From Politico:

John Podesta will step down as president of the Center for American Progress, an official at the organization said today.

Podesta, who served as Bill Clinton’s last chief of staff from 1998 to 2001, founded the center in 2003 with a core of wealthy liberal supporters and transformed it into the Democratic Party’s key policy and politics shop.

Podesta, 62, will remain the center’s chairman, and will also serve Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as a day-a-week volunteer, the CAP official said, but is not immediately expected to take on any other public role.

“He will continue to provide long-term strategic advice,” said his successor, former Clinton and Obama policy aide Neera Tanden. (more…)

From Reuters:

Republican Chris Christie discussed a possible run for president with top advisers over the weekend and needs to decide by week’s end, a Republican familiar with the discussions said on Monday.

Christie, the New Jersey governor, has been wrestling with whether to jump into the race for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination and is under strong pressure from many donors and party activists to do so.

(more…)

We ignore most polls because most are not meaningfully instructive and, often, the phrasing of the questions hideously corrupts the results.  There are, however, some polls we do watch carefully because we believe they are instructive.  The Rasmussen “wrong direction, right direction” tracking poll is one we do watch carefully. It is conducted week after week and the single question that is asked (do you believe the country is headed in the right direction or the wrong direction?) is exquisitely unambiguous and the message it conveys to the ruling class can only be ignored at great peril.

Campaign strategists for President Obama as well as the leaders of both political parties, should be burning a lot of midnight oil pondering the reality that three quarters of the nation believes we are headed in the wrong direction.  That’s not just an opinion that’s being expressed.  It, rather, reflects a growing sinking feeling, a queasiness in the nation’s collective gut, not that things just aren’t going well, but that things are getting worse. It says that the vast majority of Americans believe the course that has been, and is being, set is the wrong course.

What should be particularly distressing to the White House is not only that the nation’s confidence is so low, but that it has also been deteriorating rather steadily.  To be sure, the people were unhappy with the direction of the country when President Bush left office.  When Bush departed Washington, two-thirds of the people felt we were headed in the wrong direction.  Now, following thirty-three months of President Obama’s initiatives to fundamentally transform America, three-quarters of the nation feels we are headed in the wrong direction.  The question doesn’t ask whether the people are happy with where we are, but, more importantly, whether they are happy with where we are headed.

Most polls provide a glimpse at where the electorate’s opinions are at a given moment, and, consequently, are subject to rapid change.  For example, prior to September 15^th 1950, most Americans probably would not have liked the way the war in Korea was going.  But between September 15 and September 19^th the enormously successful Inchon landing took place, and American opinion would have, no doubt, turned around on a dime.  President George H.W. Walker enjoyed very high approval ratings in January of 1991 following the successful Gulf War, but in spite of his personal popularity, his electability diminished as the economy declined in the months thereafter, clearing the way for President Clinton’s election in 1992.  Likewise, President Obama enjoyed a temporary, but well deserved bump in his approval rating when our navy seals took out Osama Bin Laden.

Presidential approval ratings (as compared to the “where we’re headed ratings“) are, we believe, less telling.

(more…)

When Ronald Reagan proclaimed in his first inaugural “We are a nation that has a government—not the other way around,” he was not taking off on some libertarian tangent or making an obscure philosophical point. He was following in the footsteps of the Founding Fathers who erected a frame of government that began with the words “We the People.” He was also trying to return government to its important but limited role in people’s lives—a role that both political leaders and the people understood until 1912 but has been mostly misunderstood and abandoned since then. At Philadelphia in 1787, the Framers of the Constitution created a national government that would be effective—even energetic—in its functions but also limited to those functions. The people were to be the ultimate guardians of both the effectiveness and limitations of government. The only way such a republic—unprecedented in modern history—could work would be if the people acted as a vigilant and constitutionally-minded sovereign jealous of their rights.

