Joe Trippi - New threats to Obama's reelection bid. No denying that the pendulum is moving in the wrong direction.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2012 9:03 PM GMT
    Joe Trippi is a Fox News contributor and political strategist who has worked for Ted Kennedy, Walter Mondale and Gary Hart and turned Howard Dean into an unlikely presidential front runner in 2004.

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/11/new-threats-to-obama-reelection-bid/?intcmp=obnetwork

    Excerpts only:

    As someone who wants to see President Obama win re-election, nothing is gained by denying that three things from last week -- his comments on the private sector, the Wisconsin results, and the campaigns’ fundraising reports -- hurt his re-election prospects. They did.

    While it’s clear that President Obama’s comment that “the private sector is doing fine” was meant relative to the decline in jobs in the public sector, you can bet that the full context of his remarks won’t make it into the attacks ads based on the comment that Romney and his Super PACs have already begun releasing. Handing your opponents a gaffe is never good -- but it’s made worse at a time when anxiety about the economy is surging again.

    And when it comes to Wisconsin and money, the two are intertwined.

    There was never any question that if Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker survived the recall election last week, the Romney campaign would say his victory was about President Obama and his stimulus policies.

    And so they did, with Romney declaring that the results will "echo beyond the borders of Wisconsin" and signal a turning point "against the runaway government costs imposed by labor bosses."

    But Wisconsin was less a turning point in public sentiment regarding public unions than an end point to the belief that President Obama's fundraising lead was large enough for him to stay safely ahead of Governor Romney for the duration of the campaign.

    The fact that the GOP outspent Democrats by more than 7-1 showed the degree to which Democrats, despite being well aware of the symbolic importance of the Wisconsin results, allowed themselves to be caught flat-footed in a post-Citizens United electoral world. If there was ever any doubt that Republicans are willing to put enough money on the table to win -- Wisconsin removed that doubt.


    And that willingness of Republican donors to pony up was made clearer when both campaigns released their fundraising numbers for May this past Thursday.

    Romney and the GOP raised more than $76 million last month -- compared to Obama and the DNC's $60 million. This marks the first time since the fourth quarter of 2007 that a political opponent has out-raised Obama during a fundraising quarter. (Hillary Clinton out-raised Obama by about $4 million during the final months of 2007.)

    Obama campaign manager Jim Messina put it bluntly in an e-mail to supporters: "We got beat," he wrote, asking supporters to give -- and give again.
    .........
    There's no doubt after last week that the money race is tightening -- but so is the electoral race.
    .........
    THINK WISCONSIN’S ELECTION MATTERED? HERE COMES GREECE

    In the days since Scott Walker's victory and the Romney campaign's announcement of their fundraising success, the message from the Obama campaign has been clear: This is what we've been warning about. This race is going to be close. It's time for supporters to put aside their differences and disappointments and put their shoulder to the wheel.

    But even as the Obama campaign tries to strike a balance between raising the alarm and showing confidence, there is one thing that should truly alarm them and raise real concern within the campaign: the ongoing inability of European leaders to resolve the Eurozone crisis, which will likely come to a head this week.
    .........
    Five months is a long time in presidential politics -- the pendulum can swing back and forth several times between now and November. But at this moment, as a Democrat who wants to see Barack Obama re-elected, there is no denying that the pendulum is moving in the wrong direction.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2012 9:09 PM GMT
    Joe Trippi alludes to Citizens United helping the Republicans in Wisconsin. Following shows the opposite was the case.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303753904577452500665661454.html?mod=ITP_opinion_0

    Michael McConnell: Citizens United and the Wisconsin Vote - Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett got millions in support from unions, whose contributions were legitimized by the Supreme Court.

    By MICHAEL W. MCCONNELL
    Mr. McConnell, a former federal judge, is professor of law at Stanford Law School and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

    In the wake of Wisconsin's recall election, the Washington Post's Greg Sargent, MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell and other commentators disappointed with the result are not blaming the electorate or the apparent success and popularity of Gov. Scott Walker's reforms. Instead, they are singling out the Supreme Court's 2010 campaign-finance decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, as the reason for Mr. Walker's 7-1 spending advantage.

