James Taranto on Obama Raising Goldwater/

By JAMES TARANTO     at  the Wall Street Journal:

AuBHO ……The president’s intriguing analogy to 1964.

“Going meta with this column’s Answers to Questions Nobody Is Asking gag, “President Obama said Tuesday that he was not prepared to question the patriotism or love of country of any of his political rivals,” Politico reports. But the president went on to say “that the 2012 contest was a contrast in visions of government”:

“I’m a firm believer that whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican, that you’re a patriot, you care about this country, you love this country,” Obama said at an intimate fundraiser in Palm Beach Gardens, Fla. “And so I’m not somebody who, when we’re in a political contest, suggests somehow that one side or the other has a monopoly on love of country.”

“But there are contrasting visions here. And this election will probably have the biggest contrast that we’ve seen maybe since the Johnson-Goldwater election–maybe before that,” Obama said.

Perhaps Obama, stung by the mockery he has received for his ignorant ramblings on constitutional law, has been studying history, because this is actually an intriguing comparison.

There are some relevant parallels between 1964′s election, which pitted President Lyndon B. Johnson against Sen. Barry Goldwater, and this year’s. Like Mitt Romney, LBJ was a man of his era’s political center. His legislative initiatives, including the Civil Rights Act and the creation of Medicare, commanded broad bipartisan support. Goldwater, by contrast, championed an ideology that seemed decades out of date, just as Obama is doing now.

Of course in the long run LBJ turned out to be too centrist for his own party. In 1968 he was forced to retire after an unexpectedly strong showing by a left-wing primary challenger, Sen. Eugene McCarthy. A similar fate could befall Romney and indeed nearly did in this year’s primaries.

On the other side, less than two decades after the 1964 election, with the election of Ronald Reagan, Goldwater ended up seeming ahead of his time rather than behind it. Still, it’s a little odd that Obama is taking Goldwater as his model this year. Has the president forgotten that the Arizona senator got less than 40% of the vote and lost 44 states?

To be sure, Obama can realistically hope to do better than that. We’ll be astonished if he carries fewer than a dozen states. But maybe with this comparison he’s setting himself up for a heroic defeat, à la Goldwater, and hoping that the country will eventually swing back in his ideological direction to provide him with a measure of vindication in his autumn years. Nov. 7 may find the president consoling himself with the assurance that extremism in the defense of spreading the wealth around is no vice.

Potemkin Polls
Lending support to our expectation that Barack Obama will do better in this year’s election than Barry Goldwater did in 1964 are a series of polls, some of which show him actually leading Mitt Romney. If that holds up, it’s conceivable Obama could even win (hey, stranger things have happened).

Some observers go so far as to say that Obama is the favorite. Well, let’s not go crazy. The Weekly Standard’s Jay Cost looks at one recent poll, from ABC News and the Washington Post, and offers a reality check.

The ABC-WaPo poll found Obama leading Romney by a 7% margin among registered voters, 51% to 44%. As Cost notes, the sample was suspect:

The poll has an inexplicably large Democratic advantage–the party breakdown in the poll is 34 percent Democratic, 23 percent Republican, and 34 percent independent. As a point of historical comparison, the party spread in four of the last five elections since 2002 has basically been an even split between the two sides. In 2008, a “perfect storm” of bad news for the GOP, the [Democratic] party ID advantage was “only” +7. So, a Democratic advantage of +11 is an unjustifiable number, at least in terms of what the electorate is thinking.

Cost argues, however, that even such a skewed survey can be useful “in a kind of ‘Nixon goes to China’ sense. Put another way, if Democrats look weak in polls that are so ridiculously pro-Democratic, you know they are in trouble.”

He notes that even in the ABC-WaPo poll, only 44% approve of the president’s handling of the economy and 28% of “the situation with gas prices.” The disapproval numbers are 54% and 62%, respectively. Since Republicans are grossly underrepresented, “the implication is that the president must be doing terribly with independent voters.” During polarized times, they are the ones who decide elections.

ABCNews.com notes another bit of very bad news for Obama in the poll: Support for ObamaCare, the president’s “signature domestic legislation,” has “hit a new low,” notwithstanding the Democratic tilt of the survey sample:

Fifty-three percent of Americans now oppose the law overall, while just 39 percent support it–the latter the lowest in more than a dozen ABC/Post polls since August 2009. “Strong” critics, at 40 percent, outnumber strong supporters by nearly a 2-1 margin in this poll. . . .

