CNN: Perry enters race in virtual tie with Romney, Bachmann fades

posted at 10:05 am on August 11, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly

Texas Governor Rick Perry will upend the Republican presidential primary with his entry this weekend, CNN’s latest national poll shows. He starts off in a virtual tie with Mitt Romney, 17/15, with his nearest competitors at 12%. Perhaps most surprisingly, Michele Bachmann isn’t among them — and her support gets cut almost in half with Perry’s candidacy:

According to a CNN/ORC International poll, 15 percent of Republicans and independents who lean towards the GOP pick Perry as their first choice for their party’s nomination, just two points behind former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who’s making his second bid for the White House. Romney’s two point margin over Perry is within the survey’s sampling error.

The poll’s Thursday release comes two days before Perry gives a speech at a major conservative gathering in South Carolina where his staff has indicated he will make his intentions for a presidential run clear. Later in the day Perry travels to New Hampshire to meet with GOP lawmakers, activists, and voters. Perry’s travels Saturday come as the rest of the political spotlight will be shining on Iowa, for a crucial presidential straw poll in Ames. Perry heads to Iowa Sunday to speak at a Republican party gathering, which means he will visit three of the crucial early voting primary and caucus states this weekend.

The survey indicates that former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who is making his third bid for the White House, are at 12 percent apiece. While both Giuliani, who ran for the presidency four years ago, and Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee in 2008, have flirted with bids, neither has taken concrete steps towards launching a campaign.

Three weeks ago, Perry scored 14% but Giuliani, Palin, and Bachmann all scored 13% or 12%. Now Bachmann has dropped to 7%, a fall of five points and the biggest decline in the field for the period. Ron Paul has picked up four points to surpass her and join Giuliani and Palin in a three-way tie for third place.

Bachmann isn’t the only candidate trending downward, but the rest are in the second tier. Herman Cain dropped two points to 4%, while Tim Pawlenty dropped one to come in at 2%. Both of these candidates need breakout performances in Iowa, which was well known before this week. If CNN’s series is not an outlier, Bachmann may need one as well, now that Perry has come closer to tossing his hat in the ring. She has been wowing crowds in Iowa this week in advance of the debate and straw poll, so she is doing all she can on the ground, but that may not be enough — at least not this week.

Time Magazine’s Mark Halperin interviewed Perry this week about his plans:





A highlight from the transcript:

Q: You’ve talked about how all of the social issues are important and this election is going to be about what the voters care most about: economy and jobs. Is it your hope, if you become a candidate, that even voters who disagree with you on social issues will find your record and argument on jobs so compelling that they vote for you even though they did disagree with you?

A: Well, I’m pretty sure there has never been a candidate [where] all the people agree with his or her positions on the issues. And there are single-issue voters, and I understand that. I respect that. I’ve run three times in Texas and I would suggest to you, Texas is somewhat of a microcosm of the rest of the country, particularly in this first decade of the 21st century. We are very, very cosmopolitan, if you will, very urban, but we have our rural areas. We have an incredible diversity of people [who] live in this state. This is not the Texas of my father. It is a very diverse state. Running for the governorship of the state of Texas, I recognized all the diversity of thought.
So, what’s the most important thing that’s facing this country? It’s getting this economy back. I am a pro-business governor. I will be a pro-business President if this does, in fact, ensue and I’m blessed to be elected President of the United States—unabashedly [so] because the fact of the matter is, there’s nothing more important than having an environment created by government that allows for the private sector to risk its capital to know that they have a good chance of having a return on the investment. Because at that particular point in time, the men and women who are out of work today can be back employed. They can take care of their family. They can do the things they desire in their lives. And without that strong economy, America can’t be strong militarily. We can’t have, frankly a presence in the world that we need to have. It all goes back to having an economy that people are comfortable with—they can risk their capital and they’ll have a return on the investment. We don’t have that today.

Q: There are people who’ve looked up—even though you’re not yet a candidate—your record and your endorsement of Mayor Giuliani in the last campaign, some of the positions you’ve taken on immigration, etcetera, and they say Rick Perry is not actually as conservative as he says. What do you say to those people?

A: Well, you know, I stand on my record. I thought Mayor Giuliani did a wonderful job of managing a city. He was very strong militarily. He was as strong on crime as any big city Mayor has ever been. He and I were 180 degrees on social issues, but he would put strict constructionists on the Supreme Court, which dealt with those social issues. I happen to be comfortable that I was making the right decisions and that as President, when it comes to those social issues, it’s very important to have that strict constructionist view of who you put on the Supreme Court. Because they’d look at the constitution and say, you know what, that issue dealing with abortion is not in the constitution. We will put it back to the states. Now if the states want to pass an amendment and three quarters of the states want to pass an amendment to make this be a change of our United States constitution, then just follow that process. And I’m a big believer that that’s how our country should work.

