Obama-Biden: A One-Term Wonder

When Barack Obama takes the oath of office to become the 44th President of the United States of America, he will have the support and good will of a large majority of Americans including that of many conservatives and Republicans. We want our presidents to succeed and for the nation to prosper regardless of party.

Ideology ought to inform us as to the correct path, not be a blind faith that we follow like cultists. Conservatives believe liberal-left policies will lead to a poorer and weaker America. If Barack Obama leads the country in a leftward direction, our nation and his presidency will fail. However, throughout the transition, he has shown a remarkable ability to surprise on what direction he will lead us. But the brutish world and our fragile economy will be the great tests of his moderation and leadership. Moreover, it remains to be seen how centrist the Hard Left Congress will allow President Obama to be.

Unlike many in the Lefty blogesphere who reflexively denounced anything George W. Bush identified with, conservatives tend to have a higher “patriot quotient”. What do I mean by “patriot quotient”? Conservatives tend to be small “n” nationalists who care far less for the feelings and esteem that Europeans hold our nation in than liberals. We are America homers. We want the scoreboard to show an American victory, even if our quarterback, or pitcher, or point guard isn’t our first choice.

The Left proved throughout the Bush 43’s administration that they didn’t really want America to win if that meant George W. Bush would win too. Does that make conservatives more vulnerable to demagoguery and less able to answer the challenge that Leftists present? Perhaps, but that’s where our greater “patriot quotient” comes in. We’d rather lose an election than lose a war… where have I heard that before?

That being said, I truly hope that Joe Biden savors the pomp and celebration of the inaugural. Like day following night, a Vice President Biden will embarrass President Obama and the nation on a regular basis with his over-the-top pomposity and blowhardedness. I don’t believe he will be retained on the Obama ticket in 2012.

Therefore, January 21, 2009 begins the search for the Democrat’s 2012 vice presidential nominee. Keep an eye on Virginia’s Tim Kaine (believed to have been the choice of Obama’s heart for veep in 2008) and four-star Gen. David Petraeus, the Commander of U.S. Central Command and hero of the Iraq surge. An Obama-Petraeus 2012 ticket would be awfully tough to match for the Republicans. But that all assumes that President Obama maintains his apparent intention to have continuity in foreign and defense policy. If he tacks left on national security, all bets are off on the Petraeus pick… though Biden will still be a goner from the ticket.

Unions ready to recruit Hispanic workers if Obama changes organizing rules

Phoenix Business Journal – by Mike Sunnucks

Labor unions are poised to go after Hispanic workers in states like Arizona and sectors such as services and health care if new union rules are put in place by the Barack Obama administration and Democratic Congress next year.

Unions and pro-union Democrats want Congress and Obama to pass card-check legislation. The plan would allow unions to organize in workplaces if they get a majority of workers to sign cards supporting unionization. It would scrap 73-year-old unionization laws that require secret ballots for workers to decide whether they want their work forces represented by a trade union.

Card-check legislation is a top goal of unions such as the Service Employees International Union and AFL-CIO, who were top Obama backers.

Such plans have been blocked by President Bush, and the Republicans have enough votes to impede card-check in the U.S. Senate.In January, Obama takes the Oval Office and Democrats have more votes in the U.S. Senate.

Nate Niemuth, a partner and employment law expert with Phoenix law firm Ryley Carlock & Applewhite PA, said unions would like to sign up more Hispanic workers and unionize health care and service industries that are somewhat new to labor organizations.

“If passed, it will have a very dramatic impact,” said Niemuth.

Union members account for 12 percent of the U.S. work force, according to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The lowest level of unionization is among Hispanics, who have only 9.8 percent of Latino workers in unions and only 9.6 percent of Hispanic women.

Unionized workers also tend to be Democrats, and the card-check measure could help the party align more with Latinos. Hispanics largely supported Obama in this month’s election over U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., helping the Illinois lawmaker carry states such as New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada. The focus on the economy and Republican tendencies to take hard-right stances on immigration hurt McCain with Latino voters this cycle after George W. Bush made inroads with Hispanics in 2004.