Two-thirds continue to say the high court should throw out either the entire law (38 percent) or at least the part that requires most individuals to obtain coverage (29 percent) or face a penalty; just a quarter want the court to uphold the law as is. Those numbers, like views on the law overall, are essentially unchanged from a month ago.

If the Supreme Court does strike down ObamaCare, in whole or in part, one can imagine a president in Obama’s position taking advantage of the opportunity to minimize the political damage by expressing due deference to a coequal branch of government and thereby to some extent dodging the blame for enacting such a monstrosity in the first place. It’s hard to imagine Obama doing that, though, especially after his blundering attacks on the court last week. He seems emotionally invested in this “accomplishment” and likely to let his bitterness get the better of him.

National Journal’s Josh Kraushaar argues that Obama might have planted “the seeds of defeat” with “his fiery, populist campaign kickoff speech at the Associated Press luncheon last week.” That was the speech that included the second part of his ignorant rant against the Supreme Court, but Kraushaar is interested in the president’s broader themes:

Ideologically, the speech was a throwback to the Democratic rhetoric of decades past. Despite sops to Ronald Reagan, Obama laid out his ideological argument at the outset, stating his “belief that, through government, we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves.” That’s a far cry from “the era of big government is over” mantra that President Clinton advanced in his reelection campaign. . . .

The president is seriously miscalculating if he believes that the key to winning the hearts and minds of independents is “us-against-them” rhetoric that hails back to a bygone Democratic era. . . . When Clinton campaigned for a second term in 1996, he likewise castigated congressional Republicans for proposing entitlement cuts and shutting down the government, but he also championed a just-passed bipartisan welfare-reform law and a balanced budget that reduced the size of government. With Obama’s speech, there was no centrist recalibrating to reassure worried independents that he’s not too ideological; no sugar to sweeten the tough talk.

“Merely mounting a reactionary defense of the way things have been done in the past isn’t enough anymore,” Kraushaar adds. It wasn’t enough in 1964, either. One of the reasons Reagan won in 1980 despite standing for an ideology that had been rejected, definitively it seemed, 16 years earlier, was that he presented it in a forward-looking and optimistic way. Oddly, four years ago Obama seemed, on balance, optimistic and forward-looking. But he was trying to play down his ideology.”

Zimmerman Charged

Zimmerman to Be Charged in Trayvon Martin Case

By LIZETTE ALVAREZ and MICHAEL COOPER    at the New York Times:

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — More than six weeks after he shot and killed Trayvon Martin, an unarmed 17-year-old with no criminal record, George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch coordinator at a small gated community in Sanford, Fla., was charged by a special prosecutor on Wednesday evening with second-degree murder and taken into custody.

The charges, which Mr. Martin’s family praised but called overdue, opened a new chapter in a case that set off a searing national discussion of racial profiling, Florida’s expansive self-defense laws and the fairness of the criminal justice system.

The charges against Mr. Zimmerman were announced by Angela B. Corey, the state attorney for the Jacksonville area, who was appointed as a special prosecutor in the case after the local state attorney stepped aside in the wake of criticism that the case had been moving too slowly. Ms. Corey took pains to praise the local law enforcement officials at a news conference in Jacksonville, and pledged to pursue justice for the Martin family.

Asked about the racial overtones of the case — Mr. Martin, who was black, was shot and killed by Mr. Zimmerman, a Hispanic man who was not immediately arrested by the local police — Ms. Corey said that law enforcement officials were committed to justice for all, regardless of race, gender or background.

“We only know one category as prosecutors, and that’s a ‘V,’ ” Ms. Corey said. “It’s not a ‘B,’ it’s not a ‘W,’ it’s not an ‘H.’ It’s ‘V,’ for victim. That’s who we work tirelessly for. And that’s all we know, is justice for our victims.”

If he is convicted of second-degree murder, Mr. Zimmerman, 28, could face life in prison. It is the toughest charge he could have faced, short of first-degree murder, which would have required a finding of premeditation.

Mr. Martin’s parents, Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin, praised the decision to arrest and charge Mr. Zimmerman at an emotional news conference in Washington, where they had been meeting with their lawyers and supporters.

