Let’s say you are Mitt Romney, or Tim Pawlenty, or Michele Bachmann, or Rick Perry, and, on November 6 of next year, you are elected the forty-fifth president of the United States. For the sake of argument, let’s say your party still controls the House of Representatives and has taken control of the Senate as well (under the presidency of your running-mate Marco Rubio) by one seat. Maybe the economy has even begun growing at a slightly faster rate and unemployment is down a bit, though neither improvement occurred fast enough to give Barack Obama a second term.
Marco Rubio is delivering a speech that neatly demonstrates the right-wing mentality toward the question of distributional justice: Rubio tells us that he will respond to Obama’s recent press conference, where the president reveled in class-warfare bluster. “Quite frankly, I am both disappointed for our country and shocked at some of the rhetoric,” he says. “It was rhetoric, I thought, that was more appropriate for some left-wing strong man than for the president of the United States.” “Talking about corporate jets and oil companies,” Rubio says, missed the point.
Do the surprise victories of Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell in the 2010 Senate Republican primaries mean that seemingly fringe candidates like Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, or even Ten Commandments judge Roy Moore have a chance? That’s what many pundits have been saying.
It’s becoming pretty clear how Republicans plan to defend their budget. They’re going to lie about it. I’m referring specifically to the way they and their supporters describe the budget’s treatment of Medicare and Medicaid – and how those proposals compare to the changes enacted via the Affordable Care Act. I wrote about these last week, when self-proclaimed (and almost universally discredited) health care expert Elizabeth McCaughey* made these arguments in the Wall Street Journal.
Pete Wehner seems to be transitioning out of the highly crowded market of Chait-hating and instead carving out the more specialized niche of bashing kindly, beloved Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne. Today Wehner accuses Dionne of hypocrisy -- he has decried the Republicans for their willingness to play chicken with the debt ceiling, but didn't bash Democrats for doing the same in 2006: Do you recall the column by Dionne excoriating Obama and other Democrats for voting against raising the debt ceiling during the Bush presidency? That’s funny; neither do I.
Marco Rubio's Wall Street Journal op-ed today is a deeply hilarious document. The headline is Rubio's pledge to refuse to lift the the debt ceiling, and therefore possibly collapse the world economy, if Democrats don't agree to "a plan for fundamental tax reform, an overhaul of our regulatory structure, a cut to discretionary spending, a balanced-budget amendment, and reforms to save Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid." (That's all you need, just the immediate enactment of the entire GOP economic agenda? No permanent abolition of the Democratic Party?
Jennifer Rubin has an item headlined, "Marco Rubio continues to impress," which gushes over Rubio's deep grasp of public policy. Here's the Rubio-authored passage she cites: Approving free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea would be a boon to our economy, create jobs for Floridians, and help solidify our alliances with these steadfast allies. The agreements with Colombia and Panama in particular would boost Florida’s economy, where over 1 million Floridians remain out of work.
How will the Republican primary election of 2012 unfold? It's impossible to predict the exact result, but now that the midterms are over, we are in a position to make some educated guesses.
-- The best and worst parts of Sarah Palin's new show. -- Marco Rubio's rollout. -- The word of the year for 2010? Refudiate.
Conservative talk show host Mark Levin and The Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes are waging an utterly hysterical skirmish over which one loves, and is loved by, Marco Rubio more. Levin argues that he's the real Rubio supporter: Steve Hayes conveniently ignores two things. First, when did the Weekly Standard endorse Rubio? Second, the first nationally syndicated talk show to endorse Rubio was ... mine. Au contraire, replies Hayes -- the Standard has been slavishly supporting Rubio from the beginning: THE WEEKLY STANDARD doesn’t endorse candidates.