Video: Obama Denounces His Re-Election Strategy

• 
• Guy Benson
  Political Editor, Townhall.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcfmvFIAUF4&feature=player_embedded

Using Barack Obama's own words against him should -- and will -- be one of the GOP's most potent weapons in the upcoming general election cycle. Captain Hopenchange claimed to be all about good government (except when it was inconvenient) and positive campaigning back in 2008. Never mind the fact that his words didn't match his campaign's actions; the media bought into it, so it somehow became "the truth." As we all know, even symbolic adherence to those lofty standards is being tossed out the window this year, despite the president's professed refusal to take the low road. What's so off-putting about the low road? I could explain, but I'd prefer to let him explain (pay close attention between the 16- and 30-second marks):

"If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run away from."

Here we have 2008's Barack Obama denouncing his entire 2012 re-election strategy. It's shameless, but it certainly adheres to his pattern. The Republican National Committee dug that gem up, and I hear there's a lot more material where it came from. As we'll be reminding you many times in the coming months, Hope and Change was an elaborate and effective fraud. Now that the mask is off, it's time to replace its ring-leader.

Surprise: Eric Holder to Challenge Voter ID Laws

• 
• Guy Benson
  Political Editor, Townhall.com

This action is par for the course in the Obama/Holder Department of Justice:

The Obama administration on Tuesday will wade into the increasingly divisive national debate over new voting laws in several states that could depress turnout among minorities and others who helped elect the president in 2008. A dozen states this year tightened rules requiring voters to present state-issued photo identification at the polls, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Although Democratic governors vetoed four of the measures, liberal and civil rights groups have been raising alarms about the remaining laws, calling them an “assault on democracy” and an attempt to depress minority voter turnout.

Supporters of the tighter laws say they are needed to combat voter fraud. With the presidential campaign heating up, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. will deliver a speech Tuesday expressing concerns about the voter-identification laws, along with a Texas redistricting plan before the Supreme Court that fails to take into account the state’s burgeoning Hispanic population, he said in an interview Monday.

“We are a better nation now than we were because more people are involved in the electoral process,’’ Holder said in the interview. “The beauty of this nation, the strength of this nation, is its diversity, and when we try to exclude people from being involved in the process...we weaken the fabric of this country."

The more the merrier! Who cares if they're legally eligible? Why, asking someone to actually prove they are who they claim to be is rank discrimination! Holder -- of course -- insists his actions are entirely divorced from even a hint of political consideration:

Holder said the laws could depress turnout for minorities, poor and elderly people and those with disabilities who would have difficulty securing valid identification documents. He rejected any notion of politics influencing Justice’s decisions on the new laws. “We’re doing this in a very fair, apolitical way,’’ he said. “We don’t want anybody to think that there is a partisan component to anything we are doing.’’

"Very fair" and "apolitical." Right. I suppose it's a remarkable coincidence that the Democratic National Committee also announced a major series of initiatives to combat (you guessed it) voter ID laws earlier this month:

The Democratic National Committee announced new initiatives today to push back against voter identification laws that Democrats say suppress the vote. A new website, ProtectingtheVote.org, makes the case that actual instances of voter fraud are rare, despite Republicans’ success in passing stricter laws to combat fraud in dozens of states. Democrats accuse the GOP of trying to stifle minority votes as a way to win elections.

The site and an accompanying report, “A Reversal in Progress,” are the first step in an “unprecedented voter protection effort,” DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.) said during a conference call. “We’re aggressively engaged in making sure that we help voters remove these obstacles and barriers,” Wasserman Schultz said, adding that the voter ID laws favored by Republicans are “essentially designed to rig an election.”

But this isn't a coordinated DOJ/DNC effort, you see. Eric Holder says so, and his word might as well be gospel. According to the WaPo story, in addition to requiring valid photo ID in order to vote, "the measures, most of which were enacted by Republican legislatures, also impose restrictions on early voting and make it harder for former felons to vote. Florida and Ohio, for example — both key battlegrounds — would cut nearly in half the number of days for early voting." Are Democrats eager to illegally enfranchise ex-felon voters? As for the 'early voting halved' statistic, I addressed this point in a report on Florida's "draconian" new law back in June:

GB: What was the thought process behind cutting the early voting window nearly in half [from 15 to 8 days]?

CC: Early voting is not being cut in half. Early voting was 96 hours under the previous law and it’s 96 hours under the new law for every county that needs it. In actuality, early voting is being made more accessible because working voters now have 12 hours in a day to vote early, instead of only 8. They also have 36 hours of possible voting on the weekend instead of only 16. Meanwhile, rural counties have the flexibility to save taxpayer money because they aren’t being forced to keep polling places open a full 12 hours when the locations aren’t being utilized all 12 hours.

I'll leave you with two more salient data points, then a question. (1) Georgia was one of the earlier adopters of this brand of what Democrats would hysterically label voter "suppression" legislation. The deep red state passed a voter ID law in 2007. Liberals sued, and lost. But a funny thing happened on the way to rampant voter suppression: Minority voter participation increased, not only in 2008, but again in 2010. (2) Seventy-five percent of Americans support voter-ID laws. That's a huge super-majority, especially in these polarized times.