“We simply wanted an arrest,” Ms. Fulton said. “We wanted nothing more and nothing less, we just wanted an arrest. And we got it. And I say, ‘Thank you, thank you, Lord, thank you, Jesus.’ ”

Mr. Zimmerman arrived at the Seminole County Jail around 8:25 p.m. and stepped out of a black S.U.V. in the custody of law enforcement agents.

The killing of Trayvon Martin — who was shot on the evening of Feb. 26 as he returned from buying Skittles and iced tea at a 7-Eleven, bound for the home in a gated community in Sanford, a small city just north of Orlando, where he and his father were guests — incited outrage and protest marches across the country.

Mr. Zimmerman, the founder of the local neighborhood watch, called 911 that evening to report that Mr. Martin looked like “a real suspicious guy.” Some questioned whether Mr. Martin attracted Mr. Zimmerman’s attention simply because he was black. Others were outraged by the slow reaction of the local police and prosecutors, who did not immediately arrest and charge Mr. Zimmerman, saying that Florida’s expansive self-defense law could make it difficult to prove a criminal case against him.

President Obama weighed in on the case at one point, saying, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.” After television commentators suggested that Mr. Martin might have looked suspicious because he was wearing a hooded sweatshirt, people around the country began donning them in solidarity. LeBron James and other members of the Miami Heat basketball team posed in them for a photograph they posted on Twitter. Representative Bobby L. Rush, Democrat of Illinois, even wore one on the floor of the House, saying “Just because someone wears a hoodie does not make them a hoodlum.”

The case drew attention to Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law, which was enacted seven years ago after lobbying by the National Rifle Association, over the objections of many law enforcement officials. The law gives the benefit of the doubt to people who claim self-defense, even if they are not in their homes; it says that people who feel that they are in danger do not need to retreat, even if it would seem reasonable to do so.

In this case, Mr. Zimmerman, who had founded a neighborhood watch over the summer after a string of burglaries in the area, saw Mr. Martin, began following him, and called 911, telling the dispatcher that he appeared “suspicious.”

The dispatcher asked if Mr. Zimmerman was following him. “Yeah,” Mr. Zimmerman said.

“O.K.., we don’t need you to do that,” the dispatcher said. Mr. Zimmerman said: “O.K.”

The case will probably hinge on what happened next.

A lawyer for Mr. Martin’s parents, Benjamin Crump, has said that Mr. Martin was speaking on his cellphone at the time with his girlfriend, and told her that he was being followed. Mr. Crump said that the girl heard him being asked what he was doing before the line went dead.

Enlarge This Image

Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

People watched Angela B. Corey’s news conference on a monitor at the National Action Network conference in Washington, D.C.

 

Multimedia

Trayvon Martin’s Parents React

Trayvon Martin’s Parents React

 

Close Video

 

 

See More Videos »

 

• Video: Announcing Zimmerman Charges

• Interactive Feature: The Events Leading to the Shooting of Trayvon Martin

Related

• Severe Charge, With a Minimum Term of 25 Years (April 12, 2012)

• The Lede Blog: Latest Updates on the Trayvon Martin Case (April 11, 2012)

• Prosecutor in Martin Case Will Alone Determine Its Merits (April 10, 2012)

• In Martin Case, Tough Choice Looms for Prosecutor (April 11, 2012)

• Times Topic: Trayvon Martin

Connect With Us on Twitter

Follow @NYTNational for breaking news and headlines.

Twitter List: Reporters and Editors

Readers’ Comments

Share your thoughts.

• Post a Comment »
• Read All Comments (708) »

Mr. Zimmerman’s father, Robert Zimmerman, gave a different account: he has said that his son had lost sight of Mr. Martin, who then appeared from behind and challenged him.

Witnesses then told 911 that they saw two men fighting. Then Mr. Martin was shot in the chest and killed.

The Sanford police came under heavy criticism when they did not arrest Mr. Zimmerman, saying that they had no evidence to dispute his claim of self-defense. The police chief, Bill Lee, eventually stepped down from his post. The state appointed a special prosecutor. And the Justice Department announced that it would open a federal civil rights investigation.

Ms. Corey, the special state prosecutor who announced the charges, said that if Mr. Zimmerman’s lawyers invoke the state’s “Stand Your Ground” law in his defense, and prosecutors do not believe the shooting was justified, they will challenge the claim.

“This case is just like many of the shooting deaths we’ve had in our circuit,” she said. “If ‘Stand Your Ground’ becomes an issue, we fight it if we believe it’s the right thing to do.”

