This may explain the Romney campaign’s approach. “U.S. Hispanics prioritize immigration, health care, and unemployment to equal degrees, according to a new USA Today/Gallup poll asking about the importance of six national policy issues. Twenty percent of Hispanics each mention one of the top three issues as mattering most to them, while 17% name economic growth, 11% name the gap between the rich and poor, and 7% name the federal budget deficit. Hispanic registered voters, however, put health care and all economic issues before immigration, which 12% name as their most important issue.”
This explains why we should be wary. “Newly elected Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi said he was interested in expanding ties with Tehran, while also calling for unity in the country and peace with the world.”
I wonder who will explain to President Obama that it’s a losing proposition to defend Eric Holder. “Mr. Obama claimed executive privilege as a rationale for withholding the documents from congressional oversight. Rep. Issa referred a contempt citation against Mr. Holder to the full House, which will vote on it soon. Even if the investigation is deeply partisan, that doesn’t mean executive privilege is warranted except in the rarest of cases. Mr. Obama has lost the high ground.”
This explains why Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) might be the savviest VP pick. “These are four reliably blue states where Mitt Romney’s campaign thinks it has a chance to pull off an upset. A Republican win in any one of these four would significantly change the calculus of what it takes to win in the electoral college, which is where a presidential race actually is decided. . . . The most plausible candidate of the four to produce a Republican upset is Wisconsin; the longest shot is Minnesota. Yet Republicans think, with some reason, that they have at least a chance at each of them.”
Politics certainly explains Obama’s inertness.“Aaron David Miller writes that Barack Obama is rightly more concerned about his own political future than about the lives of Syrians. Is it naïve of me to hope, and believe, that that’s not the case?” Yes.
Mickey Kaus explains the administration’s biggest screw-up on Obamacare.“In retrospect, the decision of Obama’s acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal to speed up Supreme Court review of the health-care law seems insane, no? (Even, maybe, if the law is upheld.) Did Katyal underestimate the rapidity with which a conservative legal theory (formulated by Prof. Randy Barnett, among others) could move from the Volokh Conspiracy blog to the highest bench in the land? They have computers now.” He’s right.
Jim Pethokoukis explains Obama doesn’t know what he’s talking about when calls for a “bottom up” economy: “Government mandates, subsidies, and regulation are all examples of Washington trying to direct the economy from above. There’s nothing ‘bottom-up’ about Big Government colluding with Big Business and Big Finance to create a false crony capitalist prosperity for the well-connected, rent-seeking class. What’s more, Obama can offer no persuasive examples of where his philosophy has actually worked. . . . America’s future power and prosperity depends on it being an Innovation State, not a Welfare State or a Consumer Spending State. And that means rewarding innovators and entrepreneurs — not bureaucrats and rent seekers — and allowing the creative destruction necessary for their innovations to take hold and diffuse throughout an economy. That’s the real version of bottom-up economics.”Romney-Pethokoukis?