Q: So if you got in, would you be the most conservative candidate in the race? Or as conservative as everybody else?

A: Yeah I don’t think there’s any doubt about that. But again, we go back to what’s the most important issue here? I mean if somebody wants to go back and find, oh here’s a little spot right here—you know, I was a democrat at one time in my life. I was 25 years old before I think I ever met a person who would admit being a Republican. So the key is, I’ve got a record. And that record, particularly when it comes to the most important issues in this campaign, which is creating the climate of America that gives incentives to job creators to risk their capital and create jobs for our citizens, I will put that up against anybody who’s running and particularly against this President we have today, whose jobs record is abysma

Continue Reading →

Obama prepares for career as landlord

posted at 1:25 pm on August 11, 2011 by Jazz Shaw
printer-friendly

It’s an idea so beautiful in its simplicity and so perfectly targeted to cure one of our biggest national headaches that many readers will be slapping their foreheads in one of those, “I could have had a V-8″ moments. The housing market is still in the tank and the government has been forced to foreclose on countless properties which now sit vacant, generating no tax revenue. The nation’s coffers are running dry and we have to tackle our debt problem. But nobody wants to raise taxes. What to do?

Why, you kill two birds with one stone, of course! We’ll let the government go into the property rental business!

    The Obama administration may turn thousands of government-owned foreclosures into rental properties to help boost falling home prices.

    The Federal Housing Finance Agency said Wednesday it is seeking input from investors on how to rent homes owned by government-controlled mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration.

    At the end of last month, the government owned roughly 248,000 foreclosed homes, officials said. About 70,000 of those are listed for sale. But officials expect the number of foreclosures to soar in the coming months.

What could possibly go wrong? Over at Pajamas Media, Bryan Preston suspects that even in such an obviously brilliant scheme, there might be a few wrinkles.

    [N]ot to put too fine a point on things, renting your home from the government raises all kinds of liberty questions. If they don’t like your politics, can they find a way to evict you? Can they tell you what to do (more than the government already does) in the home you’re renting from Uncle Sam? With a president hitting 51% disapproval, an IRS that’s become notorious for political audits and federal law enforcement agencies known lately more for gunrunning than crime stopping, that’s not an idle question. Would the feds allow renters to own firearms in these government homes? The majority of renters between now and 2012 are likely to be people who don’t like their landlord, but the landlord has, shall we say, serious firepower superiority. There’s a great deal to ponder here.

It’s difficult to imagine what a mess this would wind up being in court, if only on the constitutional authority questions. Preston offers an alternate suggestion of scrapping Fannie and Freddie entirely and spinning off all of those properties at open, public auctions. Granted, that would have a sudden, if short term negative impact on the real estate market, but it could conceivably hasten the process of allowing it to find its natural bottom and begin rebuilding from there in an organic fashion.

But who knows? If we let Washington handle it as proposed, there would probably be all sorts of exemptions and set-asides built into the system and you might wind up renting a mansion for fifty bucks a month. And if the house is built well enough it will provide you with a place to hide when the zombie apocalypse begins.

Cash for Bunkers?

Continue Reading →

Allen West: Not going to get involved in Tea Party “schizophrenia”

posted at 1:25 pm on July 29, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly

Matt Lewis says, “When Laura Ingraham and Rep. Allen West are calling out the Tea Party, you know something’s up[.]” As it turns out, some of the Tea Party attack on Allen West turned out to be a misunderstanding, but West takes the opportunity to support John Boehner and remind people that Harry Reid’s plan cuts defense spending. Laura Ingraham pledges her support to West as she scolds some conservatives for attacking West for attempting the possible:



As I said on the air yesterday in an interview, any definition of “fiscal conservative” that doesn’t include Paul Ryan and Allen West is one that I can’t recognize. West defends himself and the Republican caucus well enough, so I don’t need to recap it, but West has a point when he asks what he’s voting for if people demand that he vote against Boehner 1.1.

Besides, the entire notion that the Tea Party Nation would push for a primary against West is based on a faulty media report. Judson Phillips, its founder and CEO, repudiated that notion entirely in a statement later in the morning:

    Setting the Record Straight

    There is a story in The Hill that a group of Tea Party organizations is threatening a primary challenge against a number of Freshmen Congressmen including Allen West. This story says a press release has been issued with Tea Party Nation supporting an effort to push a primary challenge against Allen West.

    Tea Party Nation has NEVER said we want to see a primary challenge against Allen West. West has been a staunch Tea Party supporter and though we strongly disagree with his support of the really terrible John Boehner plan, West has been an overwhelmingly good Congressman and we would be hard pressed to find someone better.