Business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry, worry about the card-check bill becoming law.

Unions and advocacy groups called American Rights at Work are lobbying Congress to move on the card-check legislation quickly next year. The American Rights group is a coalition that includes the AFL-CIO, National Council of La Raza, NAACP and former senator John Edwards.

Its chair is former Michigan congressman David Bonior. Bonior is said to be on Obama’s short-list along with pro-labor former Missouri Congressman Richard Gephardt for U.S. Labor Secretary.

Jon Pettibone, partner with the law firm Quarles & Brady LLP, said card-check critics worry that union organizers will pressure rank-and-file workers to sign cards. He also said the card-check bill would impose tougher penalties on businesses caught committing unfair labor practices.

Card-check advocates counter that businesses also pressured workers not to unionize in the run-up to secret ballot elections.The issue could create some political quandaries for Obama and Democratic lawmakers in states like Arizona.

“A key test issue for President Obama and an emboldened Democratic Congress is whether to risk an early party split over union-backed check-card legislation. Democrats in Arizona’s congressional delegation and many in ‘red’ districts across the nation may not want to be forced to choose between their constituents’ interests and those of big labor,” said Farrell Quinlan, president of In the Arena Public Affairs, a Phoenix-based lobbying and consulting firm.

U.S. Rep. Harry Mitchell, Ann Kirkpatrick and Gabrielle Giffords, are Democrats headed into their first or second terms in districts previously held by Republicans. The trio was backed by labor unions in the 2008 campaign, though Mitchell has taken some pro-business stances such as opposing increased capital gains and dividends taxes.

McCain fails to win Latino support

Phoenix Business Journal - by Mike Sunnucks

Arizona Sen. John McCain was hammered by the Latino vote, hurting him in battleground states of Florida, Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico as he lost his presidential bid to Barack Obama.

Obama took two-thirds of the overall Hispanic vote and McCain got 32 percent, according to exit polls conducted by NBC News. George Bush got 44 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2004.

McCain also didn’t fare well among younger and working-class voters and did not do as well as Bush with whites, middle-class and older voters.

Some say Republicans’ tough stance on immigration issues, including workplace crackdowns, border fences and opposition to amnesty programs, turned off Latino voters. McCain and Bush favor a guest worker program and path for undocumented workers in the U.S. to obtain legal status, while conservatives emphasize border walls, tough penalties for illegal workers and their employers and varying levels of deportations.

Immigration was not a big issue during the campaign, but both McCain and Obama ran Spanish-language radio and television ads in battleground markets, such as Denver, Albuquerque, Las Vegas and Miami. Obama’s ad hit at right-wing Republicans tough immigration policies.

Other analysts say the economy and $850 billion Wall Street bailout is what nailed McCain’s White House hopes.

“Latino voters are no different than non-Latino voters,” said Farrell Quinlan, president of In the Arena Public Affairs Inc., a Phoenix-based consulting firm. “John McCain’s campaign was fatally wounded by the financial meltdown that took an essentially tied race in mid-September to a decisive Obama victory on election day. Without the financial crisis, I believe John McCain would have equaled or exceeded George W. Bush’s 2004 support of two out of five Latino voters.”

God Bless Dick Cheney (Not That the Presidential Candidates Care)

At the first presidential debate in September, John McCain sent well-wishes to Democratic lion Ted Kennedy who had gone into the hospital earlier that day. It was a classy move. But tonight, John McCain called out Nancy Reagan for her recent injury but completely ignored Vice President Richard Cheney’s health scare earlier in the day. I immediately remarked to the Captivating Mrs. Quinlan that he chickened out and deserves no “class” points for the Nancy Reagan sentiment. Then I feared that Barack Obama would seize the enormous opportunity left him by McCain to burnish his bipartisan bona fides by mentioning Mr. Cheney’s emergency heart procedure at the George Washington University Hospital. Luckily for McCain, Obama didn’t exhibit that minimum level of class. No doubt the MoveOn-crowd would have been outraged not only at Obama’s gentlemanliness but for Cheney’s continued existence. But neither McCain nor Obama was man enough to honor a fine public servant... priceless.