Mr. Zimmerman changed his lawyers this week, and his old legal team held an odd news conference on Tuesday to say that they were withdrawing from the case and had not heard from him since the weekend. A call and e-mail to Mr. Zimmerman’s new lawyer, Mark M. O’Mara, a well-known criminal lawyer who serves as a legal analyst for a Florida television station, were not immediately returned on Wednesday evening.

One of Mr. Zimmerman’s former lawyers, Craig A. Sonner, said in an interview after the murder charge was announced that he would use the Stand Your Ground law as a defense if he were still representing Mr. Zimmerman, and that he believed it would prevail.

Mr. Sonner said that although he had not seen evidence in the case first hand, he believed that “when all the evidence arrives in its totality, and all the circumstances are viewed in their totality, everything will show, I believe, that George Zimmerman, was acting in self defense.”

As she announced the charge, Ms. Corey, the prosecutor, praised Mr. Martin’s “sweet parents.” But she stressed that the decision to charge was made based on the law, not on pressure. “Let me emphasize that we do not prosecute by public pressure or by petition,” she said. “We prosecute based on the facts of any given case, as well as the laws of the state of Florida.”

Comment:    For Ms. Corey one hopes that the parents of Mr. Zimmerman are found equally as sweet…….and that this woman says so in the presence of New York Times broadcasters.  

We do not live in a time where there is much courage exhibited by persons in high and significant places.    I am afraid I expect little fair coming from Ms. Corey.   I expect self righteousness on display, a woman on a mission which does not include discovering the facts.    It could be, however, that there is more incriminating in the information available to the officials  than to we, the public so far away from the happening.

It is so important in this case, unfortunately above so many others, that justice be determined both for the unfortunate victim and his family, and for the Zimmermans who might have been brutally murdered by the uglier corners of American behavior always leeching for profit or violence or both.

Chris Christie Concerned about Couch sitting and Government Checks

Chris Christie:

This nation is turning into “people sitting

on a couch waiting

for their next government check”

 by Tina Korbe     at HotAir:

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie followed George W. Bush on the stage at the Bush Institute Conference on Taxes and Economic Growth in New York today. Bush introduced Christie with apt words, complimenting the governor’s “enormous personality” and “belief in the individual.” Bush’s comments were more than justified by the content of Christie’s speech. With typical relentless, attention-getting honesty, Christie forecast a dire future for the country if we succumb to the left’s vision:

Christie said he hasn’t seen a less optimistic period in the country in his lifetime.

“Government’s telling them stop dreaming, stop striving, we’ll take care of you,” he said at a theater at the New York Historical Society. “We’re turning into a paternalistic entitlement society. That will not just bankrupt us financially, it will bankrupt us morally.”

“We’ll have a bunch of people sitting on a couch waiting for their next government check,” Christie said.

Christie wasn’t content to merely point out the negative, though: He launched rapidly into an articulation of an alternate vision, the vision he’s implemented in the state of New Jersey. He cited his recent veto of a millionaire’s tax and his current push for a 10 percent income tax cut as examples of pro-growth policies.

He also had interesting words about the importance of in-person interaction with those with whom we disagree. ”We developed relationships with the other side of the aisle that allowed them to trust us. And that doesn’t happen overnight,” he said.”Day after day after day you have to sit with our colleagues and convince them of the goodness of your spirit and of the understanding that compromise is not a dirty word.”

“The goodness of your spirit.” Christie clearly recognizes what too many conservatives do not: Liberals, no less than conservatives, think they take the moral, principled approach to politics. Liberals often don’t recognize their own ambition, the influence the possibility of power exerts on them and the views they ultimately adopt.

The subject of “compromise” has itself become a controversial concept. As ideological purity has come to be valued above all, we’ve forgotten that we’re not just responsible for our moral claims, but also for the consequences of our action and inaction. As Michael Novak writes in his essay, “Errand into the Wilderness,” “I learned … that I must never again seek moral purity at the expense of responsibility for the results.”

The question of compromise is one that I haven’t yet resolved for myself, but Christie’s words come as an encouragement as I grapple with the question of when to stand on principle — even if it means someone else is able to run amok in the implementation of principles that are completely contrary to my own — and when to compromise. The first key is to forge relationships with those with whom we disagree. It’s indispensable and important, just as it’s indispensable and important to forge relationships with like-minded folks so as to be fortified when victory in the fight appears impossible.