    The group that put this press release out used Tea Party Nation’s name without our permission. No one at TPN was shown this press release in advance. Had we been shown that press release, we would have vetoed the use of our name.

    We still call for a primary challenge to John Boehner and there maybe some Republicans who deserve a primary challenge, but Allen West is not one of those.

    To be absolutely clear, neither Tea Party Nation, nor Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips support this effort.

    We specifically repudiate it.

Not that there is anything wrong with primary challenges anyway, of course. That’s a perfectly legitimate way to push for policy goals, and the Tea Party in general made good use of them in 2010. However, targeting Allen West of all people for being insufficiently conservative would have been a fast track to irrelevancy, and Phillips certainly understands that.

Continue Reading →

Reid: Hey, who’s up for killing another debt-ceiling increase?

posted at 2:30 pm on July 28, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly

Must be nice to have a job that doesn’t actually require any work, except to refuse to work at all:

House Republicans are just wasting their time debating Speaker John Boehner’s debt reduction bill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said today.

“Boehner’s bill dies tonight,” Reid communications director Adam Jentleson wrote on Twitter. “Forever.” …

“As soon as the House completes its vote, the Senate will move to take up that bill,” Reid said, “and it will be defeated tonight.”

“No Democrat will vote for a short-term Band-Aid that would put our economy at risk and put the nation back in this untenable situation a few short months from now,” he said.

To which the answer should be: “Where’s the Senate plan?” The Politico article has Harry Reid standing in front of a display that reads, “In the battle of budget scores, Senate plan is a clear winner over Boehner plan.” That was certainly true of the Boehner 1.0 plan, but it’s less clear that it’s true about Boehner 1.1. Either way, Reid’s bill only reduced actual spending by $750 billion rather than Boehner 1.0′s $710 billion over a ten-year period, so neither was exceptionally robust in scoring. It’s a bit like bragging about winning a football game when the only score comes off of a safety.

But that argument assumes the Senate will actually produce a plan. So far, even though Reid controls the majority and the floor, we haven’t even seen a hint of a vote. In fact, we haven’t seen the Senate originate any budget bill in over 800 days. Since Reid’s plan doesn’t include new taxes — or at least that’s his claim — it doesn’t have to originate in the House.

The proper legislative process should be for both chambers to work on their own versions of legislation and form a conference committee to produce a bill for up-or-down votes in each chamber. Reid could have done that with the CCB bill, had he chosen to do so, although there would have been very few commonalities between a Senate response and the CCB around which to compromise. That’s not true of the Boehner 1.1 bill; as National Journal noted yesterday, they have quite a bit in common, including the level of cuts. All that needs to happen is to get the Senate to pass its bill and let the conference committee hammer it out. That can even take place after a vote to kill Boehner 1.1.

If all Reid does is vote to kill the Boehner plan, however, then nothing can happen. Reid wants to bully the House into doing his work. The House should tell Reid to do his job rather than worry about doing theirs. If Democrats never plan to make a proposal, then they should just pass Boehner 1.1, and Republicans should call a halt to any further efforts until Democrats start taking their responsibilities seriously.

Update: A reminder, via Newsbusters‘ Lachlan Markay, that Harry Reid could have raised the debt ceiling last year.

Update II: Lachlan actually went to Heritage a few weeks ago.

Continue Reading →

Oh, by the way, the U.S. just accused Iran of working with Al Qaeda

posted at 8:19 pm on July 28, 2011 by Allahpundit
printer-friendly

A little something light to tide you over while we wait for the next chapter in the debt-ceiling saga. I’ve been around blogs long enough to remember when claiming that Shiite nuts might collaborate with Sunni nuts against America would draw derisive snickers from lefty blogs at the sheer wingnuttery of the idea. Isn’t it just like neocons to try to drum up war against Iran by claiming a connection as preposterous as that?

And now here we are. Over to you, Obama administration:

The Treasury Department slapped sanctions on six individuals operating in a network that they said “serves as the core pipeline through which al Qaeda moves money, facilitators and operatives from across the Middle East to South Asia, including to Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, a key al Qaeda leader based in Pakistan, also designated today.”

“Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world today. By exposing Iran’s secret deal with al Qaeda allowing it to funnel funds and operatives through its territory, we are illuminating yet another aspect of Iran’s unmatched support for terrorism,” Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence David Cohen said in a statement announcing the sanctions…

Among the individuals sanctioned today is Ezedin Abdel Aziz Khalil, described by the Treasury Department as “an Iran-based senior al Qaeda facilitator currently living and operating in Iran under an agreement between al Qaeda and the Iranian government.”…

“As al Qaeda’s representative in Iran, Khalil works with the Iranian government to arrange releases of al Qaeda personnel from Iranian prisons. When al Qaeda operatives are released, the Iranian government transfers them to Khalil, who then facilitates their travel to Pakistan,” the Treasury Department said.

