Showing posts with label Byron York. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Byron York. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Liberals fret: Is The caliph خليفة Benedict Arnold bored? Does "he" even want a second term?


Can't real Americans help "him" out?  Vote in November.

October 7, 2012 | 10:17 am 
967Comments
There’s no doubt President Obama’s liberal supporters are worried by his lackluster performance in the Denver debate.  “Everyone is in shock,” one show-business liberal told the Hollywood reporter.  “No one can understand what happened.”  The Obama faithful are offering the White House advice, talking points, pep talks — anything to improve the president’s performance when he next faces Mitt Romney at Hofstra University on October 16.
But for some liberal writers, the concern goes deeper.  Perhaps Obama’s somewhat withdrawn demeanor at the debate was an indication that he doesn’t even want a second term as president.
On the morning after the debate, The Atlantic ran an analysis headlined, “Snippy Obama, Whose Heart’s Not In It.”  Writer Garance Franke-Ruta suggested that Obama, as an unusually sensitive man, has been worn down by the presidency’s demands of conducting war in Afghanistan and dealing with crises like the murder of a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Libya.  “His supporters keep wanting Obama to be who he was in 2008,” Franke-Ruta wrote.  “But that’s not who he is anymore.” Obama’s old enthusiasm for the job is simply gone.
Now, in the Daily Beast, liberal writer Michael Tomasky asks, “Does Obama Even Want to Win the Election?”  After poor Obama showings at the debate, the Democratic convention, and a high-profile “60 Minutes” interview, Tomasky writes, “Someone needs to ask the cut-to-the-chase question: is he enthusiastic about keeping this job, or he is just maybe tired of being president?”
Perhaps he is.  If so, there were certainly signs long before Wednesday night in Denver.  A look at the president’s career shows he has never stayed in a job four years without looking to move on to something better.
After a year or two as a community organizer, Obama became deeply frustrated by his inability to enact the kind of big changes in society that he wanted to see.  He went to Harvard Law School to plug into the power structure that would help him make those changes in the future.  Returning to Chicago three years later, he dabbled in the practice of law before winning a seat in the state Senate in 1996.  But he became frustrated with the job almost immediately; according to a Washington Post profile, Obama began “chafing … at the limitations of legislating in Springfield.”
The easily-bored state legislator almost immediately began planning a run for the U.S. House in 2000 — which turned out to be his only losing campaign.  Shortly thereafter, he set his sights on the U.S. Senate, winning in 2004.
But within a year after arriving in Washington in early 2005, Obama was restless again.  According to the election account Game Change, in 2006 Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid “sensed [Obama's] frustration and impatience, had heard rumblings that Obama was already angling to head back home and take a shot at the Illinois governorship.”
“I know that you don’t like it, doing what you’re doing,” Reid told Obama, according to Game Change.  Reid suggested Obama run for president instead.  Soon Obama was doing just that.
Now Obama has been president for nearly four years.  Aided by a huge Democratic majority from 2009 to 2011, he achieved some big things — massive stimulus, Obamacare, Dodd-Frank.  He even won the Nobel Peace Prize, essentially for showing up.  But he hasn’t achieved, and won’t achieve in four more years, the “fundamental transformation” of American society that he envisioned.  And his entire career suggests that by now he should be angling for a bigger, better job. The problem is, there isn’t such a position — and a second term in the same old job doesn’t count. The chief benefit of winning re-election to a second term might simply be to avoid being labeled a loser, to avoid joining Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush as presidents who couldn’t win a second time.
So if his liberal supporters sense signs of boredom and frustration in the president, they might be right.  I wrote about this in a January 2010 column that began, “This is about the time Barack Obama becomes bored with his job.”  Back then, he had just passed a year in office — about the time, in the past, that his restlessness and ambition began to kick in. Now, years later, the problem is only worse.