Yet undeterred by facts, public opinion, and actual results, the Left-wing outrage machine is again kicking into high gear over newly-enacted legislative efforts to enshrine these wildly popular, common-sense, fraud-reducing measures into law. Question: If Democrats are willing to fight the overwhelming tide of public opinion, and seem desperate to ignore findings that refute their chosen narrative, wouldn't it follow that they're actually being motivated by something other than good governance and ensuring fair and accurate elections? Perish the thought.
UPDATE - Irony alert, via Ed Morrissey:

I wonder if our intrepid, justice-seekin' Attorney General launch an all-out investigation into this vote-suppressin' union? Nah, he's preoccupied with carrying out the people's business. You know, covering up a lethal gun-running program, suing states for trying to enforce federal laws that his own posse won't, forcing local communities to adopt Democrat-friendly party identification mechanisms, dismissing already-won voter intimidation cases, and plotting to transfer alien jihadists into US civilian courts for trial. Priorities.

Heh: Obama Campaign Now Selling 'Made in the USA' Gear, Mocking Birthers

Townhall The Tipsheet Guy Benson

Guy Benson

"We do not have time for this silliness," President Obama intoned last month, explaining his decision to take the extraordinary (and unnecessary) step of releasing his long-form birth certificate to the public. Indeed. The long-debunked "controversy" was a relentless distraction from the very real challenges facing our nation. And although the president clearly stated his hope that the country will transcend the "silliness" of birtherism, his professed wish hasn't stopped his re-election team from capitalizing on the phenomenon to raise money. Behold, the latest Obama 2012 flair, available for a modest donation:

Although this line of memorabilia represents an explicit violation of Obama's "let's put this issue behind us and move forward" standard, I can't bring myself to manufacture any outrageous outrage. It's actually rather funny. In fact, if I didn't have to fork over a few bucks to Obama's campaign, I'd totally score one of those mugs. If Team Obama were really cheeky, they'd enclose a free copy of Jerome Corsi's new book ("Where's the Birth Certificate?") with every shipment worth over, say, $100.

Who's Afraid of a Government Shutdown?

by Guy Benson

Earlier in the week, we discovered that former DNC Chair Howard Dean is rooting for a government shutdown based on the premise it would benefit Democrats politically. But would it, really? Governor Dean might want to re-examine his political calculus:

A majority of voters are fine with a partial shutdown of the federal government if that’s what it takes to get deeper cuts in federal government spending.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% of Likely U.S. Voters think making deeper spending cuts in the federal budget for 2011 is more important than avoiding a partial government shutdown. Thirty-one percent (31%) disagree and say avoiding a shutdown is more important. Still, a plurality (44%) of voters thinks a partial shutdown of the federal government would be bad for the economy...

Partial is an operative word in this debate. Last month the Associated Press spilled the dirty little secret about what a "shutdown" would actual entail:

Social Security checks would still go out. Troops would remain at their posts. Furloughed federal workers probably would get paid, though not until later. And virtually every essential government agency, like the FBI, the Border Patrol and the Coast Guard, would remain open.

That's the little-known truth about a government shutdown. The government doesn't shut down.

(Best line of the story):

The Capitol would remain open, however. Congress is deemed essential, despite its abysmal poll ratings.

None of this is to suggest that a shutdown is preferable. Indeed, House Republicans have already acted three times to avoid that fate, and are now pushing a fourth bill aptly titled the "Government Shutdown Prevention Act." In some ways, it would benefit Republicans to strike a compromise with Democrats on the 2011 CR -- not only for the reasons discussed by Sen. Marco Rubio and Rich Lowry, but because it would bring closure to this relatively low-stakes fight. This, in turn, would allow the GOP to focus its political juice on the looming, uber-high-stakes debt ceiling and 2012 budget slug-fests.

But if Democratic intransigence on certain appealing "riders" to the H.R. 1 (defunding Planned Parenthood, EPA, Obamacare, etc.) proves intolerable, Republicans can take comfort in the facts that, according to this latest public opinion survey, the American people strongly support deeper spending cuts, and would be willing to accept a partial shutdown to achieve that goal. Your move, Harry Reid.

Deal Struck: Wisconsin Assembly Will Vote On Walker Bill Later Today

by Guy Benson

Wisconsin Assembly Democrats have run out of rope and will soon be forced to vote on Governor Walker's budget fix legislation. The bill is expected to pass, as Republicans control both chambers of the Wisconsin legislature:

The Wisconsin State Assembly has reached an agreement to cut off debate on GOP Gov. Scott Walker's budget-fix bill and hold a vote later Thursday.

The Associated Press reported Thursday that state lawmakers will likely vote on the proposal, which would force public employees to pay some of their pension and healthcare benefits and would limit their collective bargaining rights. The measure is expected to pass the Assembly, where Republicans have a 60-38 advantage over Democrats, and head to the state Senate for consideration.

Fourteen Democratic senators have fled the state for Illinois to boycott the legislation. Without a quorum, the Senate cannot take up the bill. The deal was announced at around 6 a.m. on Thursday after debate in the Assembly lasted 40 hours. The deal would cut off debate around noon on Thursday.

Your move, fleebaggers.

UPDATE: In a development that should surprise exactly nobody (except, perhaps, Dick Durbin), a new nationwide survey shows that a large majority of voters frown upon legislators who flee their posts to avoid tough votes:

Half of America’s voters favor public sector unions for government workers, but they strongly oppose the tactic by Wisconsin state senators to flee their state to prevent a vote that would limit the rights of such unions.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that only 25% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of this tactic, while 67% disapprove. State legislators in Indiana have used the same approach to avoid a vote in their state.