The authority of the people is made clear in at least three respects in the Constitution, and their vitality is powerfully suggested in a fourth. First, the Constitution holds both the lawmakers and the executive accountable to the people through elections, whether direct or indirect. The foremost depository of the people’s will is obviously the House of Representatives, whose members are directly elected every two years. According to James Madison writing in The Federalist, every constitution is designed to find rulers with the wisdom and virtue to pursue the common good and to make sure those rulers remain virtuous while holding the public trust. Elections are the means to both of those ends. In other words, if those in office lose their virtue, they can be thrown out of office by the people through regular elections. The people are the true source of term limits.

Second, the Constitution embraces, indeed creates, the system known as federalism. Not only can the people exert their authority through elections at the federal (national) level, they can also throw their support behind the state governments against federal encroachment. The chief means of doing so in the original Constitution was through the Senate, whose members were elected by state legislatures. Indeed, the Framers of the Constitution originally thought that the people’s loyalties would lie overwhelmingly with the states, not the remote national government. Their opinion owed to the history of the Revolution—in which the states were extremely jealous of their powers; the confidence that men of great talents and ambitions at the national level would devote their energies to the high pursuits of “commerce, finance, negotiation, and war,” to quote Hamilton in The Federalist, not with local concerns; and the general tendency of human nature to prefer the things closest to us. (Not many people living in Dallas root for the Steelers.) To this end, should the national government extend its powers beyond those enumerated in Article I, section 8, the Senators—whose loyalties lie, and whose careers are made, not in the national capital but in the state capitals—would defend the prerogative of the states and thereby the liberties of the people.

Third, for the Constitution to be adopted, it was imperative that the first Congress adopt a Bill of Rights to be appended to it. The Bill of Rights, authored mostly by Madison, was meant to serve as an education to the people in what their rights are and an encouragement to them to guard those rights jealously. It is also abundantly clear what would be the greatest threat to their rights. The Bill of Rights begins with the words “Congress shall make no law respecting” and ends with the words “or to the people.” That is, the greatest threat to liberty would come from government—though republican—exceeding its constituted authority and encroaching on the rights of the people.

Finally, there is the latent suggestion in the Constitution that the people will be doing the vast majority of the work in civil society, and the government will be needed chiefly to establish the rule of law, to protect the society from internal and external enemies, and to set up a system of uniform commercial exchange.

(more…)

Former UN Ambassador John Bolton has the look and sound of someone about to announce his candidacy for U.S. President, dogging Barack Obama at every possible media opportunity.  Or perhaps- given it is this late in the process and there is no apparent infrastructure or exploratory committee in place- does he have the look and sound of someone strategically positioning himself to become a Vice Presidential running mate for one of the leading candidates?

I asked him that question and others recently on my radio show and Ambassador Bolton used some of his harshest language yet in calling Obama a ‘radical’,  saying “that he (Obama) cannot walk and chew gum at the same time” .

Below are excerpts from my interview John Bolton:

Does John Bolton’s national security experience make him an attractive running mate for one of the GOP candidates? Click image above to hear my full interview with the former UN Ambassador.

Bolton To Make Decision By Labor Day

As I point out above Bolton has been giving interviews for months in which he says he is considering running for President but it is getting awfully late in the process for someone without an infrastructure or exploratory committee in place.  A point made on the national airwaves by Bolton’s friend radio host Mark Levin. I asked the Ambassador to address this,

“I hadn’t heard that Mark had said that I’ve known him for years and I have a great deal of respect for him but that is more subtle than my thinking at the moment. “

“I have been concerned for quite some time as you and I have discussed before that under the Obama Presidency we as a nation haven’t focused on national security to the extent that we should”…

…“I fully understand that people are concentrating on the economic recovery…but Presidents and countries have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time”…

…“I will make a decision by Labor Day in deciding whether or not to go.”

When asked if the nation is not ready- as some have suggested- for another Texan as President (Rick Perry), does that mean also mean that perhaps the nation is not yet ready for someone who served in the Bush Administration?

