pelosi's leadership clearly was. But another thing separates Boyd and Nelson. Boyd only decided to complain after he got his bottom handed to him by voters this month. Nelson is most assuredly making noise now because he is up for re-election in 2012, but he is coming out now in hopes the administration can do something about all this.

The thing is, these problems will become a noose around the neck of a sitting Democratic senator if they can't get fixed in two years. No matter how much Nelson attacks the White House, he will be blamed for their failures, and he knows it.

But so will the White House. Florida will absolutely be a swing state again in 2012, and Obama will be in a far more defensive posture next go-round. He will need this state, whereas it was just gravy two years ago. Nelson's tough love could make a difference not only in his chances for re-election, but in Obama's.

Now we just need the White House to listen.

Obama's BP

Sen. Bill Nelson took a bold step today demanding the government step in and take over clean-up of the Deepwater Horizon disaster. This comes on the heels of gubernatorial candidate Alex Sink sending a strongly-worded letter to President Obama crying out for help. Partisan politics delayed these calls to action far too long.

The Obama administration has tragically fallen far short of expectations on this whole affair. The White House has been too trusting of BP's own estimates of the spill. The Coast Guard is startlingly defensive of CEO Tony Hayward, with Commandant Thad Allen stating absurdly he was "satisfied with the coordination that's going on." Interior Secretary Ken Salazar backs further drilling, despite stark evidence companies don't have the necessary technology to deal with this sort of devestation. And Obama himself has yet to rescind a poorly-timed announcement of support for drilling.

For too long, nuts on the right were the only loud voices being on the spill. When conservative blogs aren't completely minimizing the oil spill's devestation, they have dubbied this Obama's Katrina. I find such labels laughable and futile, as they both remind people of a screw-up by your guy and juxtapose events so specific and devastating that the comparison is at best imperfect. This is very different from Katrina other than geographic proximity. The spill is a man-made disaster. The response was deemed the responsibility of a private company, so the federal government was not just slow but absent. The impact of this will be economic and environmental, with no direct consequence as bad as the loss of life in a major American city but with effects which will linger for years.

This is not Obama's Katrina. This is Obama's BP. And unless there is a major turnaround, people for years will reference it as one of the major screw-ups by the White House.

The problem has been that BP was allowed to dictate remediation efforts, and they have different interests in mind than the public good. Even now, the company is trying to find alternatives to a top kill. I don't know why such a maneuver wasn't the first thing done, but I have my suspicions. The company would prefer a way to contain the oil, to keep a flow going while stopping the spillage. From a corporate point-of-view, this makes sense. Why destroy this resource if you don't have to completely kill flow? But we are far, far beyond the point where that mindset is acceptable.

Obama reportedly said today that BP should "plug the damn hole." It seems so obvious. So why hasn't he said anything until now? The interests of America are not being met by this company. It is like hiring convicts to install security systems because they no more about theft, and hoping they have the interests of your bank at heart. BP intrinsically can't be trusted, and their own actions have confirmed that if anyone had a doubt.

So drilling is perfectly safe...

Some barely-covered news in the Gulf of Mexico this week has reignited my personal sense of betrayal regarding Barack Obama and his amazing lapse of judgment when it comes to drilling. For those who didn't know, we had a rig explosion this week in which 11 people are most likely dead. We also had a very near-miss on an ecological disaster of Exxon Valdez proportions, with engineers initially suspecting the well opening on the ocean floor would leak everywhere. Still, we there is a growing oil spill off the coast of Louisiana.

But nothing to see here folks. The White House says there is nothing to worry about. Drilling hardware is safe. There isn't the same threat as there ever was, and besides, gas is expensive! Not that drilling offshore will change the price of gas in the next decade, when any number of external factors will have a much bigger effect, but hey, destroying the Gulf is bipartisan.

I still cannot fathom why Obama wants to open up parts of this water body surrounded by beaches so private companies can explore for a dirty fuel source. Last time he took an interest in Florida energy was when he came to Arcadia to celebrate the opening of America's largest solar farm. But the possible good produced by that clean energy source cannot begin to counter the potential damage from an oil spill off the coast. Imagine the white sands at Siesta Key or the shells on Sanibel being covered with a black residue, or if dying wildlife was running ashore along the entire West Coast of the state.

But that is all just common sense. Let's not forget that this was a politically disastrous move on Obama's part too. Let me remind you, the reaction of most Republicans when Obama just gave away an enormous and unprompted concession on an environmental issue was to say it wasn't enough. Mitch McConnell offered faint praise but said this step was "a small one that leaves enormous amounts of American Energy off limits." John Boehner said Obama was continuing to "defy the will of the American people," a reaction that was both staggering and completely expected.

Obviously, Boehner was especially wrong. I can admit the Obama on the campaign trail wasn't trumpeting notions like a stimulus package, and spoke directly against issues like mandated health insurance. So while it is still silly for Boehner to act like the voters are secretly pro-Republican and just punched the wrong part of a butterfly ballot, a clear mandate wasn't issued on many parts of Obama's agenda.

But drilling was a campaign issue. Remember "Drill, Baby, Drill!" This was a centerpiece of the McCain energy plan. This was Sarah Palin's rallying call. They wanted Florida to bask in the glory of the Texas tea, to smear it on our skins like German tourists using amplifier to get an especially leathery tan. But we said 'No!' Florida voted for a non-incumbant Democrat as President for the first time since 1976. And I assure you this issue was talked about in this state.

Then when it comes time for Obama to make good on a promise, to keep rigs away, to instead promote solar, natural gas, biomass, hydrogren or even nuclear power ahead of searching for hazardous materials off our coast, he fails us and gets nothing politically for it. He betrays us without even a cause.

It is a tragedy when Americans die during the hunt for a consumer product. It truly sickens me that human life is considered by some the cost of business in certain industries. But just as recent mining deaths have led to new scrutiny about underground safety, I hope these lost lives make people reconsider how we safe it is to drill for oil under our waters.