Major Election in Wisconsin: Conservative Hero Governor Scott Walker Launches Recall Campaign

Wisconsin Governor Kicks Off In-person Campaigning

by  Scott Bauer     at    RealClearPolitics:

DANE, Wis. (AP) — Wisconsin’s divisive governor officially hit the campaign trail for the first time Tuesday, kicking off a statewide tour by speaking at a farm in front of a tractor, as Democrats filed signatures needed to take him on in a recall election.

Republican Gov. Scott Walker has been airing TV ads since November and traveling the country raising millions of dollars to fight the recall effort. But with the May 5 primary just a month away and the June 5 general election two months out, an intense ground campaign in which Walker and his opponents try to reach voters personally is under way.

The recall election spurred by anger over changes Walker pushed through the Legislature last year to effectively end collective bargaining rights for most public workers is the most prominent campaign in the nation after the presidential race. Walker, a national conservative hero, faces only the third gubernatorial recall election in U.S. history.

With his wife and two teenage sons in tow, Walker appeared at a farm in Dane, just 20 miles north of the capital of Madison. He stood in front of a parked John Deere tractor inside a barn and told about 50 supporters the recall is a test of political courage when it comes to which direction the state will go.

“We’re headed in the right direction,” Walker said. “We’re turning things around. We’re moving Wisconsin forward.”

Retired steamfitter Mike Reynders, 65, of Fort Atkinson, held a sign that said “Union Steamfitters for Walker.” Reynders said he supported Walker’s proposals, which he said were justified to deal with a $3.6 billion budget shortfall.

“I’m a little discouraged,” Reynders said of the recall. “I voted for this man to get four years.”

Walker also planned campaign appearances in La Crosse, Eau Claire, Mosinee, Green Bay and Milwaukee. He was joined by Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch, who’s also the target of a recall election, as are four Republican state senators. One targeted senator, Pam Galloway, of Wausau, stepped down, but the election is proceeding to fill her seat.

Two of the state’s best-known Democrats, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett and former Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk, are seeking their party’s nomination to take on Walker, as are state Sen. Kathleen Vinehout, of Alma, and Secretary of State Doug La Follette. All turned in the required signatures Tuesday.

Falk also began running a 30-second campaign ad on cable channels across the state, becoming the first of the Democrats to hit the airwaves. The positive ad doesn’t mention Walker and focuses on Falk’s record as Dane County executive for 14 years between 1997 and 2011. A union-backed group has already been airing TV ads supporting Falk.

Candidates for lieutenant governor and the Senate races also were expected to file before the 5 p.m. deadline. The Republican Party has recruited fake Democrats to run in all six recall elections, a move party officials said is designed to ensure each one has a primary and the general election for all six is held on the same day, June 5.

Walker said he had no preference on his opponent in the general election.

“Whoever is on the ballot is secondary to the money that’s coming in from the unions out of state,” he said.

CNN…Timothy Stanley: Romney will be a Strong Candidate

Why Romney is stronger than he seems

By Timothy Stanley, Special to CNN

Editor’s note: Timothy Stanley is a historian at Oxford University and blogs for Britain’s Daily Telegraph. He is the author of the new book “The Crusader: The Life and Times of Pat Buchanan.”

(CNN) — As the Rolling Stones sang, “You can’t always get what you want/ But if you try sometimes you just might find/ You get what you need.” That’s what many Republicans are doing as they slowly reconcile themselves to the candidacy of Mitt Romney.

He doesn’t make the red heart soar in the way that Ronald Reagan did. But that doesn’t mean Mitt isn’t the right presidential nominee for 2012. On the contrary, Romney is arguably as suited to this election season as Reagan was to 1980.

Mitt has his problems. His primary vote has often been concentrated among seniors who earn more than $100,000 per year. In order to win in November, he needs to draw more support from two very different groups of voters: Santorum-voting tea party conservatives and independent women. As a result, Romney’s general election strategy is awkwardly bifurcated. He needs simultaneously to motivate the Right and reach out to the Center. He has to channel Ann Coulter and Oprah all at once.

That paradox is perhaps one of the reasons why Mitt has sometimes come off as a shallow candidate who pretends to like everything, everywhere, all of the time (and then some). Recall him telling the citizens of Michigan that he loved their trees because they “are the right height?”