This isn’t the first time Treasury’s targeted Al Qaeda inside Iran, actually: Bill Roggio remembers that four AQ operatives, including Saad Bin Laden, were sanctioned in January 2009. If that doesn’t prove to you that Iran’s dealing with major players inside Al Qaeda, not just the rank-and-file, Roggio also points out that Atiyah Abd al-Rahman happens to be Al Qaeda’s operations chief and was working with Bin Laden himself on an attack timed to the 10th anniversary of 9/11 before the SEALs came knocking on Osama’s door. But then, none of this is the least bit surprising. Remember where Saif al-Adel, one of AQ’s highest capos, spent the better part of the last decade? Remember the AP’s exclusive just two months ago about how Iran might be preparing to release Al Qaeda prisoners in order to target American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do I need to link this evergreen Tom Joscelyn piece about longstanding ties between Iran and Al Qaeda yet again? Go figure that a fundamentalist state that specializes in outsourcing terror against the west via proxies might broker a cold peace with America-hating Wahhabist terrorists.

Since we’re on the subject, I feel obliged to link this hopeful WaPo story from a few days ago about how U.S. intel increasingly believes Al Qaeda’s leadership in Pakistan is on its last legs. Daveed Gartenstein-Ross warns against declaring mission accomplished, which is fair enough, but if the best this degenerate can do right now is try to convince Syrian protesters that America’s their worst enemy and not the monster in Damascus who’s been killing them for months, well, maybe we’re closer to mission accomplished than we think.

Continue Reading →

Chaos: Gunmen kill Libyan rebels’ top military commander — while he’s in rebel custody

posted at 7:38 pm on July 28, 2011 by Allahpundit
printer-friendly

To fully appreciate how shady this is, take two minutes to read the Atlantic Wire’s excellent tick-tock of news accounts of how this guy was killed. Rumors that he was dead started turning up in Arab media four days ago, oddly enough. Then word came that he had been recalled from the front lines to Benghazi to be questioned about collaborating with Qaddafi loyalists. (Younis used to be the regime’s Interior Minister but defected to the rebels earlier this year and took charge of their army.) Then, suddenly, he was under arrest. And lo and behold, shortly thereafter he was dead — shot by a mysterious group of gunmen whose identities the rebels’ spokesman is being curiously tight-lipped about. The AP’s story simply reeks of suspicion that it was an inside job:

The head of the Libyan rebel armed forces was shot and killed Thursday just before arriving for questioning by rebel authorities, their political leader said in a carefully worded statement to reporters that gave few details on who was behind the killing.

Adding to the confusion, the rebels had said hours earlier they had already detained the commander, Abdel-Fattah Younis, on suspicion his family might still have ties to the regime of Moammar Gadhafi, raising questions about whether he might have been assassinated by his own side…

Announcing the killing at a press conference where he did not take questions, Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, head of the rebels’ National Transitional Council, called Younis “one of the heroes of the 17th of February revolution,” a name marking the date of early protests against Gadhafi’s regime.

He said two of the commander’s aides, both colonels, were also killed in the attack by gunmen and that rebels had arrested the head of the group behind the attack. He did not say what he thought motivated the killers.

The spokesman himself alternately blamed the killing on “efforts by the Gadhafi regime to break our unity” and, er, “armed criminal gangs” running wild. Supposedly the “gang” killed him before he arrived before the rebel council in Benghazi to be questioned about ties to Qaddafi, but a rumor being pushed to Al Jazeera by Qaddafi loyalists claims that Younis was executed by the gunmen before the committee itself. Yet another journalist flagged by the Atlantic is hearing that the killing happened after a “major general” from a rival rebel tribe started an argument with Younis at a Benghazi hotel. (Remember, Younis wasn’t supposed to be in Benghazi today; he was recalled from the front.) Any guesses who that general might be? Revisit this post by Ed from April for a possibility.

To sum up, then: The man who’s supposed to be leading rebel troops to final victory over Qaddafi, thereby vindicating NATO’s decision to join the war, is now dead in his own capital on the orders of his own side, in all probability. The best-case scenario is that he was a traitor to their/our side and had to be removed immediately. The worst-case scenario is that the rebel leadership is so dysfunctional and gangsterish that they’re risking their war effort on settling personal grievances. This comes, incidentally, after a week filled with stories about the failure of “diplomatic solutions” to the stalemate, the best of which is this Time piece marveling at the fact that NATO’s been so ineffective in dislodging Qaddafi that we’re now looking at peace treaties that would involve letting him stay in the country. Take a moment to read it. And remember: “Days, not weeks.”

Continue Reading →