CRITIQUE & REVIEW: “Case Against Barack Obama” Fair, Necessary Counterbalance to Fawning Press Coverage

“The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate” by the National Review’s David Freddoso is a valuable critical examination of Barack Obama’s thin public record and habit of questionable associations. Freddoso does a laudable job in making his points without degenerating into the paranoid conspiracy theory fever swamps of the full-mooners on the Right. What comes out in this book is a deep suspicion and profound worry about the kind of leader Barack Obama will be if elected president. However, it’s not a breathless screed that places the Democratic nominee somewhere between Caligula and Josef Stalin in its estimation of Barack's character and judgment. It is critical (it’s titled “The Case Against Barack Obama…” after all) but not unfair or hyperbolic. I recommend it to anyone who wants to balance out the gushing crush coverage Obama has been afforded by our “objective” mainstream press.

Veep Predictions: The "Should" and "Will" Picks or the "Rise of the Tims"

Like the Oscars where the announced winner is often different from the one who should have won, picking Obama’s and McCain’s running mate falls into a “who he should pick” and “who he will pick” dichotomy. Here are Willet Creek Dam’s picks for vice president for the Republicans and Democrats:

Obama Should Pick

Indiana Senator Evan Bayh

McCain Should Pick

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney

Obama Will Pick

Virginia Governor Tim Kaine

McCain Will Pick

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty

Toe-Sucker Morris: “Powell, Rice, Lieberman, Huckabee — but not Romney!”

After reading this Dick Morris op-ed more closely, I think it deserves more than just a flip “toe-sucker” ad hominem comment.

First, let's establish a few undeniable facts. Morris is not a conservative. He's not particularly “principled” in a political way which is proven by his ‘bipartisan’ clientele over the years (Bill “Slick Willie” Clinton and Trent “Go Dixicrats in '48” Lott). And Morris is by no means a socialist. He's as rapacious a capitalist as you'll find.

I truly believe Dick Morris was privately pulling for a Hillary Clinton nomination victory and then a Clinton Restoration despite protestations to the contrary. Why? How many more quasi-insider books would a Hillary win have been worth? Morris has been milking the Clinton cow for decades now, he doesn’t want to stop now!

Regardless of his preferences on the Democratic side, Morris was an early and oft critic of Mitt Romney's campaign for president. I remember numerous columns throughout the first nine months of 2007 and before where Morris would discuss the GOP presidential field either without mentioning Romney or simply dismissing him.

Morris' case against Romney as made in the recent column is so stale that the best a major league spin-meister like Morris could do to dress it up is to label it “vintage” or “old school.”

Romney's change of position on gay rights and abortion were so well vetted during his presidential campaign, I dare not try to expand on it here. What I will say though is that Romney did flip but he didn't flop on these issues.

He made “liberal” policy statements as a candidate (in 1994 and 2002) before achieving election that he later 'betrayed' as a public official. That's a flip. A flop would be a return to the old position.

The folks that deserve to be angry at these flips in my opinion are the one's betrayed – the pro-choicers and gay marrriage advocates. I've never understood the conventional wisdom that moving to the conservative position on these and other issues ought to be greeted with suspicion by conservatives, pro-lifers and advocates of the sanctity of marriage. These constituencies ought to be emboldened by such 'evolution' and not be bullied by the mainstream media and non-conservatives like Morris into being aloof from such people. Don’t we want to persuade people on the other side of these issues to move in our direction? If not, why bother engaging in the debate?

Moreover, when it counted, when he was in power and able to do something about conservative social policy, Romney did the right, and Right, thing at the most important time. Judge him by his pro-life and pro-marriage deeds as Governor rather than prior statements as a candidate. Those campaign positions have been specifically repudiated and Romney has clearly stated he was wrong in taking them. Conservatives must welcome converts, not shun them.

