Columnist.
Let's stipulate that people, and particularly politicians, can get into trouble by attempting to speak for God. But that's not the moral of the story regarding Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock. Responding to a question about abortion, Mourdock offered a grieved response -- his voice breaking a bit -- on the matter of which exceptions he favored. His Democratic opponent, Joe Donnelly, also pro-life, said that he would permit abortions in cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother. Mourdock said he had "struggled with it . . . for a long time," but had come to the conclusion that "life is a gift from God." Unfortunately, he didn't stop there. He added that "even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."
In 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was determined to keep peace between Great Britain and Germany. Dismayed by the carnage of World War I, Chamberlain (along with most of the opinion elite in England) sought peace with honor -- but in any case, peace. Yes, Chamberlain had watched with growing anxiety as Germany, in defiance of treaties, rearmed, and as the Nazi party engaged in ever more brazen and violent repression of domestic opponents. Germany's alliance with militarist Japan and fascist Spain (1936), followed by the Pact of Steel with fascist Italy and the absorption of Austria in early 1938, increased Downing Street's disquiet. Yet Chamberlain was determined that Hitler should comprehend Britain's peaceful intentions.
President Obama has declined to outline a second term agenda. He doesn't say what he would do about the fiscal cliff that looms in just a couple of months. He hasn't addressed the glaring challenge of an aging population and entitlement spending that is careening toward insolvency. (On the contrary, he has significantly hastened the emergency by piling on new entitlement spending.) He hasn't proposed policies to improve the economy. He promises nothing more on Iran than to maintain ineffective sanctions. We can glean this much: He'd like to hire 100,000 new teachers and he wants to raise taxes on "millionaires and billionaires." That's a flimsy agenda for a great nation. Does it even make sense? Let's start with the teachers. This may be an old-fashioned idea, but shouldn't states and localities decide how many teachers they need? Isn't it just possible that Bangor, Me. might need fewer teachers and Yuma, Ariz. might need more?
President Obama presented himself to the nation in 2008 as something new -- a change agent who would bring fresh ideas to our national challenges and solve problems in a post-partisan, unifying fashion. In fact, as some noted at the time, his ideas were decrepit hand-me-downs, about as novel as disco or the leisure suit. He is a conventional, left-wing statist, George McGovern with a bigger smile, eager to bring ever-larger segments of American life under tight government control and direction. As for unity, his presidency has set new records for contemning the opposition -- a disdain histrionically pantomimed by Joe Biden.
If Mitt Romney is elected and secures Republican control of both houses of Congress, the U.S. could be poised for a vertiginous economic snapback. To understand how, consider that the Democratic explanation for our current malaise is utterly fallacious. Mr. Obama and his allies identify the "Bush tax cuts," "two wars that weren't paid for," and "deregulation" as the causes of America's present economic doldrums. But federal outlays as a percentage of GDP under George W. Bush averaged 19.6 percent. Under Obama, spending has ballooned to 24.1 percent of GDP. Much of Bush's spending was temporary (the two wars, one of which Obama expanded). But Obama's spending on new entitlements is permanent and bound to increase over time, further burdening a country already facing an entitlements crisis.
It's impossible to overstate the effect that Mitt Romney's performance in the first presidential debate has had on conservatives and Republicans. The past four years have been a torment as we've watched a committed left-wing activist grease the skids for America's decline into a socialist state. Our TV screens have featured images of violent protests in Greece, Italy and Spain as their socialist paper boats capsize. Yet the Obama Administration's resolute march into that dead end has proceeded apace. There was a brief bloom of hope that the Supreme Court would save the country from the worst time bomb of the Obama presidency, but a late betrayal by a conservative justice extinguished it. The past few weeks have been especially painful as Mr. Obama seemed to gain traction in the polls and escape responsibility for the completely foreseeable results of his policies -- economic enfeeblement, rising poverty and dependency, loss of world influence and looming insolvency. More than that, a mendacious address by Bill Clinton, blaming the economic meltdown of 2008 on free markets and Republicans, seemed to be the only argument on offer -- and one that voters were inclined to accept.
"Bush Lied, People Died" they chanted. When the intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq -- information that was believed by the intelligence agencies of our major allies; that was described by the Clinton-appointed head of the CIA as a "slam dunk"; and that was agreed to by heads of state and leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties -- turned out to be badly mistaken, George W. Bush was branded a liar. Even Democrats such as Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Tom Daschle, and Ted Kennedy, who had warned about Saddam's WMD program on various occasions, quickly scurried to the "Bush lied, people died" slander when the intelligence proved inaccurate.