This tendency to pander has dimmed Republican interest in the race and Romney could face a turnout problem in November that will see Republican voters swamped by enthusiastic Democrats, particularly Latinos. Goodbye Ohio, farewell Florida.

All of this is pretty grim, but no reason that Romney should quit the race and move to the Cayman Islands to spend more time with his money. On the contrary, Mitt has some hidden advantages.

 

 

Exploring the GOP veepstakes

 

 

Media declare GOP race over

The first is the volatility of American elections. In March 1980, President Jimmy Carter led Ronald Reagan by 25 percent in some polls. Reagan went onto win the November election by 51 to 41 percent. In June 1992, Bill Clinton was running third in opinion polls. Ross Perot had 39 percent, President George HW Bush 31 percent, and Clinton just 25 percent. Clinton went onto win the November election by 43 percent to Bush’s 39 percent.

All of these candidacies rose and fell on the tide of historical events (the hostage crisis in 1980, recession in 1992), and we just can’t predict what will happen in 2012. What we can say is that the Romney campaign has shown an ability to survive crises.

One thing that has helped is the candidate’s fundraising prowess. Romney was able to outspend Santorum 5-to-1 in some primaries, and his people are experts at going negative — that’s what turned things around in the key primaries of Florida and Illinois. So far, most of Mitt’s cash has been focused on trashing other Republican candidates.

When he turns his money machine on the president in battleground states, expect to see a shift in the polls. Romney can enjoy funding from several quarters: his own stash, his wildly successful super PAC, the Republican National Committee and, crucially, lots of independent groups whose hatred for Obama knows no limits.

It’s interesting to note that the White House recently had to scramble response ads to those run by the group American Energy Reliance, which has spent $3 million telling voters that the president is killing the recovery. Groups like the AER will rally behind Romney in November because they recognize that anything less than 100 percent commitment to the Republican ticket would be tantamount to giving Obama four more years. No right-wingers want that on their conscience.

And even if they don’t love him, conservatives recognize that Romney is the man best placed to beat Obama. He proved his ability to appeal beyond the Republican base in 2002, when he won the Massachusetts governorship by bringing out large numbers of conservatives, running even in working-class districts, and holding down the Democratic vote in urban areas. His trick was to make the case for his fiscal conservatism while also reassuring centrists that he wasn’t an ideologue.

Romney’s personality is appropriate to the task because it’s so smooth and calming. It defies the stereotypes of button-pressing, Bible-thumping, government-hating conservatives, even as Romney exploits those issues in his rhetoric. That’s Mitt’s genius: even as he moves further to the right, moderate voters still believe he is one of them. His image is perfectly suited to the suburbs, something that has been a problem in the primaries but will be a bonus in the general election when he has to compete in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Best of all, Romney is the quintessential “it’s the economy stupid” candidate. If there’s one thing the public knows about him, thanks to his opponents, it’s that Mitt understands how to run a business and make money. That puts him ahead on the two issues that really count: reducing the deficit and increasing employment.

If 2012 comes down to competence, then it favors the reputation of Mitt Romney. After four years of soaring deficits and stubbornly high unemployment, many voters are starting to ask if they need a bit of white-collar ruthlessness to turn the country around. That’s why, despite all Mitt’s problems in the primaries, Obama’s lead over him has remained narrow. In the past two months, it has fluctuated from 2 to 11 percentage points, averaging out at 4.7 — just about the polls’ margin of error. If Romney really is the electoral dead duck that his Republican rivals claim he is, why isn’t Obama beating him by double digits?

Too many conservatives coming off the energy of the 2010 midterm race presumed that the 2012 election would be equally electric. That’s why they’ve been slow to coalesce around a more boring, rational candidate like Mitt Romney. But a Republican victory in 2012 won’t be a tea party revolution; it’ll be a return to normalcy.

It will be about turning the clock back to a time before Obama, maybe even before Bush, when government was a little smaller and not so intent on churning out wars and expensive programmes. Republicans are very good at finding the right sort of man to win such elections: Warren Harding in 1920, Dwight Eisenhower in 1952, Richard Nixon in 1968. Often those candidates have not been the first choice of their party. But the nation, looking for peace and calm after a period of turmoil, has accepted the cool logic of their candidacy. In the same spirit, Romney is the best man for 2012.

Follow us on Twitter: @CNN Opinion.