So, I contend social liberals rather than social conservatives should be Romney's greatest detractors on the “flip-flop” issue. And morally-challenged Dick Morris' thinly veiled hate-Romney attitude proves this out.

Conservatives decided to support Romney too late in the 2008 cycle to allow him to capitalize on his fundraising and personal wealth advantages over his better known rivals. The John Connally in 1980 swipe makes no sense and is ahistorical especially in light of the 2008 campaign itself.

Rudy Giuliani's 2008 campaign easily bested Romney's in ineffectiveness and profligate spending vis-à-vis delegate totals. Phil Gramm's 1996 bid too was much worse in regard. John Connally? Jeez, what's next? Dusting off some arcane nugget about Bob Taft against Ike in 1952? Let's stay in the here and now.

Is Morris right in essentially calling Romney a loser?

Consider, Romney was (perhaps is) largely unknown to voters outside the Bay State. He was running as a conservative in a conservative Republican presidential contest against no fewer than three rivals with near universal name recognition (John McCain, Giuliani and Fred Thompson). He had to counter their long (decades in many cases of) exposure to voters by spending lots and lots of money to jump start his campaign and introduce himself.

He ended up beating two of these three. Not bad when you consider he was the target of all of the other campaigns because they feared him the most as a rival.

I contend that Romney's failed presidential campaign can be viewed as a qualified success in the sense that he clearly defined himself as an articulate, tough and hardworking leader for conservatives for years to come. After all, Reagan lost his first (1968) and second (1976) runs for the Republican presidential nomination. That's my kind of loser.

As I mentioned, conservatives finally did unite (somewhat) when other candidates withdrew and embrace Romney as their candidate. But it was too late to reverse the outcome of a GOP nominating process rigged with mostly winner-take-all contests.

Also, Mike Huckabee's stalking-horse campaign to split the social conservative vote from the economic and national security conservative blocks doomed Romney's ability to get a one-on-one contest with McCain.

Back to Morris.

His points against Romney on policy (not an authentic conservative) and politics (the money/delegates thing) are lame. Besides, those arguments are designed to sour conservatives and Republicans on Romney. What do they mean to the general election voter? Not much.

Who does the conservatives' best friend (Morris) suggest John McCain pick for a vice presidential running mate? He first offers (pro-choice) Colin Powell then (blank slate on social and economic issues) Condi Rice then (pro-choice and Democrat) Joe Lieberman as veeps. Finally, he pushes former client and the Republican's modern day imitation of three-time loser William Jennings Bryan – Mike Huckabee.

Puh-lez! A McCain/Huckabee ticket could lose 40 states.

What do we take from this column by Morris?

First, he has an unnatural antipathy for Mitt Romney that defies rational explanation. It's got an oddly emotional, personal and deep-seeded quality that begs closer examination. Did Mitt run over Morris' cat or lose him a bunch of money in the market when Morris was short on a company Romney resurrected? Or does he have a problem with a man that doesn't drink alcohol and cheat on his wife?

Could it be that Romney represents the kind of man that Morris and the cynical Beltway political class just don't “get”? Aren't all politicians personal reprobates like Morris? Would the success of the milk-drinking Romney undermine their vision of a corrupt America? Or is he just an anti-Mormon bigot? I don't necessarily see evidence of that but remain open to convincing.

I do think Mitt Romney frustrates and complicates the worldview of the cool kids from the 1960's. And what's so bad about that? I welcome it.

In conclusion, Mitt Romney is not the second coming of Ronald Reagan let alone Jesus Christ (Barack Obama has that shtick working right now.). But he's objectively a rising conservative star who has a bright future in a McCain Administration whether as vice president, secretary of the treasury, chairman of the RNC or whatever.

If McCain fails in November, Mitt Romney will be a strong voice in conservative opposition to the Obama/Pelosi/Hillary regime. He will be a leading candidate for the 2012 Republican nomination and Dick Morris will be free to write more hysterical columns dismissing him.