Let's play *Imagine an Alternative Universe*. Suppose that Rep. Paul Ryan had said that Joe Biden had "sullied the religion that he and I share." How many days of the news cycle do you suppose would be dominated by the story? How many Democrats and members of the press would declare that this kind of religious provocation/bigotry rendered Mr. Ryan unfit for high office? Please submit your estimates to my inbox. Now back to the universe we inhabit. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, participating in a unilateral race to the bottom, said just that about Mitt Romney. Highlighting an Internet item, Reid said he agreed that Romney "sullied" the Mormon faith, and that, in Nevada, voters would "understand that he is not the face of Mormonism." That is low, even by Harry Reid, "a little birdie told me Romney paid no taxes for 10 years," standards.
*"Stop it. This is hard. You want to try it? Get in the ring." --Ann Romney* Mrs. Romney's exasperation with conservative critics is understandable. The mainstream press has been like a school of piranhas swarming around her husband. To receive fire from her own side as well -- even constructive advice -- may seem too much to bear. Mitt Romney is facing perhaps the most corrupt and tendentious coverage in presidential history, as members of the fourth estate eschew any semblance of integrity in their attempt to skew interpretations in favor of their pinup, Mr. Obama.
President Obama does worry about a mob mentality. It's just unfortunate that he so often thinks he sees it in his own countrymen. The administration's response to the attacks on our embassies and the murder of our diplomats last week was familiar. The president condemned the murders and promised to bring the perpetrators to justice. But he was also careful to add that the "Libyans acted responsibly by carrying Ambassador Stevens' body to the hospital." There is now a video of a mob finding Stevens's body, and it's ambiguous. Some shout "Allahu Akbar" and pump their fists in the air when they discover the nearly lifeless body of the ambassador. The New York Times explains that they were praising God because they discovered that Stevens was still breathing. Maybe. The clip leaves room for other interpretations. The point is that Mr. Obama, before all the facts were known -- "shooting first and aiming later" if you will -- was at pains to highlight friendly behavior by the Libyans. Why? Did he fear that Americans might become too angry?
One of Romney's great skills is the ability to turn around failing enterprises. He did it with private firms while he ran Bain Capital; he did it for an indebted Massachusetts and he did it for the Olympics. He needs to do it for his campaign now. Neil Newhouse, Romney's pollster, attempted to soothe worried Republicans last week by stressing that the race remains extremely close. But the fact that Romney's pollster isn't worried is itself worrying. By rights, Romney should be 10 points ahead. They seem to think the bad economy will automatically win this race for the Republican. It isn't as if voters are unaware that the economy stinks. Consider that the morning after the Democratic convention, the dismal jobs report did not prevent Democrats from getting a bigger bounce than Republicans received. Three and a half years of miserably high unemployment, slow growth, increasing poverty, falling labor force participation, record-setting food stamp dependence and an average 5 percent decline in household income has not persuaded most voters to support Mitt Romney.
President Obama's weakness in foreign policy is a contributor to the events of the last several days in the Middle East. Though he gave the order to take out bin Laden (who wouldn't?), and though he attacks suspected terrorists with drones, this president has nevertheless conveyed to the world that he believes in a diminished world role for the United States. He believes in a more modest United States -- remember those bows -- because he comes from an intellectual tradition that is hostile to American power. His pastor and mentor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, expressed a common leftist view when he said after 9/11 that the attacks represented "America's chickens coming home to roost." Mr. Obama's one-time green jobs czar, Van Jones, was of the same school, showing up at a radical leftist rally on September 12, 2001 and, amid the drum circles and curses, heaped on the nation that had just suffered an attack of unprecedented savagery and joined in the denunciations of the victim. "It's the bombs that the government has been dropping around the world that are now blowing up inside the U.S. borders."
The Clinton line, an elaboration of Obama excuse No. 37 for the dismal economy (after the Arab Spring, ATMs, the euro crisis and tomato blight in Mrs. Obama's White House garden), goes like this: The economy was so damaged by George W. Bush-era policies that "no president" could have been expected to do better than the record-high poverty, staggering unemployment, shrinking workforce participation, anemic growth and gargantuan debt over which Barack Obama has presided. We're asked to believe that the Obama administration knew all along that things would take longer than four years to improve. "I never said this journey would be easy," the president claimed in Charlotte. On the contrary, the president stated explicitly on Feb. 1, 2009, that if he failed to get the economy turned around in three years, he would be looking at a "one-term proposition."
Were you shocked when at least 50 percent of the delegates to the Democratic Convention appeared to vote "nay" on recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital and reinserting God into the platform? Admittedly, it was high drama -- a truly unscripted moment that laid bare the raw hostility toward Israel that has gradually achieved mainstream status within the Democratic Party. But a surprise? Not really. A Gallup poll released earlier this year showed that 78 percent of Republicans supported Israel over the Palestinians, whereas only 53 percent of Democrats agreed. For the past 12 years, Democratic support for Israel has been declining, Gallup reports. The left, which is increasingly coterminous with the Democrats, has been hostile to Israel for much longer. Seen an Occupy demonstration lately? Noticed "Israel Apartheid Week" at your local campus?