    Citizens United held that associations of Americans, including corporations and labor unions, have a First Amendment right to make independent expenditures in support or opposition to candidates for public office.

    In a sense, Citizens United did have an important effect on the Wisconsin election. But the effect was almost exactly the opposite of what many pundits imply.

    Labor unions poured money into the state to recall Mr. Walker. According to the Center for Public Integrity, the NEA (National Education Association), the nation's largest teachers union, spent at least $1 million. Its smaller union rival, the AFT (American Federation of Teachers), spent an additional $350,000. Two other unions, the SEIU (Service Employees International Union, which has more than one million government workers) and Afscme (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees), spent another $2 million. Little or none of these independent expenditures endorsing a candidate would have been legal under federal law before Citizens United.

    By contrast, the large spenders on behalf of Mr. Walker were mostly individuals. According to the Center for Public Integrity, these included Diane Hendricks, Wisconsin's wealthiest businesswoman, who spent over half a million dollars on his behalf; Bob J. Perry, a Texas home builder, who spent almost half a million; and well-known political contributors such as casino operator Sheldon Adelson and former Amway CEO Dick DeVos, who kicked in a quarter-million dollars each. Businessman David Koch gave $1 million to the Republic Governors Association, which spent $4 million on the Wisconsin race.

    These donations have nothing to do with Citizens United. Individuals have been free to make unlimited independent expenditures in support of candidates since the Supreme Court case of Buckley v. Valeo (1976).

    I have seen no published reports of any corporate expenditures on behalf of Mr. Walker, though presumably the $500,000 Chamber of Commerce contribution to the Republican Governors Association fund came largely from corporate sources. Several groups also ran issue ads that presumably benefited Mr. Walker; these groups are not required to disclose their donors and may have received corporate contributions. Corporations and unions could run issue ads before Citizens United, as long as they did not clearly refer to a candidate.

    For the most part, though, Mr. Walker's direct, big-ticket support came from sources that have been lawful for decades.

    His opponent, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, got his support primarily from labor unions, whose participation was legitimized by Citizens United. Without that decision so demonized by the political left, Mr. Barrett would have been at even more of a financial disadvantage.

    Speaking generally, Citizens United is likely to benefit Democrats more than Republicans. Corporations rarely make independent expenditures during candidate elections in their own name, because the ads offend customers, workers and shareholders. And direct corporate contributions to candidates tend to be split more or less evenly between the two parties, largely neutralizing their effect.

    But unions have no compunctions against running campaign ads, and almost all of their money goes to Democrats. The Republicans' advantage, when they have one, comes from rich individual donors—and the right of individuals to make expenditures in support of candidates long predates Citizens United.

    This is not to say that our complex and counterproductive campaign-finance laws do not need reform. It is just to point out that the Supreme Court's much-maligned and misunderstood decision in Citizens United was not the cause of Scott Walker's financial advantage. It helped his Democratic opponent.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2012 9:10 PM GMT
    More 'fox' opinion.. John, Why dont you just start a thread entitled.. SOCALFITNESS HATES OBAMA?

    Just get it over with.. gawd..............your behavior is sophomoric as hell!icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2012 9:25 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidThis is not to say that our complex and counterproductive campaign-finance laws do not need reform. It is just to point out that the Supreme Court's much-maligned and misunderstood decision in Citizens United was not the cause of Scott Walker's financial advantage. It helped his Democratic opponent.


    This is probably the most surprising aspect of the race. Though as someone else pointed out, there's a lot of campaign funds unaccounted for given the paid volunteers other public unions from around the US sent in to campaign on behalf of Barrett.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2012 10:59 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidNotable:

    There's no doubt after last week that the money race is tightening -- but so is the electoral race.

    Interesting to see a staunch Democrat such as Trippi show such honesty.

    He does appear to be a logical, reasonable person. Makes you wonder why he supports the left wingers.