“I think Rick Perry would make an outstanding President. I have a lot of respect for him and he has a great record in Texas and I’m glad he is in the race.”

(more…)

If the Republican Presidential race were a poker game, you could say that Palin, the underdog has remained in late position long enough to see the full ring, to expose the live ones.  She’s learned their tells, and she’s seen some bust, but now it’s time for her to go all in with what looks to be a royal flush.

If you’re not a poker player, you may need a poker dictionary to decipher my analogy.  And “they” think she doesn’t know how the game of politics is played.  The good old boys just never realized that she wasn’t playing by their rules.

If, or rather when, Sarah Palin announces her candidacy for President; Republican polls will likely shift in her favor.  There are droves of Republicans and Independents who like Sarah Palin and what she stands for.  But if there is one common thread you will hear as a negative, it is “but I don’t think she can win.”  Yet she continues to pack in larger crowds than declared presidential candidates.  The media loves to hate her, and to her credit, she’s probably the most highly-vetted potential candidate the country has ever seen.

It’s looking more and more these days as if Sarah Palin will announce her run for the White House in short order.  If you keep up with Palin’s history, you may come to the conclusion that there is no accident in her decision to go to Iowa September 3^rd for what many believe will be her big announcement.  September 3, 2011 is three years, to the day, that Sarah Palin accepted the nomination for Vice President and gave her famously rousing speech during the Republican National Convention.  In the last few days, even those in the media have noted that it appears that Sarah Palin will announce in the early weeks of September.

(more…)

Exclusive Video of President Obama’s Secret  Try-Out of  New 2012 Stump Speech Pundits all across  America are wondering, just how the heck is he going to do it. With the country in such lousy shape, unemployment up, factory orders down, economists predicting a double-dip recession, relations with our best allies such as Great Britain and Israel in such lousy shape, just how the heck does Barack Obama expect to win re-election in 2012?

Well in a Big Government exclusive,  you the reader will know. Thanks to a secret meeting between my cousin Ben, the spy, and a not to be named member of the Obama re-election team, I have obtained a copy of a video of the President giving his 2012 stump speech a tryout.

How did Ben do it? Well lets just say that my cousin had some information that the Obama campaign operative did not want to become public knowledge.

As you can see in the video below, President Obama plans confront his challenges head-on and will give clear explanations for all his policy failures:

(more…)

Trump is drowning in e-mails, letters and phone calls from disappointed supporters who wanted him to make the 2012 Race.

Trump spent $100K on lawyers and accountants who would prepared the disclosure forms to show Trump is worth $7.5 B and has $350M of cash on hand.

Perot an eccentric businessman got out of the 96 race and back in……..and was on all 50 ballots

Trumps’s deal with NBC leaves him free on June 1 of next year.

Trump spoke to Richard Winger Editor and Publisher of the Ballot Access News–a nerd expert on how to get on the legal ballot in all 50 states.

Winger told Trump a late blooming Independent bid could be begun as late a June 1 and get on the ballot in all 50 States- 5 states are hard but doable and one state, Texas would be resolved by litigation.

(more…)

From CNN:

Real estate mogul Donald Trump will not run for the Republican presidential nomination, he said in a statement released Monday.

(more…)

On September 23, 1779 in the midst of one of the bloodiest engagements in naval history, John Paul Jones was struggling against the forty-four gun Royal Navy frigate Serapis and although his own vessel was burning and sinking, Jones would not accept the British demand for surrender.  Instead Jones declared, “I have not yet begun to fight.” Little more than three hours later, the Serapis surrendered and Jones took command.

The voice of the American people was heard this November 2^nd for the first time in the past two years.  The Republican Party regained control of the House of Representatives, picking up a historic sixty seats and possibly sixty-five or more seats as final votes are tallied.  Six Senate seats were gained by Republicans with another two seats possible as close contests are resolved, further diminishing Democratic political power.  The Grand Old Party (GOP) also gained a net eight governorships and nineteen State legislatures changed over from Democratic to Republican control.