Keep it up Mitt, if Morris is vexed, you must be doing something right (and Right.)

Obama/Gore 2008!!! Too Weird? Not Really

There's a movement to make former Vice President Al Gore the running mate of Barack Obama.

Seems a little crazy… a little weird too?

On the contrary, it wouldn't be the first time of double duty as vice president or as veep nominee.

There are actually three instances of something like this in our history.

New Yorker George Clinton (no relation to the 42^nd president) served as the fourth vice president of the United States, first under Thomas Jefferson from 1805 to 1809, and then (without interruption) under James Madison from 1809 until his death of a heart attack in 1812, becoming the first vice president to die in office. Jefferson and Madison were close political allies and Clinton did not seek to succeed Jefferson as president. He was happy to continue to serve in the subservient role to the Virginians.

But there is another more interesting example of a vice president for two different presidents.

Calhoun Strandles Adams/Jackson Fued

John C. Calhoun of South Carolina was both the cranky John Quincy Adams' and the volcanic Andrew Jackson's vice president (1825 to 1832) through a quirk in the way we elect our top two executives.

The 1824 election of Adams is the only presidential election to be decided by the House of Representatives when no candidate received a majority in the Electoral College.

At that time, there were no clearly defined parties that nominated a ticket for president and vice president. The "Democratic-Republicans" had four presidential contestants who received various forms of "nomination" ranging from congressional caucus to state legislatures. In the presidential race, Tennessean Andrew Jackson received 99 of 261 electoral votes or 38% – 32 votes short of the number needed to win the presidency. Massachusetts’ John Quincy Adams came in second with 84 electoral votes, former Georgia senator and then-Secretary of the Treasury William Crawford got 41 votes and House Speaker Henry Clay from Kentucky scored 37 votes.

The Constitution requires the top three vote-getters to be considered by the House of Representatives in the event of the Electoral College fails to elect a president. The House elects the president by one vote per state delegation rather than each member getting a vote. As the fourth-place finisher in the Electoral College, Henry Clay was dropped off the ballot. However, he was the Speaker of the House and at the least, had great influence over the House vote. When the state delegations’ votes were counted, Adams had 13 state delegations, Jackson won seven and Crawford four.

Adams became president through what Jackson supporters called a "corrupt bargin" that was revealed, so goes the conspiracy theory, when Adams asked Clay to be his to Secretary of State.

[Note: The 1824 election represented the third presidency in a row where the winner was the serving Secretary of State (James Madison, James Monroe and then John Quincy Adams.) Back then, the Secretary of State post was viewed as the clearest path to the presidency.]

Back to Calhoun… so, the 1824 Electoral College struckout on settling on someone for the top job but was able to decide on a vice president. Calhoun wanted to be in the mix for president in 1824 but failed to secure his home state's nomination. Instead he ran for the second job and won in a landslide to become the seventh Vice President of the United States.

Vice President Calhoun was not party to any "corrupt bargain" and was politically allied to Andrew Jackson throughout the Adams Administration. He was rewarded for his loyalty by being retained as the Jacksonian vice presidential nominee for the election of 1828. The Jackson/Calhoun trounced Adams and a new political party was born, the Democrats.

The first Democratic administration's honeymoon didn’t last long. Calhoun identified himself more as a South Carolinian than as an American. His sectional biases created explosive friction between himself and the unionist Jackson. Calhoun decided after the Nullification Crisis of 1832 that he could best protect the interests of South Carolina as its senator and resigned as vice president.

The Last Bearded Vice President

The other double vice presidential precedent is Charles Fairbanks. He’s the only person to secure the bottom of the ticket nomination from his party for two different presidential nominees in non-consecutive elections.