Left Threatens all Hell will break loose if Obama loses election (in 2008)

The following article was written by Dennis Prager six or so weeks before the 2008 national election elevating Barack Hussein Obama to the American presidency.   The American Left has a habit of threatening riots if it doesn’t get what it demands:

Liberals Warnings About Obama Loss

May Prove Self-Fulfilling

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

ShareThis

If Barack Obama loses the 2008 election, liberal hell will break loose.

Seven weeks before the 2008 presidential election, liberals are warning America that if Barack Obama loses, it is because Americans are racist. Of course, that this means that Democrats (and independents) are racist, since Republicans will vote Republican regardless of the race of the Democrat, is an irony apparently lost on the Democrats making these charges.

That an Obama loss will be due to racism is becoming as normative a liberal belief as “Bush Lied, People Died,” a belief has generated intense rage among many liberals. But “Obama lost because of white racism” will be even more enraging. Rage over the Iraq War has largely focused on President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. But if Obama loses, liberal rage will focus on millions of fellow Americans and on American society.

And it could become a rage the likes of which America has not seen in a long time, if ever. It will first and foremost come from within black America. The deep emotional connection that nearly every black American has to an Obama victory is difficult for even empathetic non-blacks to measure. A major evangelical pastor told me that even evangelical black pastors who share every conservative value with white evangelical pastors, including pro-life views on abortion, will vote for Obama. They feel their very dignity is on the line.

That is why the growing chorus — already nearing unanimity — of liberal commentators and politicians ascribing an Obama loss to American racism is so dangerous.

Andrew Sullivan of (set ital) The Atlantic: (end ital) “White racism means that Obama needs more than a small but clear lead to win.”

Jack Cafferty of CNN: “The polls remain close. Doesn’t make sense … unless it’s race.”

Jacob Weisberg of (set ital) Newsweek and Slate: (end ital) “The reason Obama isn’t ahead right now is … the color of his skin. … If Obama loses, our children will grow up thinking of equal opportunity as a myth.”

Nicholas D. Kristof of (set ital) New York Times: (end ital) “Religious prejudice (against Obama) is becoming a proxy for racial prejudice.”

Gerald W. McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, in a speech to union workers: “Are you going to give up your house and your job and your children’s futures because he’s black?”

Similar comments have been made by Kansas’s Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat, and by writers in (set ital) Time (end ital) magazine. And according to The Associated Press: “A poll conducted by The Associated Press and Yahoo News, in conjunction with Stanford University, revealed that a fairly significant percentage of Democrats and independents may not vote for Sen. Barack Obama because of his race.” If you read the poll, it does not in fact suggest this conclusion. The pollsters assert that any person with any negative view of black life means that the person is racist and means that he would not vote for Obama. Both conclusions are unwarranted. But “Obama will lose because of racism” is how the poll takers and the media spin it.

Why do liberals believe that if Obama loses it will be due to white racism?

One reason is the liberal elite’s contempt for white Americans with less education — even if they are Democrats.

A second reason is that it is inconceivable to most liberals that an Obama loss — especially a narrow one — will be due to Obama’s liberal views or inexperience or to admiration for John McCain.

The third reason is that the further left you go, the more insular you get. Americans on the left tend to talk only to one another; study only under left-wing teachers; and read only fellow leftists. That is why it is a shock to so many liberals when a Republican wins a national election — where do all these Republican voters come from? And that in turn explains why liberals ascribe Republican presidential victories to unfair election tactics (“Swift-boating” is the liberals’ reason for the 2004 Republican victory). In any fair election, Americans will see the left’s light.

If Obama loses, it will not be deemed plausible that Americans have again rejected a liberal candidate, indeed the one with the most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate. Liberals will explain an Obama defeat as another nefarious Republican victory. Combining contempt for many rural and middle-class white Americans with a longstanding belief in the inevitability of a Democratic victory in 2008 (after all, everyone they talk to despises the Republicans and believes Republicans have led the country to ruin), there will be only one reason Obama did not win — white racism.

One executive at a black radio station told me when I interviewed him on my radio show at the Democratic National Convention that he could easily see riots if Obama loses a closely contested election. Interestingly, he said he thought blacks would be far more accepting of a big McCain victory.

I pray he is wrong on the first point. But it does seem that liberals are continuing to do whatever they can to increase anger at America, or at least at “white America.” For 40 years, liberals have described the most open and tolerant society on earth as racist and xenophobic. If Barack Obama loses, the results of this liberal depiction of America may become frighteningly apparent.