Tuesday, August 7, 2012

If you can't win an election - go dem and cheat


York: When 1,099 felons vote in race won by 312 ballots

August 6, 2012 
76Comments
Photo - Sen. Al Franken (Getty Images)
Sen. Al Franken (Getty Images)
In the eyes of the Obama administration, most Democratic lawmakers, and left-leaning editorial pages across the country, voter fraud is a problem that doesn't exist. Allegations of fraud, they say, are little more than pretexts conjured up by Republicans to justify voter ID laws designed to suppress Democratic turnout.
That argument becomes much harder to make after reading a discussion of the 2008 Minnesota Senate race in "Who's Counting?", a new book by conservative journalist John Fund and former Bush Justice Department official Hans von Spakovsky. Although the authors cover the whole range of voter fraud issues, their chapter on Minnesota is enough to convince any skeptic that there are times when voter fraud not only exists but can be critical to the outcome of a critical race.
In the '08 campaign, Republican Sen. Norm Coleman was running for re-election against Democrat Al Franken. It was impossibly close; on the morning after the election, after 2.9 million people had voted, Coleman led Franken by 725 votes.
Franken and his Democratic allies dispatched an army of lawyers to challenge the results. After the first canvass, Coleman's lead was down to 206 votes. That was followed by months of wrangling and litigation. In the end, Franken was declared the winner by 312 votes. He was sworn into office in July 2009, eight months after the election.
During the controversy a conservative group called Minnesota Majority began to look into claims of voter fraud. Comparing criminal records with voting rolls, the group identified 1,099 felons -- all ineligible to vote -- who had voted in the Franken-Coleman race.
Minnesota Majority took the information to prosecutors across the state, many of whom showed no interest in pursuing it. But Minnesota law requires authorities to investigate such leads. And so far, Fund and von Spakovsky report, 177 people have been convicted -- not just accused, but convicted -- of voting fraudulently in the Senate race. Another 66 are awaiting trial. "The numbers aren't greater," the authors say, "because the standard for convicting someone of voter fraud in Minnesota is that they must have been both ineligible, and 'knowingly' voted unlawfully." The accused can get off by claiming not to have known they did anything wrong.
Still, that's a total of 243 people either convicted of voter fraud or awaiting trial in an election that was decided by 312 votes. With 1,099 examples identified by Minnesota Majority, and with evidence suggesting that felons, when they do vote, strongly favor Democrats, it doesn't require a leap to suggest there might one day be proof that Al Franken was elected on the strength of voter fraud.
And that's just the question of voting by felons. Minnesota Majority also found all sorts of other irregularities that cast further doubt on the Senate results.
The election was particularly important because Franken's victory gave Senate Democrats a 60th vote in favor of President Obama's national health care proposal -- the deciding vote to overcome a Republican filibuster. If Coleman had kept his seat, there would have been no 60th vote, and no Obamacare.
Voter fraud matters when contests are close. When an election is decided by a huge margin, no one can plausibly claim fraud made the difference. But the Minnesota race was excruciatingly close. And then, in the Obamacare debate, Democrats could not afford to lose even a single vote. So if there were any case that demonstrates that voter fraud both exists and has real consequences, it is Minnesota 2008.
Yet Democrats across the country continue to downplay the importance of the issue. Last year, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, denounced "the gauzy accusation that voter fraud is somehow a problem, when over and over again it has been proven that you're more likely to get hit by lightning than you are to [be] a victim of voter fraud."
Wasserman Shultz and her fellow Democrats are doing everything they can to stop reasonable anti-fraud measures, like removing ineligible voters from the rolls and voter ID. Through it all, they maintain they are simply defending our most fundamental right, the right to vote.
But voter fraud involves that right, too. "When voters are disenfranchised by the counting of improperly cast ballots or outright fraud, their civil rights are violated just as surely as if they were prevented from voting," write Fund and von Spakovsky. "The integrity of the ballot box is just as important to the credibility of elections as access to it."
Byron York, The Examiner's chief political correspondent, can be contacted at byork@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears on Tuesday and Friday, and his stories and blogposts appear on washingtonexaminer.com.