The Indiana senator was added to Theodore Roosevelt’s ticket in 1904 to fill the vacant vice presidency (VP TR had succeeded the assassinated William McKinley in 1901.) But when the Rough Rider promised not to run for a “third” term in 1908, his loyal veep was passed over for the presidential nomination in favor Teddy’s handpicked-successor, Secretary of War William Howard Taft of Ohio. But Fairbanks wasn’t through with vice presidential politics. He was the Republican Party’s 1916 nominee under Charles Evans Hughes.

And he was that close to achieving the office again. A flip of 1,887 votes in California from Woodrow Wilson to Hughes would have made Fairbanks the VP again after an eight year hiatus.

I’m not sure what to make of this trivia but an Obama-Gore ticket would clearly not be unique.

If John McCain Steps Down... Could It Be Sen. Jan Brewer?

There has been some speculation about Sen. John McCain vacating his U.S. Senate seat once he secures the GOP presidential nomination in order to concentrate all his effort on winning the White House and remove the inevitable gamesmanship by the Democratic majority in the Senate (pointing out missed votes, etc.) Sort of replaying Bob Dole's decision in 1996!

Regardless of this rumor's accuracy, if he does win in November, Sen. McCain would need to resign his seat before inauguration day. Either way, Arizona’s Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano would have to appoint a Republican to fill the remaining two-years of his term.

Napolitano has long eyed that Senate seat for herself. Speculation has assumed that John McCain would not run for another term in 2010, especially after he achieves one of his remaining two goals: the first, securing the GOP nomination for president seems assured; the second, winning the presidency is to be decided.

What to do, what to do? Napolitano must be asking herself.

She’s a very smart political operative. She’ll think about all the angles before making her decision on any senatorial opening.

Does she go for an ideological match in order to impact policy? Does she place a chair-warmer in the seat who would not or could not pose a significant challenge to her likely 2010 run for the seat?

There are many ways to go but I suspect that Gov. Napolitano’s best political play for her own career would be appointing Arizona’s highest ranking Republican statewide officeholder. That’s right, Secretary of State Jan Brewer for replacement senator, especially if the move necessitates a 2008 special election.

Here's my reasoning... in sending Jan Brewer to DC as senator, it in no way disabuses the half-dozen-plus Republicans that have been eying that seat for more than a decade from running in a contested primary. They will be running hard (and dirty?) for the GOP nomination regardless of Sen. Jan Brewer keeping the seat warm. This serves Napolitano’s interests by weakening the eventual nominee and exposing huge riffs within the Arizona Republican Party.

The real beauty of this scenario for Napolitano is that it necessitates at least one other appointment, Jan Brewer’s replacement for the big office on the 7th Floor. This person too would have to be a Republican but he or she would be removed from the succession because of their appointment rather than election to the office. Remember, then-Attorney General Bruce Babbitt became governor when Governor and former-Secretary of State Wesley Bolin died in office and his appointed successor at State (Rose Mofford) couldn’t take the big chair (in that instance, she would a decade later).

Appointing Brewer to the U.S. Senate puts current Democrat Attorney General Terry Goddard one heartbeat away from the big office on the 9th Floor.

If McCain resigns early and loses the presidency, this scenario continues to serve Napolitano’s interests. If it’s Barack Obama winning over McCain, there is a good chance the new president-elect takes her to Washington with him as Attorney General, Secretary of Homeland Security, etc. The gubernatorial succession issue (handing over the office to a Republican) is gone as the office falls to the elected Attorney General rather than the appointed Secretary of State.

Come 2010, incumbent Gov. Terry Goddard runs for re-election… er… election for a full term in his own right!

Moreover, Gov. Goddard will most likely have appointed a strong candidate to succeed him (say, Napolitano's Chief of Staff Dennis Burke) and the Democratic ascendancy in Arizona politics continues.

Think about it.

It could happen.

I’m an elected Republican precinct committeeman, state committeeman, and 2nd Vice Chairman of the Legislative District 20 Republican Party. I don’t relish the prospect of a continued strong Democratic Party effort up and down the Arizona ballot. But we Arizona Republicans have to come to terms with the fact that the days of pushover contests are over.