The Byzantine relations between President Obama and former President Bill Clinton could fill several psychology textbooks, providing juicy examples of passive aggression, older man/younger man competition, complex alliances (Hillary as secretary of state is the perfect embodiment of the maxim to "keep your friends close but your enemies closer"), and mutual interests. That the president needs Bill Clinton now to make his case to the country must be richly satisfying to the only American whose ego can compete with Barack H. Obama's. Let's recall that one of Obama's supposed triumphs in 2008 was defeating the vaunted Clinton machine. The Democratic Party's delirium for Obama supposedly obliterated the Clinton magic. After winning the South Carolina primary in January, Obama exulted that "we're up against the conventional thinking that says your ability to lead as president comes from longevity in Washington. ... But we know that real leadership is about candor and judgment and the ability to rally Americans ... around a higher purpose ... " Though he never tired (and still doesn't) of insulting George W. Bush, that barb wasn't aimed at him. It was for the Clintons.
Among the most stirring moments in an effective convention came during Condoleeza Rice's speech. She delivered (beautifully) a number of well-chosen one-liners that hit bull's-eyes with Republicans and conservatives, warning, for example, that "when a nation loses control of its finances, it eventually loses control of its destiny." She touched on the problem of failing schools and the challenge they represent to the American dream. "The crisis in K-12 education is a threat to the very fabric of who we are," she said, to thumping agreement. But when she mentioned her own story, the hall erupted. "A little girl grows up in Jim Crow Birmingham. The segregated city of the south where her parents cannot take her to a movie theater or to restaurants, but they have convinced her that even if she cannot have a hamburger at Woolworths, she can be the president of the United States if she wanted to be and she becomes the secretary of state."
We've all heard the objection that political conventions have become empty kabuki theater. The high drama of multiple ballots is dead and gone. Uncertainty about the outcome is no more. "Today," laments political guru Mike Murphy, "delegates are bound through the application of TV ad ratings points, not machine deals. They sit in the convention hall like the background actors in a TV show, milling about to the director's orders, wearing costumes and denied a single line. It seems a shabby ending to a great tradition. It's time for a mercy killing."
Todd Akin would do his party and his country a service by stepping aside. The rest of the campaign will be dominated by this side issue, possibly denying Republicans a key Senate seat. To use the words "legitimate" and "rape" in the same phrase betrays a serious lack of judgment. Only about 1 percent of women undergoing abortions report that they were raped, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute. One percent is not zero. That much having been said, I must offer a mild dissent to the widespread view expressed by both Republicans and Democrats that what Akin said was outrageously "stupid." The "legitimate rape" wording was atrocious, agreed. But much of the commentary has focused on Akin's mistaken belief that women's bodies have the capacity to "shut down" the reproductive process in cases of rape. (Akin has since acknowledged that he was wrong.) Interviewing Akin on "Good Morning America," George Stephanopolous spoke for many when he said, "A lot of people are wondering how an idea like that can even get in your head."
Have you noticed how often the president's supporters talk about the "likeability" factor in politics these days? No longer do we hear that presidential candidates must convey "the vision thing" or "gravitas" or credibility as commander in chief. Not that those criteria were precisely calibrated. Four years ago, many commentators were assuring us that Joe Biden brought gravitas to the Obama ticket, which is a little like saying that helium provides ballast, but at least they thought a certain policy weight was important -- even if their perception was ludicrous. This year, however, we are told that voters cast their ballots based mostly upon which candidate they'd prefer to "have a beer with." If that truly were the most important qualification in the minds of most voters, we might as well abandon the Electoral College, chuck the Constitution with its complicated rules and just select presidents by liking them on Facebook.
We have reached a point in the 2012 campaign when you long for a referee -- someone with a whistle to call foul and declare that one side has so discredited itself that it must forfeit points or be otherwise disqualified. Nancy Pelosi, the leader who warned that we were losing "500 million jobs a month" without the stimulus bill and who said "God bless them" regarding Occupy Wall Street but condemned the tea party as "AstroTurf," has declared that the Republican Party supports E. coli. True, it's not news when Pelosi mangles the facts. But until her colleagues demote her, she remains the leader of House Democrats. Speaking at a fundraiser, she described the Republican Party as follows: "It's an ideology. We shouldn't have a government role. So reduce the police, the fire, the teachers -- reduce their role." As a mother, she continued, "You could depend on the government for one thing -- it was about, you had to be able to trust the water that our kids drank and the food that they ate. But this is the E. coli club. They do not want to spend money to do that."