In the final days leading up to the election and in the hours immediately following, the President began to call for compromise.  Really?  After taking the oath of office in January of 2009, Mr. Obama declared, “Elections have consequences and we won!” He then led his fellow Democrats on an eighteen month assault against Republicans in Congress and against the will of the American people, pushing his left-of-center agenda.  Just before this week’s election he said the Republicans can come along but, “They need to sit in the back.” He also publically referred to his opponents as “Enemies.”

Now he wants compromise, but the only compromise that the American people clearly want is for the President and the Democrats to move off their agenda and come to them.

(more…)

Click to Play

This week we are joined by Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty and Ricochet legal gurus John Yoo and Richard Epstein on Kagan. We also discuss the large, ever growing, Fed (hence the title), and what we must do to stop it.

We also cover discuss human behavior and parking lot of Target, the psychology of motorcades, and offer some predictions on taxes (guess!). All this and more, free of charge.

Here’s your patented Ricochet Podcast Rundown™:

00:00 – 29:13 Opening Chat
29:15 – 49:55 Tim Pawlenty
51:37 -  1:20:50  Richard Epstein and John Yoo
1:21:00 – End   Closing chat

Civil rights.  Inalienable rights.  Human rights.  Animal rights.  Individual rights.  Group rights.  God-given rights.  Sacred rights.  Natural rights.  Positive rights.  Negative rights.  Children’s rights.  Parent’s rights.  Patient’s rights.  Property rights.  Personal rights.  Basics rights.  Fundamental rights.

Just what is a right?  Can some rights be more basics or fundamental than others?  Which is more important, a basic right or a fundamental right?  Do the rights of the many outweigh the rights of the few?  Are rights absolute?  One could assert whole new kinds of rights and then argue about where they fit in among all the other rights.  How about essential rights, or core rights, or perhaps preeminent rights?

Definitions of the nature and origin of rights vary widely – from a gift from God, to one of Thomas Jefferson or James Madison’s tenets, all the way down to “a good thing” – but these disputes can be left to theologians and historians and scatterbrains.  Let constitutional scholars debate the fine points of original intent or understanding (of each delegate?  or the drafter of a particular clause?  or the Convention as a whole?  or Congress?  or the ratifying state conventions?).  What really matters is how rights function within our constitutional system.

A person saying he has the right to XYZ, for instance, is saying that regardless of what other people want, he must have XYZ and society must give it to him.  To admit there is such a right is to accept that the opinion of the majority on his having XYZ is meaningless; it is to accept that your opinion on the issue is meaningless, too.  As anti-democratic limitations on the scope of majority rule, rights are like provisions of the Constitution.  Indeed, they are one and the same, because in a practical sense – the only sense that matters – a right is a government policy that must be so regardless of majority will.

(more…)

Today, in 1789, the Electoral College unanimously elected George Washington as the first President of the United States. (Yes, we understand there were a few other “presidents” preceding Washington, but he was the first President under the U.S. Constitution.)

In a recent puff piece, The New York Times reports that our President is tired. This is not the first such report. Back in May, when he treated England’s Gordon Brown so shabbily, the excuse given — according to The Daily Telegraph – was that wrestling with the economic crisis had left Barack Obama too exhausted to be able to focus on foreign affairs.

We should perhaps discount what was said in May. For, as I have attempted to document in detail here, here, here, here, here, and here, President Obama is a gentleman, and, as such, he is never unintentionally rude. He is, in fact, a master of the insulting gesture, which he seems to reserve for political opponents, such as Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Sarah Palin, and for political leaders in countries, such as England, France, Germany, Israel, and Poland, which were closely associated with the United States prior to the Age of Obama.

This time, however, Barack Obama may be genuinely tired, and he may be depressed as well. He certainly has warrant. In public, he may claim that he deserves a B+ for his first year in office, but the polling data suggests that he has earned a failing mark, and he has to know better.

(more…)